Paul Davies has emailed us with his latest thoughts on the way that the recent court judgement will affect his lifestyle and cruising patterns.
Paul writes;
“This judgement is making life very very difficult. As I’ve stated in previous comments, I’m now extending my cruising pattern as BW requested (Bath to Devizes to Bath to Keynsham) and I’m searching for a mooring as advised by BW. Trouble is BW then stated in court that Devizes would not be acceptable to them and local moorings are far and few between, can’t be lived on, and expensive. As a result, I’m seeking to increase my earnings.
Trouble is my second address is a local p.o. box and BW don’t like this as I can’t live there. Essentially, the Board are asking me to do things that are very difficult for me to comply with and or unable to do. Eg. as soon as I return from Devizes in order to have access to the care home where I support deaf-blind adults, I’m f****d because my prime intention is then not to Bona Fide Navigate but have access to work to pay for a houseboat certificate/pleasure boat license and a mooring.
Were the BW acts designed in order to deny access to work and permit homelessness? I think Section 17 enables living without a permanent mooring. All very appealable – although no appeal is planned and the Section 8 relates only to me but may be referred to by BW in future litigation.
Yes I’ve lost and I remain vulnerable, but important headway has been made for NABO to build upon.”
Tags: 14 day rule, bona fide navigation, continuous cruiser, continuous cruising, Paul Davies
In the article below, Sally Ash clearly infers that my only acceptable course of action is to continuously cruise the network, even though the judgment denied this as a formal requirement of section 17 of the 1995 BW Act. http://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/latestheadlines/8964063.Bradford_on_Avon_boater_faces_losing_home_after_ruling/