Benyon Rejects Canoeists’ ‘Right to Paddle’ Campaign

[barbelboi]

This thread certainly is now a waste of time, it's run it's course and is getting repetitive and boring. Certain paddlers don't appear to have read most of the pages/posts or if they have they seem to choose to ignore everything that appears adverse to their 'cause' - it's getting like Groundhog Day.
Jerry

 

[Terry wright]

The paddlers are basing their belief's on the 'OPINION' of a learned reverend and a couple of knowledgeable minds.

The anglers are basing their belief's on the 'OPINION' of the learned Windy.

It should be remembered that none of these 'OPINIONS' is FACT or 'THE LAW'.

Interpretations of the law by opposite sides will always differ that is why we have so many court cases.

Neither group can prove their case conclusively without a court case.... that IS a fact.

Both groups need to accept this and if either group want to prove their case without massive expense then perhaps the way to go is via their MP's. Try and force them to earn their salary and get some of their researchers to find conclusive evidence one way or t'other.

Ask Mr Benyon to comment clearly and concisely on assumed PRN's and their validity in law. Don't let him use the vague non-committal comment that he did the other day that triggered this thread.


One thing is certain the sort of cat fighting evidenced here is resolving nothing.

As I have a foot in both camps I stand very confused by two convincing arguments.

Terry

 

[bennygesserit]

This thread certainly is now a waste of time, it's run it's course and is getting repetitive and boring. Certain paddlers don't appear to have read most of the pages/posts or if they have they seem to choose to ignore everything that appears adverse to their 'cause' - it's getting like Groundhog Day.
Jerry

Isn't that true of both sides though Jerry just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean its incorrect.

Personally i have conflicting views , the romantic ideal of rivers belonging to the nation as a national treasure , not owned , truly , by some fat cat or landed gentry really appeals to the socialist in me.

The idea of a dilligent and paid for days fishing being ruined by inconsiderate behaviour appals me , having had my fishing ruined by kids throwing stones or jumping in etc.

The idea that both sides , and some forum members in both camps are willing to inflict violence is sad , people usually go to rivers to relax.

The worse thought though is that the trust and paddlers groups are deliberately avoiding trying to resolve the conflict by compromise , when we all know that will be the final resolution , and are actively provoking the issue , on both sides , in order to gain membership or popularity.

 

[geoffmaynard]

There is only one argument. We want paddlers to obey the law, the paddlers want to rewrite the law. What part of that can't you get?

---------- Post added at 20:49 ---------- Previous post was at 20:48 ----------

NO COMPROMISE Benny. Over my dead rotting body ;-)

 

[david perry]

There is only one argument. We want paddlers to obey the law, the paddlers want to rewrite the law. What part of that can't you get?

---------- Post added at 20:49 ---------- Previous post was at 20:48 ----------

NO COMPROMISE Benny. Over my dead rotting body ;-)

How sad! I feel sorry for the amount of bitterness and anger in your statement.
This country has an outstanding record of being an open minded democracy and has generally tolerated people who want to put across their views peacefully.

I can only quote Terry:-

"The paddlers are basing their belief's on the 'OPINION' of a learned reverend and a couple of knowledgeable minds.

The anglers are basing their belief's on the 'OPINION' of the learned Windy.

It should be remembered that none of these 'OPINIONS' is FACT or 'THE LAW'.

Interpretations of the law by opposite sides will always differ that is why we have so many court cases.

Neither group can prove their case conclusively without a court case.... that IS a fact.

Both groups need to accept this and if either group want to prove their case without massive expense then perhaps the way to go is via their MP's. Try and force them to earn their salary and get some of their researchers to find conclusive evidence one way or t'other.

Ask Mr Benyon to comment clearly and concisely on assumed PRN's and their validity in law. Don't let him use the vague non-committal comment that he did the other day that triggered this thread.


One thing is certain the sort of cat fighting evidenced here is resolving nothing.

As I have a foot in both camps I stand very confused by two convincing argument"

I only hope for anglers sake that if the law is conclusively proven in the canoeists favour that the canoeists won't tell you to f**k off if you want concessions from them.

 

[geoffmaynard]

I only hope for anglers sake that if the law is conclusively proven in the canoeists favour that the canoeists won't tell you to f**k off if you want concessions from them.

They already do so on a daily basis David. I fish a no-PRN stretch of water every week which is paddled by canoe fleets coming down every 5 minutes in the summer. When politely advised of what they are doing... well, you know what response I get. I speak from harsh experience, not theory like some posters on here. Now you know why I am so adamant.

 

[sam vimes]

I only hope for anglers sake that if the law is conclusively proven in the canoeists favour that the canoeists won't tell you to f**k off if you want concessions from them.

If the law is conclusively proven in your favour, good luck to you. I'll tolerate your presence knowing that you really do have the right to be there. That's the difference as far as I'm concerned, I'll obey the law and not just ignore it if I don't agree with it.

I'm bemused to know what concessions an angler would require from paddlers, I can't think of any that would be asked for or given. However, it's very telling that you've used the word concessions anyway. The implication is that concessions are exactly what paddlers want from us now, not that any individual angler is in any position to offer any anyway. As many of us have suggested all along, but the paddlers have skirted round, wittering about "rights".

Take the navigation issue to court and good luck with it. I have few qualms if you win or not. Alternatively, start offering pots of cash to landowners and riparian right holders.

 

[Berty]

The paddlers are basing their belief's on the 'OPINION' of a learned reverend and a couple of knowledgeable minds.

The anglers are basing their belief's on the 'OPINION' of the learned Windy.

It should be remembered that none of these 'OPINIONS' is FACT or 'THE LAW'.

Interpretations of the law by opposite sides will always differ that is why we have so many court cases.

Neither group can prove their case conclusively without a court case.... that IS a fact.

Both groups need to accept this and if either group want to prove their case without massive expense then perhaps the way to go is via their MP's. Try and force them to earn their salary and get some of their researchers to find conclusive evidence one way or t'other.

Ask Mr Benyon to comment clearly and concisely on assumed PRN's and their validity in law. Don't let him use the vague non-committal comment that he did the other day that triggered this thread.


One thing is certain the sort of cat fighting evidenced here is resolving nothing.

As I have a foot in both camps I stand very confused by two convincing arguments.

Terry

"a learned reverend"..............

Or a learned Barrister...........(why didn't you mention what Windy was)


Hmmmmm, which one would you choose to present YOUR case to a jury?



I don't know why i am even bothering replying, you can't comprehend!

 

[barney20]

and that is just the sort of selfish attitude that is shown by paddlers,

this thread is a waste of time,.

My post was in response to a post which said "If you think the anglers view of the law is wrong.......". If the anglers view of the law was is wrong then the PRN would exist, so why shouldn't I paddle. What would be selfish about obeying the law, if that is what it said.

Please note the IF's in the above paragraph, I am not stating what I am about to do, I am making a statement about what I would or could do IF the law said I could.

 

[Berty]

My post was in response to a post which said "If you think the anglers view of the law is wrong.......". If the anglers view of the law was is wrong then the PRN would exist, so why shouldn't I paddle. What would be selfish about obeying the law, if that is what it said.

Please note the IF's in the above paragraph, I am not stating what I am about to do, I am making a statement about what I would or could do IF the law said I could.

Row row row your boat gently down the stream

Merrily merrily merrily merrily, life is but a dream.

 

[barney20]

There is only one argument. We want paddlers to obey the law, the paddlers want to rewrite the law. What part of that can't you get?

You want paddlers to obey the law, which seems fair enough.

Paddlers think they are obeying the law.

Windy and others on this forum have stated what their opinion on the law is, and in different places people with similar qualifications and jobs have stated that they have the opposite opinion of the law.

Your request for people to obey the law is much harder if there is not certainty about what the law says.

 

[Berty]

You want paddlers to obey the law, which seems fair enough.

Paddlers think they are obeying the law.

Windy and others on this forum have stated what their opinion on the law is, and in different places people with similar qualifications and jobs have stated that they have the opposite opinion of the law.

Your request for people to obey the law is much harder if there is not certainty about what the law says.

Sir, you are a knob.

 

[barney20]

"a learned reverend"..............

Or a learned Barrister...........(why didn't you mention what Windy was)


Hmmmmm, which one would you choose to present YOUR case to a jury?



I don't know why i am even bothering replying, you can't comprehend!

In virtually every court case where one side is represented by a barrister, the other side will be as well. Therefore on average barristers must be wrong 50% of the time.

This is not a personal attack on Windy, I don't know him, and am not in a position to comment on his legal skills.

Yes if I was in court I would rather have a barrister than a reverend, but there are barristers who agree with the reverends opinion of the law.

---------- Post added at 14:16 ---------- Previous post was at 14:09 ----------

Sir, you are a knob.

Why, because I made a point which is logical, well reasoned and makes sense?

 

[Berty]

In virtually every court case where one side is represented by a barrister, the other side will be as well. Therefore on average barristers must be wrong 50% of the time.

This is not a personal attack on Windy, I don't know him, and am not in a position to comment on his legal skills.

Yes if I was in court I would rather have a barrister than a reverend, but there are barristers who agree with the reverends opinion of the law.

---------- Post added at 14:16 ---------- Previous post was at 14:09 ----------



Why, because I made a point which is logical, well reasoned and makes sense?

Yep.....simply a knob

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

This is not a personal attack on Windy, I don't know him, and am not in a position to comment on his legal skills.

If you ever met the man you would never question his legal knowledge. And he will tell you straight, even if that didn't agree with what you were looking for. The man is a diamond.

 

[richiekelly]

my post was in response to a post which said "if you think the anglers view of the law is wrong.......". If the anglers view of the law was is wrong then the prn would exist, so why shouldn't i paddle. What would be selfish about obeying the law, if that is what it said.

Please note the if's in the above paragraph, i am not stating what i am about to do, i am making a statement about what i would or could do if the law said i could.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

 

[bennygesserit]

Why did I bother going to all the trouble again to invite people from a different field for an intelligent discussion about a current hot topic , that is the very last time I bother putting in that effort to get a meaningfull civilised dialogue going.

i have been treated with the utmost civility on the song of the paddle forum , yes we have different views but none of this childish points scoring rubbish , really you lot need to grow up.

 

[Berty]

Why did I bother going to all the trouble again to invite people from a different field for an intelligent discussion about a current hot topic , that is the very last time I bother putting in that effort to get a meaningfull civilised dialogue going.

i have been treated with the utmost civility on the song of the paddle forum , yes we have different views but none of this childish points scoring rubbish , really you lot need to grow up.

Benny, you don't even fish rivers!!........how can you possibly take it on yourself to go on to another site and claim that you have the means to get a meaningful dialogue going???

I don't know if you have noticed but it is the paddlers who have chosen to IGNORE any response to their desire to BREAK the law.

They want to change the law but don't have the bottle to do it alone, they want to us ANGLERS to help them......when you have fished rivers and seen what happens THEN you will be able to have meaningful dialogue.....but untill you qualify PLEASE do not represent me.

 

[geoffmaynard]

If the law is conclusively proven in your favour, good luck to you. I'll tolerate your presence knowing that you really do have the right to be there. That's the difference as far as I'm concerned, I'll obey the law and not just ignore it if I don't agree with it.

Absolutely Sam. Anyone who would disagree with that on this forum? No, I don't think so. Anyone on SOTP ? Yes, loads and loads!

 

[bennygesserit]

Benny, you don't even fish rivers!!........how can you possibly take it on yourself to go on to another site and claim that you have the means to get a meaningful dialogue going???

I don't know if you have noticed but it is the paddlers who have chosen to IGNORE any response to their desire to BREAK the law.

They want to change the law but don't have the bottle to do it alone, they want to us ANGLERS to help them......when you have fished rivers and seen what happens THEN you will be able to have meaningful dialogue.....but untill you qualify PLEASE do not represent me.

I have never claimed to represent you and have made clear that I have not fished a river since the early seventies , however I do know how to conduct a civilized conversation.