NBTA protest

[StarUKKiwi]

Surely a family with children would be at the top of the councils list for Housing ?

Not necessarily and now this government has cut funding, the shelters are few and far between

Edited May 14, 2016 by StarUKKiwi

[magictime]

But the law doesn't say a series of short navigations, it says used bona fide for navigation "throughout the period for which the consent is valid".

 

For your scenario to be valid it would need to say used bona fide for navigation "once a fortnight throughout the period for which the consent is valid"

 

For the reasons given in my last few posts, I disagree. IMHO (again), if a is used for every couple of weeks, from the beginning of a 12-month period to the end, there's a perfectly good sense in which that is used for "throughout" that period.

 

I've tried to illustrate this with a series of examples where I think common sense is clearly on my side; e.g. I've suggested that it would be perfectly reasonable for someone who used his tent to go camping once a fortnight from January 1st to 31st December to say he used it to go camping "throughout the year". I'd take that to mean something like "camping isn't something I only do in summer, or don't bother with in January, it's something I do regularly all year round".

 

 

I'll ignore the other examples and concentrate on this one. May I ask, if you're using it bona fide for navigation twice, how long do they two periods last, and how long are the gaps in between?

 

The requirement is for bona fide navigation throughout the period (see post 361).

 

You can ask, and I can answer - let's say two hour-long periods between 14-day periods spent moored - but we're still going to come down to the fact that I don't think "throughout" has the implications you think it does. Again: IMHO (as a competent English speaker), there's a clear sense in which I can be said to use my such-and-such for so-and-so "throughout" a 12-month period if I use it for so-and-so at least once every couple of weeks.

 

I'd be curious to know what you make of my other examples, just so I can understand whether you think there's something exceptional about boats and navigation, or whether you think I'm just wrong in general to think that (e.g.) someone using their skateboard for racing once a fortnight from January to December could be described as using it in that way "throughout" that period?

[Paul C]

If you count the mooring time as part of the navigating time (ie, one accepts that navigation is a long term activity which includes stops as well as the boat moving) then its definitely "throughout". The projector and skateboard answers are a little more difficult to say either way, but I still believe it also relates to how long you used it and how often the actual doing the activity is, and the gaps.

 

For example on the projector example: if I were a lecturer at a college and had a module to teach which I knew I'd need a projector for, I might borrow one off another colleague. I'd be teaching say Mondays and Wednesdays and using it. He might ask for it back after 3 weeks, and say "are you still using it?" Clearly, if he stuck his head around the door whilst the class was taking place, the lights were dimmed and the projector was on, it could be said I was using it. If I was in the staff room and the projector was in its bag, I could say "I'm still using it" because I know that on Mon/Wed for the rest of the term, I'd need it. But if I used it once in a blue moon then I couldn't really say "I was using it". And if I fired it up every 2 weeks just to use it for the sake of using it, am I using it in good faith?

[magictime]

If you count the mooring time as part of the navigating time (ie, one accepts that navigation is a long term activity which includes stops as well as the boat moving) then its definitely "throughout". The projector and skateboard answers are a little more difficult to say either way, but I still believe it also relates to how long you used it and how often the actual doing the activity is, and the gaps.

 

For example on the projector example: if I were a lecturer at a college and had a module to teach which I knew I'd need a projector for, I might borrow one off another colleague. I'd be teaching say Mondays and Wednesdays and using it. He might ask for it back after 3 weeks, and say "are you still using it?" Clearly, if he stuck his head around the door whilst the class was taking place, the lights were dimmed and the projector was on, it could be said I was using it. If I was in the staff room and the projector was in its bag, I could say "I'm still using it" because I know that on Mon/Wed for the rest of the term, I'd need it. But if I used it once in a blue moon then I couldn't really say "I was using it". And if I fired it up every 2 weeks just to use it for the sake of using it, am I using it in good faith?

 

OK, I think we're on the same wavelength at least! The sense in which you could be said to use the projector "throughout the term," even if you only used it for a couple of lessons a couple of times a week, is the sense in which I'm suggesting you could be said to use a boat for navigation "throughout the period," even if you only used it to travel a couple of kilometres a couple of times a month.

 

The point about "good faith" is interesting, but (1) given that CaRT spell out in the guidance that "bona fide" is just lawyer-speak for "genuinely" or "sincerely," I'd be wary of placing too much weight on it, and (2) I guess this is where spelling out what you're using the projector for (by analogy with "for navigation") comes in.

 

Suppose your colleague says you can borrow his projector on condition that you use it "bona fide for teaching throughout the term, without a gap between uses of more than three working days". You then use it for teaching every Monday and Wednesday, as you describe. I'd say it's at least arguable that you've met the condition even if you're only using it for teaching "for the sake of it" (because you want to keep the projector available for a Friday night movie at home, say). You're still genuinely using it to do what your colleague asked you to do.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

You're still genuinely using it to do what your colleague asked you to do.

 

Did you read the link posted (the Meyers court case - Judges summary)

 

It is not the distance travelled (how many times you use this projector) but why you are travelling (why you are using the projector).

 

If you would really like to stay where you are and not move because you have work / school / family etc in the locality, and are just moving to comply with the law, then you are NOT bona fide navigating.

If you are moving because you want to see different parts of the country, enjoy the different views outside your window every day, then you ARE bona fide navigating.

 

If you only use the projector during the week so you can take it home at the weekends to watch your blue movies ....................... I'll let you decide if that is 'bona fide'.

 

Bona Fide is about INTENT.

[costalot]

<snip>

I know people would say, well move, but I don't want to I've been here 25 years, I love it.

Which you are of course perfectly entitled to do if you have a recognised mooring. But if a boater doesn't have a recognised mooring then wanting to stay isn't an option, no matter how much they love it.

[adam1uk]

Did you read the link posted (the Meyers court case - Judges summary)

 

It is not the distance travelled (how many times you use this projector) but why you are travelling (why you are using the projector).

 

If you would really like to stay where you are and not move because you have work / school / family etc in the locality, and are just moving to comply with the law, then you are NOT bona fide navigating.

If you are moving because you want to see different parts of the country, enjoy the different views outside your window every day, then you ARE bona fide navigating.

 

If you only use the projector during the week so you can take it home at the weekends to watch your blue movies ....................... I'll let you decide if that is 'bona fide'.

 

Bona Fide is about INTENT.

Or to use the example of a barbecue, which was mentioned earlier: if you lit it twice in January just to say you'd used it at least twice a week, but didn't actually cook anything on it, would that still be bona fide use?

[magnetman]

Bona fide use of a barbecue

 

(I think you mean twice a month not twice a week BTW)

 

The man with the wig will have to decide whether your use of the outdoor cooking appliance was in line with the legal requirements.

Or to use the example of a barbecue, which was mentioned earlier: if you lit it twice in January just to say you'd used it at least twice a week, but didn't actually cook anything on it, would that still be bona fide use?

 

And maybe if the barbecue was working (broken gas regulator) you may be allowed not to use it if it is reasonable in the circumstances (regulator manufacturer has none left and a new production run will take 6 months)

 

 

I think one problem with this thread is satisfying the bored

[onionbargee]

Its a very complicated situation and that's why it would be very sad if CaRT had to specify an exact cruising pattern to satisfy bone fide navigation.

 

A boater who has a full time job but wants to explore the system may well leave his boat moored on the towpath and use it for one day once every 7 or 14 days. I would say this is bone fide navigation.

A boater who takes his boat out of a marina only to save money and leaves it on the towpath (a dumper) and moves it once every 14 days is not using his boat for bone fide navigation.

A liveaboard who moves his boat backwards and forwards once every two weeks and resents that move is not bone fide, but a liveaboard who moves over a 30 mile range and enjoys boating probably is.

 

.............Dave

Very reasonable that. It is the intention to stay as close to one place as possible that is not bona fide navigation. Having said that, this shouldn't bar boaters who want to navigate slowly, or don't have the health or capability to do 8 hr crushing days. One or two hours, say 5 miles every 14 days could be a reasonable minimum. Edited May 14, 2016 by onionbargee

[dmr]

Thanks,

I would even say a boater who needs to stay reasonably close to his kids school, but still moves as much as he can, goes cruising in the school holidays, and plans to travel extensively once the kids have left home, is probably just about bone fide, but that is not clear cut.

 

I've been thinking about this, for a month or two over winter our limited movements were driven by my wifes need to be close to her grandchildren, and my desire to be near a pub that I like, so we were actually not really bone fide even though we were compliant in CaRTs eyes. Since then we have been bone fide because the driving force is to be cruising. Its complicated, think I need beer.

 

................Dave

[magictime]

 

Did you read the link posted (the Meyers court case - Judges summary)

 

It is not the distance travelled (how many times you use this projector) but why you are travelling (why you are using the projector).

 

If you would really like to stay where you are and not move because you have work / school / family etc in the locality, and are just moving to comply with the law, then you are NOT bona fide navigating.

If you are moving because you want to see different parts of the country, enjoy the different views outside your window every day, then you ARE bona fide navigating.

 

If you only use the projector during the week so you can take it home at the weekends to watch your blue movies ....................... I'll let you decide if that is 'bona fide'.

 

Bona Fide is about INTENT.

 

I have now taken a look at the document, Alan - thanks for the link. I've seen it before but it's useful to take a fresh look.

 

I do have my doubts about the reasoning according to which someone can't be "bona fide" navigating if they're only navigating in order to comply with the rules. The general principle there just seems a bit odd - I mean, you wouldn't say "you're not 'bona fide' driving at a safe speed, you're staying just below the limit in order to avoid legal trouble while actually trying to get somewhere as fast as possible". But fair enough, I have to give weight to the fact that a judge thinks that's what the words "bona fide" are doing there.

 

Still, on the specific point I've been arguing about in this thread, there's absolutely nothing in that judgment to suggest that for someone to be using his boat "bona fide for navigation throughout the period," he must moor only in the course of long, continuous journeys, rather than in between short, individual journeys. On the contrary, the judge seems quite happy that a year-long series of short journeys 14 days apart would constitute use "bona fide for navigation throughout the period," provided those journeys were undertaken for some genuine purpose rather than purely in order to circumvent the legislation.

 

In the particular case in question, there wasn't any question of having to decide whether the defendant had been navigating for some genuine purpose, because he hadn't been navigating at all for a lot longer than 14 days. But I can imagine that in many cases, CaRT would have their work cut out in trying to prove that the journeys made by a "non-compliant" boater weren't in fact made for one genuine purpose or another; after all, there are any number of perfectly genuine reasons why a boater, even a boater tied to a fairly short stretch of canal, might want to move to a new spot on a regular basis (e.g. to enjoy a change of scenery, to be closer to work or transport links during bad weather, to top up the water tank and empty the loo, to fill up with diesel or stock up on coal, to be near the shops over the weekend). Now OK, it might look a bit suspicious if someone only ever decided they had a reason to move on the dot of 12 noon every second Saturday; but I don't see why somebody moving about a few times a month in a vaguely unpredictable way, doing "boaty" things and visiting different places, shouldn't persuade someone thinking along the lines of this judge that their movements were undertaken for genuine reasons and therefore consituted "bona fide navigation".

 

It all depends what reasons for moving are and aren't treated as being "genuine", I suppose; the judge in this case talks a lot about boats which move for the purpose of delivering goods, carrying passengers etc., but it would be far, far too strong to insist that boaters without home moorings had reasons as "solid" as that for every journey they undertook. In fact, surely it would be perverse to insist that their reasons for making particular journeys were any more "solid" than those for which HMers might make particular journeys - e.g. "it was a sunny day and I fancied a spot of cruising," or "there's a nice pub down there," or even "I needed to charge my batteries".

Or to use the example of a barbecue, which was mentioned earlier: if you lit it twice in January just to say you'd used it at least twice a week, but didn't actually cook anything on it, would that still be bona fide use?

 

Not bona fide use for cooking, no, which was the example given.

Edited May 14, 2016 by magictime

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

I do have my doubts about the reasoning according to which someone can't be "bona fide" navigating if they're only navigating in order to comply with the rules. The general principle there just seems a bit odd - I mean, you wouldn't say "you're not 'bona fide' driving at a safe speed, you're staying just below the limit in order to avoid legal trouble while actually trying to get somewhere as fast as possible". But fair enough, I have to give weight to the fact that a judge thinks that's what the words "bona fide" are doing there.

 

.

 

Now put your suggestion into context of 'boats and CCers'.

 

"I am only moving enough to avoid legal trouble, whilst actually not trying to move at all"

 

No you (I) wouldn't say "I am bona fide driving ......" I think it most unlikely that very few people would actually use the term 'Bona Fide' in any 'everyday conversation' which is possibly why there is so much 'mystique' or misunderstanding about its meaning.

[magictime]

 

Now put your suggestion into context of 'boats and CCers'.

 

"I am only moving enough to avoid legal trouble, whilst actually not trying to move at all"

 

No you (I) wouldn't say "I am bona fide driving ......" I think it most unlikely that very few people would actually use the term 'Bona Fide' in any 'everyday conversation' which is possibly why there is so much 'mystique' or misunderstanding about its meaning.

 

Let me put it this way: if there were a piece of legislation requiring drivers "bona fide to drive at a safe speed," I wouldn't expect a judge to say of a driver, "he was driving at a safe speed, 69mph, but he wasn't bona fide driving at a safe speed because he only stayed under the speed limit to avoid legal trouble. His real purpose was just to get where he was going as fast as possible". I'd want to say, "hang on a minute; if driving at 69mph is driving at a safe speed, why does his intent in driving at that speed matter? So what if he was only doing it to avoid legal trouble? What matters is just that he was genuinely driving at a safe speed!"

 

Putting this in the context of boats and CCers, then, it seems similarly odd to me that we have a piece of legislation requiring CCers to "use their boats bona fide for navigation," but could then have a judge saying of a boater, "he was using his boat for navigation, but he wasn't bona fide using it for navigation because he only navigated to avoid legal trouble. His real purpose was just to live somewhere close to work". By analogy with the hypothetical case above, you could say, "hang on a minute; if moving a mile down the canal is navigating, why does his intent in making that journey matter? So what if he was only doing it to avoid legal trouble? What matters is just that he genuinely navigated!"

[onionbargee]

Proving the boaters intent would be practically impossible. There is no answer to this unless clear rules and distances are set in law. Interpretations by CRT who have no knowledge of boating will never be of much use. If the law is set in place, then intent, or bona fide navigating and such vaigue terms become irrelevant, as they should be.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

Let me put it this way: if there were a piece of legislation requiring drivers "bona fide to drive at a safe speed," I wouldn't expect a judge to say of a driver, "he was driving at a safe speed, 69mph, but he wasn't bona fide driving at a safe speed because he only stayed under the speed limit to avoid legal trouble. His real purpose was just to get where he was going as fast as possible". I'd want to say, "hang on a minute; if driving at 69mph is driving at a safe speed, why does his intent in driving at that speed matter? So what if he was only doing it to avoid legal trouble? What matters is just that he was genuinely driving at a safe speed!"

 

Putting this in the context of boats and CCers, then, it seems similarly odd to me that we have a piece of legislation requiring CCers to "use their boats bona fide for navigation," but could then have a judge saying of a boater, "he was using his boat for navigation, but he wasn't bona fide using it for navigation because he only navigated to avoid legal trouble. His real purpose was just to live somewhere close to work". By analogy with the hypothetical case above, you could say, "hang on a minute; if moving a mile down the canal is navigating, why does his intent in making that journey matter? So what if he was only doing it to avoid legal trouble? What matters is just that he genuinely navigated!"

Whilst this argument continues to go around in circles it may be of value to view the legal definition of 'bona fide', the clearest that I have found is 'without intent to deceive'. So in this context it would seem that if you take out a licence without a home mooring with the intention of merely using the boat as somewhere to live rather than principally for navigation, then you would fail the deception test.

[cotswoldsman]

Whilst this argument continues to go around in circles it may be of value to view the legal definition of 'bona fide', the clearest that I have found is 'without intent to deceive'. So in this context it would seem that if you take out a licence without a home mooring with the intention of merely using the boat as somewhere to live rather than principally for navigation, then you would fail the deception test.

Why? I bought my boat principally for somewhere to live.

PS have not read the complete thread. I b

[magnetman]

Edit

Edited May 15, 2016 by magnetman

[magnetman]

OK. Lets say I have a boat which has no home mooring. I move it a bit every 14 days. I do not live on it (I live on another boat on a residential mooring) I do this because there are no winter moorings where I want to keep the boat.

 

Does the fact I don't live on it make it bona fide?

 

That's a bit dodgy ! I think this boat would be described as a 'dumper'

 

My intent is to circumvent the requirement for a home mooring because there are no moorings available where I wish to keep the boat. The residential status of a boat does not really come into it does it?

 

Not all nccc.ers are necessarily residential.

Edited May 15, 2016 by magnetman

[magnetman]

 

The situation on the cut has changed dramaticay since 1995 (coincidentally the first winter I spent living on board was 94/95)

[magictime]

Whilst this argument continues to go around in circles it may be of value to view the legal definition of 'bona fide', the clearest that I have found is 'without intent to deceive'. So in this context it would seem that if you take out a licence without a home mooring with the intention of merely using the boat as somewhere to live rather than principally for navigation, then you would fail the deception test.

 

Again, it may be worth pointing out that even in CaRT's own Guidelines, it's explicitly accepted that "bona fide" can just be used as lawyer-speak for "genuinely". So I'm not sure how much weight could really be placed on these "stronger" interpretations.

 

But in any case - and this crops up in the judgement Alan linked to - I don't see that there's anything in the legislation to suggest a boat without a home mooring must be used principally for navigation, rather than used (genuinely!) for navigation alongside other things (like living aboard, or making a living by trading, say).

 

 

OK. Lets say I have a boat which has no home mooring. I move it a bit every 14 days. I do not live on it (I live on another boat on a residential mooring) I do this because there are no winter moorings where I want to keep the boat.

 

Does the fact I don't live on it make it bona fide?

 

That's a bit dodgy ! I think this boat would be described as a 'dumper'

 

My intent is to circumvent the requirement for a home mooring because there are no moorings available where I wish to keep the boat. The residential status of a boat does not really come into it does it?

 

Not all nccc.ers are necessarily residential.

 

My own experience might be relevant here. We had a home mooring when we first bought our boat (for leisure use, not living on), but found the boat was spending less and less time on that mooring as we got in the habit of leaving it on the towpath (so that we could do more cruising further afield). Obviously, while the boat was away from its mooring, we had to make sure we moved it at least once every 14 days.

 

After a while we gave up the home mooring, to avoid what we had come to see as an unnecessary expense. We carried on cruising in the same pattern, for the same reasons - i.e. many individual journeys were made mainly to comply with the 14 day rule, but our overall intent was to cover a lot of ground in a year rather than being stuck close to a home mooring most of the time.

 

By Alan's logic - and I can see where he's coming from in terms of the judgment he links to - while we had a home mooring, it was perfectly OK for us to make individual journeys just to comply with the 14 day rule; but once we gave up that mooring, we were required to have some other, "genuine" reason for making each of those journeys. But our cruising patterns hadn't changed, our intent overall hadn't changed, our reasons for making individual journeys hadn't changed. It makes no sense unless there's an unspoken and unjustified assumption that boats with home moorings will or must be kept on those moorings except while out moving around for "genuine" reasons. (In fact I think the judge touches on this point in the Mayers judgment - it's distinctly odd that the rules for boaters with home moorings make no mention of those moorings actually being used rather than just being available.)

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

 

.............By Alan's logic - and I can see where he's coming from in terms of the judgment he links to - while we had a home mooring, it was perfectly OK for us to make individual journeys just to comply with the 14 day rule; but once we gave up that mooring, we were required to have some other, "genuine" reason for making each of those journeys. But our cruising patterns hadn't changed, our intent overall hadn't changed, our reasons for making individual journeys hadn't changed.............

 

What had changed was the declaration you signed to gain your licence.

 

When you had a home mooring you just needed to have a home mooring you were then free to 'float about' as much or as little as you wished, you could leave your boat for as long as you liked (there is actually no legal requirement for a HMer to move every 14 days, and the there is no legal reference to it being allowed either, this is granted by C&RT in their T&Cs)

You could leave your mooring, do a mile to the local pub, leave the boat for a couple of weeks, return to the mooring for a day or two, back to the pub. repeat, repeat.

 

When you changed your declaration to become a CCer you 'signed up' to a totally different set of conditions.

The law now allows you to stay up to 14 days except .......

The law now demands that you bone fide navigate ........

 

Summary - a HMer does not need to bona fide navigate, a CCer must bona fide navigate.

 

The discussion / argument is the meaning of Bona Fide in the context of navigation.

 

I can but agree with an earlier post (with addition) :

 

Whilst this argument continues to go around in circles it may be of value to view the legal definition of 'bona fide', the clearest that I have found is 'without intent to deceive'. So in this context it would seem that if you take out a licence without a home mooring with the intention of merely using the boat as somewhere to live and have no desire, or, the ability, to move rather than principally for navigation, then you would fail the deception test.

[Jerra]

 

By Alan's logic - and I can see where he's coming from in terms of the judgment he links to - while we had a home mooring, it was perfectly OK for us to make individual journeys just to comply with the 14 day rule; but once we gave up that mooring, we were required to have some other, "genuine" reason for making each of those journeys.

Surely you had a Bona fide reason for your cruising pattern as you say your self in your fourth para "our overall intent was to cover a lot of ground in a year rather than being stuck close to a home mooring most of the time".

 

So as I see it (I know many won't) your reason for cruising was to see as much of the system as possible within the constraints of your life style.

[Sir Nibble]

 

For the reasons given in my last few posts, I disagree. IMHO (again), if a is used for every couple of weeks, from the beginning of a 12-month period to the end, there's a perfectly good sense in which that is used for "throughout" that period.

 

I've tried to illustrate this with a series of examples where I think common sense is clearly on my side; e.g. I've suggested that it would be perfectly reasonable for someone who used his tent to go camping once a fortnight from January 1st to 31st December to say he used it to go camping "throughout the year". I'd take that to mean something like "camping isn't something I only do in summer, or don't bother with in January, it's something I do regularly all year round".

 

 

You can ask, and I can answer - let's say two hour-long periods between 14-day periods spent moored - but we're still going to come down to the fact that I don't think "throughout" has the implications you think it does. Again: IMHO (as a competent English speaker), there's a clear sense in which I can be said to use my such-and-such for so-and-so "throughout" a 12-month period if I use it for so-and-so at least once every couple of weeks.

 

I'd be curious to know what you make of my other examples, just so I can understand whether you think there's something exceptional about boats and navigation, or whether you think I'm just wrong in general to think that (e.g.) someone using their skateboard for racing once a fortnight from January to December could be described as using it in that way "throughout" that period?

Using your tent occasionally through the year then putting it away until next time is more analogous to a marina mooring. To make it more fitting you should be leaving the tent pitched all year, taking advantage of a discount for walkers and moving no more than you must whilst still retaining the discount. To what degree are you a bona fide walker?

[magictime]

 

What had changed was the declaration you signed to gain your licence.

 

When you had a home mooring you just needed to have a home mooring you were then free to 'float about' as much or as little as you wished, you could leave your boat for as long as you liked (there is actually no legal requirement for a HMer to move every 14 days, and the there is no legal reference to it being allowed either, this is granted by C&RT in their T&Cs)

You could leave your mooring, do a mile to the local pub, leave the boat for a couple of weeks, return to the mooring for a day or two, back to the pub. repeat, repeat.

 

When you changed your declaration to become a CCer you 'signed up' to a totally different set of conditions.

The law now allows you to stay up to 14 days except .......

The law now demands that you bone fide navigate ........

 

Summary - a HMer does not need to bona fide navigate, a CCer must bona fide navigate.

 

Yes, I understand all that. I'm just pointing out what looks to me like a perverse consequence of interpreting "bona fide" as having to do with intent in the way that's being suggested: that simply complying with the 14 day rule is deemed a perfectly good, perfectly genuine reason for making a journey if you have a home mooring, but somehow less than genuine if you don't. Why does a "real" reason for moving become a "fake" reason for moving just because you give up a home mooring?

 

To me that is a prima facie reason to wonder whether "bona fide navigation" really should be interpreted as excluding journeys made purely in order to comply with the legislation, rather than (more simply) as including any "genuine" journey from one place to another (made for whatever reason).

Surely you had a Bona fide reason for your cruising pattern as you say your self in your fourth para "our overall intent was to cover a lot of ground in a year rather than being stuck close to a home mooring most of the time".

 

So as I see it (I know many won't) your reason for cruising was to see as much of the system as possible within the constraints of your life style.

 

I would say so, yes, but I don't think that would amount to having a "genuine" reason for making each individual journey by Alan's/the Mayer's judge's reasoning.

Edited May 15, 2016 by magictime

[StarUKKiwi]

 

Did you read the link posted (the Meyers court case - Judges summary)

 

It is not the distance travelled (how many times you use this projector) but why you are travelling (why you are using the projector).

 

If you would really like to stay where you are and not move because you have work / school / family etc in the locality, and are just moving to comply with the law, then you are NOT bona fide navigating.

If you are moving because you want to see different parts of the country, enjoy the different views outside your window every day, then you ARE bona fide navigating.

 

If you only use the projector during the week so you can take it home at the weekends to watch your blue movies ....................... I'll let you decide if that is 'bona fide'.

 

Bona Fide is about INTENT.

(3)Notwithstanding anything in any enactment but subject to subsection (7) below, the Board may refuse a relevant consent in respect of any vessel unless(a)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel complies with the standards applicable to that vessel;(b)an insurance policy is in force in respect of the vessel and a copy of the policy, or evidence that it exists and is in force, has been produced to the Board; and©either(i)the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or(ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

 

The last 7 words in the section are important - the word 'reasonable' is also important