Surely the question to be reviewed is not whether following the CRT guidelines is a measure of having satisfied the requirements of the law, but whether those guidelines are the only way to do so and whether CRT is right to automatically regard those who have not followed those guidelines as being in breach of the law and of their licensing conditions. As BW used to tell us, the guidelines do not have force of law but are what they consider will satisfy the requirements of the law. There may be other ways to satisfy those requirements. For example if I was to set off at 9am and travel until 1pm, stop for lunch, then turn around and return to my staring point and did that every day I would be complying with the requirement to use my boat 'for navigation' but I doubt CRT would consider I had followed their guidelines.
I think the problem comes from the fact that the requirement 'to have a place where the boat may be lawfully be kept when not being used for bona fidé navigation' has its origins in the original legislation giving BWB powers to charge licence fees ( I can't remember off hand if this was the 1962 or 1971 act) Previously boats had been charged by a system of tolls and most boats had been working boats. With the growth of pleasure boats using the canals this was not an appropriate system so pleasure boat licences were introduced. It was realised that unlike working boats, which were in near constant use, pleasure boats were often used occasionally by owners who lived and worked elsewhere and thus they would need somewhere to be kept when not being used. The result is that we have legislation worded on the assumption that a boat would normally be in use and would need some provision for when it was not, I don't believe the situation of boats being lived on and only moved as necessary to meet the minimum requirement of the law was ever foreseen.
As I said, a pleasure boat repeating the same short trip every day would be just as much in use for bona fide navigation as the boats that used to go back and forth carrying fire-bricks to Tipton basin, for example, and would, I believe, be in compliance with the original intention of the legislation. However, what if the boat only does that trip every other day, every third day, once a week, or every 14 days? I would say it still complies with the letter of the law as set out but is not being used in a way that was intended or envisaged when the provision was originally made. Or, arguably, in a way that is desirable for the canal system and its users as a whole.
Unfortunately after several decades with this system we have a situation where 'continuous cruisers' appear often to be seen as a problem that needs to be kept moving around the system and alternatively as an option to push the law as far as can be got away with. In my view we need to get away from the idea of a boat needing to move on every 14 days and devise new legislation that gets us away from, 'What is the least distance I can get away with moving my boat?' and provides a more flexible option for those who genuinely want to live on their boats and explore the system. Something that recognises the genuine waterways enthusiast who wants to live on their boat but discourages the idea of the canals as a housing alternative. However I don't think the goodwill is there from the authorities to make this happen and fear that any new legislation would be unlikely to benefit any liveaboard boater