Barney,
Have you ever investigated and submitted a file to CPS for Harassment? No, I thought not. I have. And the examples you give are based on a thick slice of ignorance.
No I haven't, of more relevance has any paddler ever been prosecuted for harassment while simply paddling on a river?
This would be far easier than prosecuting for trespass, only the landowner can prosecute for trespass, any angler could complain to the police about harassment, and unlike a trespass case they wouldn't have to pay. Yet it's never been done, possibly because a case like this would lead to the legal acceptance of the PRN.
The rights to navigation cannot just be superimposed on us using the footpaths argument. A route that became a footpath would have had people travelling over it on a continuous basis for a long period of time. That is not the case with rivers. Therefore anyone with river frontage on a non navigable river would have their privacy compromised if a right of navigation was established. Anyone with interests on a river such as an angling club or bird reserve would have their interests compromised.
I fully accept that the navigation rights case is not the same as land based rights of way, the situations are different, and can not be directly compared.
But to respond to your point, yes for a footpath to be legally established it has to have continuous use over a long period of time, however once it has been established, it remains a right of way regardless of how much it is used.
That is the same argument that is being applied to rivers, the rights were established over hundreds of years of continuous use and therefore must still exist.
As to your point about people with river frontages, or angling clubs, or nature reserves etc having their privacy or interests compromised, the case for the PRN is that it has always existed, those people may have been lucky that it hasn't been used in recent years but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If people have been told there is no PRN when they bought there house or fishing rights etc they should complain to the person who gave this advice. Sometimes old footpaths are reinstated and people suddenly discover there is a right of way through there back garden.
For nature reserves, these already often have rights of way going through them on the land, so if there was one on a river it shouldn't be that different. If it was going to have an adverse effect on the environment or animals, then restrictions could be put in place.
Also, in land right of way there are specifics to prevent say cyclists using footpaths, motorcycles using bridle ways. It is not the free for all that you imply.
I didn't mean to imply that I thought it was a free for all, I realise footpaths are only for pedestrians, and motor vehicles can't use bridleways etc.
The PRN case is for "unpowered craft" i.e. craft with out motors, so canoes, kayaks, rowing boats, and theoretically sailing boats. Realistically on most disputed rivers it is only going to be canoes, kayaks and maybe a few rowing boats.
If a compromise was reached allowing more access to rivers as is proposed by some parties, then a specific law allowing easy prosecution of those who choose to navigate rivers where no navigation has been allowed should be welcomed by any law abiding canoeist.
If the PRN was accepted and there were exceptions for environmental or other reasons they would be established in law, and therefore prosecution would be possible. If that requires a specific new law is not for me to decide. If it is established that there is no PRN on a river I would have thought the trespass laws would be suitable
I'm not sure what you mean by "easy prosecution", all prosecutions should be based on all available evidence, and should be fair and based on the innocent until proven guilty principle. It shouldn't be easier to prosecute paddlers as opposed to anglers, builders, nurses, lawyers, drivers or any one else. Any one breaking the law should be prosecuted.
What you seem to want is unrestricted access onto all water based on nothing but your own wishes and without any compromise or payment to injured parties. I think that you are actually undermining the cause of canoeists. Keep it up.
If the PRN already exists then that is far more than "my own wishes", and the only injured parties are those that are denied the right to navigate. I don't pay to walk on a public footpath, the PRN is based on similar principles.
I would support a licence fee for all rivers, not just those with specific Navigation Acts.
I would also want talks between paddlers and anglers, to establish codes of conduct.
I would accept compromise around when each group could use rivers, eg no paddling if there is a fishing competition, no fishing when there is a paddling competition etc, but for most of the time I think the 2 groups could share the waterways.
) and then have my enjoyment spoiled by a canoeist or canoeists who have no legal right to be on the river. 