Benyon Rejects Canoeists’ ‘Right to Paddle’ Campaign

[Jeff Woodhouse]

Does that sum it up?

No.

It just shows you haven't digested one single word of advice from our poster Windy.

To correct your summary -

1. Anglers KNOW you are committing an act of Trespass when you canoe any waterway where there is no PRN.

2. Canoeists may think they have the right to paddle anywhere, but then some people believe in the creationist theory. Both are fools.

5. Read back over Windy's posts and try to learn something.

 

[Neil Maidment]

To summarise this thread:

1 Many anglers believe that canoeists are committing act of Civil Trespass when they canoe on the 96-98% of English and Welsh rivers that are disputed.

2 Many canoeists believe they already have a legal right to canoe on these rivers and are not committing an act of civil trespass when they do so.

3 This issue is attracting growing attention because of Internet forums and social media

4 Some canoeists intend to paddle on disputed rivers, despite veiled threats of violence from some anglers, if they do so.

5 No one has shown how any significant legal impediment can be used to stop canoeists who paddle on disputed rivers.

Does that sum it up?

Almost, except for one very specific point (made several times).

"Disputed Rivers" - it's only some canoeists who dispute the factual position which is based on current law. They have every right to campaign to change that current law and by doing so in a correct and lawful way will probably (eventually) achieve their goals. To campaign in a somewhat subversive way is one route but does not usually get the decision makers on your side.

Quite right in the fact of life that the current law (in general) can and often is totally ignored and abused. Very often it's far too expensive and pointless to enforce the law and priorities are established that allow subversion to regularly succeed over a long period. But that doesn't change the law.

It won't be "anglers" that may attempt to prove the trespass. It will be the riparian owners who will eventually "have had enough", join together and then pursue the trespassers through the courts. That may well take some time to evolve but a tipping point will be reached, perhaps on rivers such as the Wye, and those owners do have the resources to see it through.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

It won't be "anglers" that may attempt to prove the trespass. It will be the riparian owners who will eventually "have had enough", join together and then pursue the trespassers through the courts. That may well take some time to evolve but a tipping point will be reached, perhaps on rivers such as the Wye, and those owners do have the resources to see it through.

That process will be made swifter if and when riparian Owners start to loose income from angling Clubs as their sport has been severely disrupted by paddlers, who then find alternative venues.

I wonder if the paddlers are prepared to pay the same amounts as we do in the South for a weekend rod on a river?

 

[sam vimes]

To summarise this thread from a paddlers bias:

1 Many anglers believe that canoeists are committing act of Civil Trespass when they canoe on the 96-98% of English and Welsh rivers that are disputed.

2 Many canoeists believe they already have a legal right to canoe on these rivers and are not committing an act of civil trespass when they do so.

3 This issue is attracting growing attention because of Internet forums and social media

4 Some canoeists intend to paddle on disputed rivers, despite veiled threats of violence from some anglers, if they do so.

5 No one has shown how any significant legal impediment can be used to stop canoeists who paddle on disputed rivers.

Does that sum it up?

From the opposite side of the coin: (and only fair if you are going to be so blatently biased).

1. Anglers and the law consider canoeists to be committing an act of trespass on the 96-98% of English and Welsh rivers that have no navigation agreement.

2. Many canoeists desperately want to believe that they have legal right to canoe on these rivers. However, they can't be bothered with the trouble and expense of proving it in court, so they'll do whatever the hell they like anyway.

3. This issue is attracting greater interest because paddlers are bleating about their "rights" to anyone daft enough to listen.

4. Some canoeists intend to break the law and canoe wherever they like. Then they'll have the nerve to complain when their "screw you" attitude and total lack of consideration upsets an angler that definitely does have a right to be doing what he's doing.

5. No paddler has proven that they have anything beyond a theoretical "right" to navigate. It's totally unproven in law and will remain so until they get their whinging backsides into court.

 

[nicepix]

To summarise this thread:

1 Many anglers believe that canoeists are committing act of Civil Trespass when they canoe on the 96-98% of English and Welsh rivers that are disputed.

2 Many canoeists believe they already have a legal right to canoe on these rivers and are not committing an act of civil trespass when they do so.

3 This issue is attracting growing attention because of Internet forums and social media

4 Some canoeists intend to paddle on disputed rivers, despite veiled threats of violence from some anglers, if they do so.

5 No one has shown how any significant legal impediment can be used to stop canoeists who paddle on disputed rivers.

Does that sum it up?

Almost. Whilst the trespass is a breach of civil law the canoeists action could be seen as a breach of Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986;

The offence is created by section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986:

"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he (or she):

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."

This offence could result in a person being arrested or dealt with by a Fixed Penalty Notice (£80 fine) if appropriate.

Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986 creates the distinct offence of intentional harassment, alarm or distress. The penalties for this would be higher.

There is also the Protection From Harassment Act 1997:

Prohibition of harassment.(1)A person must not pursue a course of conduct—
(a)which amounts to harassment of another, and
(b)which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.
(2)For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.

(1)A person who pursues a course of conduct in breach of section 1 is guilty of an offence.
(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.

Civil remedy.(1)An actual or apprehended breach of section 1 may be the subject of a claim in civil proceedings by the person who is or may be the victim of the course of conduct in question.
(2)On such a claim, damages may be awarded for (among other things) any anxiety caused by the harassment and any financial loss resulting from the harassment.

Oh. And you forgot to mention:

4A) The violence threatened by canoeists to anglers who take issue with the canoeists unlawful actions.

 

[barney20]

Almost. Whilst the trespass is a breach of civil law the canoeists action could be seen as a breach of Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986;



This offence could result in a person being arrested or dealt with by a Fixed Penalty Notice (£80 fine) if appropriate.



There is also the Protection From Harassment Act 1997:



Oh. And you forgot to mention:

4A) The violence threatened by canoeists to anglers who take issue with the canoeists unlawful actions.

Depending on which side of the fence you sit the act of paddling a river may be trespass.

Everything else you mention would depend on the behaviour of the person while they were paddling.

Many people are capable of paddling without committing any of these offences, those that do commit them should be prosecuted, regardless of what the law says on navigation.
I would also apply that to the few anglers who threaten physical harm or damage to property towards paddlers.

However strongly we disagree on the PRN, breaking the criminal law isn't going to solve the problem.

---------- Post added at 14:29 ---------- Previous post was at 14:21 ----------

No.

It just shows you haven't digested one single word of advice from our poster Windy.

To correct your summary -

1. Anglers KNOW you are committing an act of Trespass when you canoe any waterway where there is no PRN.

2. Canoeists may think they have the right to paddle anywhere, but then some people believe in the creationist theory. Both are fools.

5. Read back over Windy's posts and try to learn something.

I have digested every word of Windy's posts on this thread, and he has not shown conclusively that the PRN doesn't exist.

He has made some effective arguments against parts of the pro PRN navigation argument. And he has said that he will write a full response to the pro PRN argument, but until he produces that your case is a long way from proven.

Even if Windy does produce a good case for the anglers/landowners no PRN group, it does not prove he is definitely right. No matter how good he is, he can't have won every case he has worked on, and so like the rest of us must be liable to be wrong at least occasionally.

 

[waterways]

No.

It just shows you haven't digested one single word of advice from our poster Windy.

To correct your summary -

1. Anglers KNOW you are committing an act of Trespass when you canoe any waterway where there is no PRN.

2. Canoeists may think they have the right to paddle anywhere, but then some people believe in the creationist theory. Both are fools.

5. Read back over Windy's posts and try to learn something.

Jeff

At no point do I say what the law actually is. I do not know what the law is. It could be that windy is right. I can assure you I have read all the information on this topic, but I am not a lawyer.

All I can say is that many Anglers believe one thing and many canoeists believe another. I am in neither camp.

As far as I know, Only the courts can decide what the law is. You will note that Mr Benyon is very careful not to say what the law is. He simply reiterates the voluntary access agreement solution.

I am still hoping that Windy will explain how a canoeist or canoeing 'activist' can be made bankrupt. This is what he said in an earlier post.

I am sorry you think canoeists are liars who say one thing but believe another. I do not think I can change your mind on that point, and it makes further discussion with you a waste of time. At least we can agree on that point.

I do appreciate that the current situation is very annoying for many anglers. I guess this will continue until more clarity on the legal situation is obtained, or a new code of practice is agreed.

 

[nicepix]

Depending on which side of the fence you sit the act of paddling a river may be trespass.

Everything else you mention would depend on the behaviour of the person while they were paddling.

Many people are capable of paddling without committing any of these offences, those that do commit them should be prosecuted, regardless of what the law says on navigation.
I would also apply that to the few anglers who threaten physical harm or damage to property towards paddlers.

However strongly we disagree on the PRN, breaking the criminal law isn't going to solve the problem.

to the pro PRN argument, but until he produces that your case is a long way from proven.

You either do not understand criminal law or are deliberately choosing to ignore it. If one angler reports that they have been subject to harassment, alarm or distress and the canoeist has no legal right to be on that water then the offence is complete. Even if the canoeist is paddling peacefully along the water.

Given that canoeists will have known access points where their vehicles may be left it shouldn't be too hard to identify the culprits.

 

[richiekelly]

head wall banging .

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

Blanker, borrow some of these if you like -

Ooops, forgot one

 

[barbelboi]

If only............................:wh

 

[Peter Jacobs]

If only............................:wh

I think they are already there Jerry, otherwise why all the hair-splitting posts and virtually pre-historic 'legal' references?

 

[Berty]

Did anyone see the "considerate" paddlers in Angling Times? (letters page)

 

[barney20]

You either do not understand criminal law or are deliberately choosing to ignore it. If one angler reports that they have been subject to harassment, alarm or distress and the canoeist has no legal right to be on that water then the offence is complete. Even if the canoeist is paddling peacefully along the water.

Given that canoeists will have known access points where their vehicles may be left it shouldn't be too hard to identify the culprits.

Just because an angler reported that he had been subject to Harassment, alarm or distress, does not mean an offence has been committed even if the paddler is trespassing.

You quote section 5 of the public order act 1986, which says "A person is guilty of an offence if he (or she):" "uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour"
Just paddling on a river, even without a PRN would not constitute any of the above.

You then quote Section 4A which refers to " intentional harassment, alarm or distress". Again just paddling a river would not constitute this.

You also quote the Protection From Harassment Act 1997. Again if some one is just paddling on the river this wouldn't apply.

None of the laws you quote would apply to some one paddling along a river, even if it has no PRN.

If they were being threatening, abusive or insulting then some or all of those laws would apply depending on the exact situation. This would also not be affected by the existence of a PRN. It is illegal wherever you do it.

 

[geoffmaynard]

None of the laws you quote would apply to some one paddling along a river, even if it has no PRN.

Your statement here is reminiscent of an ostrich. Happy New Year. I hope the next one finds you better informed.

 

[david perry]

Oh dear, and I thought Nicepix's post regarding the law on harassment, abusive language and so on, was a warning for anglers if they committed any of those offences:wh

 

[geoffmaynard]

Of course David. The Law applies to all of us. That's why we don't take boats out on to waters with no PRN.

 

[david perry]

:thumbs: You have a sharp wit Geoff!

 

[barney20]

Your statement here is reminiscent of an ostrich. Happy New Year. I hope the next one finds you better informed.

We disagree on the existence of a PRN. That doesn't mean that everything I say is wrong or that we have to disagree on everything.

The difference between trespass and harassment is quite clear, yes it is possible to commit harassment while trespassing, but trespassing in itself does not prove harassment.

 

[jasonbean1]

barney, dave....putting the legal bit aside, i take it you are aware of the problems you would cause on smaller rivers should you get the full access your after?

i've said this before, the problem doesnt lie with the few that would respect anglers and the river...the problem is what you bring with you in the way of hire companies and alike.

so does that bother you?...would you then see the paddlers that are causing problems as your problem?

i doubt very much you would and it would be left to the clubs and landowners to try and sort out the mess you have put upon us.

Jason