Benyon Rejects Canoeists’ ‘Right to Paddle’ Campaign

[bennygesserit]

Seemingly it now has taken 54 pages of argument and counter argument and in the final analysis the paddlers are left with Mr. Benyon's (and thereby the Government's) comments as such:

"There will be no change to our policy of supporting voluntary access agreements as the only way forward. Anglers and fishery owners spend a lot of time and money caring for our rivers and streams and their rights deserve to be respected."

So, there you are . . . . . . try your best to obtain Voluntary Access Agreements, where you can.

Trouble is Peter you have taken us full circle to a statement that is ambiguous in that it carefully avoids any mention of the fundamental legal position

---------- Post added at 16:02 ---------- Previous post was at 16:00 ----------

So after 50 odd pages we have got nowhere

 

[richiekelly]

Trouble is Peter you have taken us full circle to a statement that is ambiguous in that it carefully avoids any mention of the fundamental legal position

---------- Post added at 16:02 ---------- Previous post was at 16:00 ----------

So after 50 odd pages we have got nowhere

Nor will we as paddlers refuse to accept they have NO right to be paddling on some rivers whereas anglers have EVERY right to be where they are.

theres none so blind as them as wont see.

 

[jasonbean1]

the angling society that i'm a member of as just been informed by the canals and rivers trust that they have not granted access for paddlers to enter a small river (that we pay rent for and control) through there adjascent car park that sit alongside it (that we pay access for).

so if the angling society puts a notice up stating the legal position will the paddlers take notice......i doubt it

 

[nicepix]

No it doesn't David, IF the CANOISTS are already TRESPASSING where the anglers have PROVEN RIGHT to be then anglers have the first claim to being caused distress and alarm.

Don't tip them off Berty. Let them volunteer their names and addresses to the police

 

[Poshpaul (Angling Trust and PaSC)]

a case for trespass wouldn't cost to much

I suppose it depends on what you consider too much....

Current average cost to the state for a "day in court" on a straightforward case (e.g. no points of principles to be contested)....c £900 in Magistrates, c £3,000 in the higher courts (Civil or Criminal)*. Add on to that any legal costs pre-trial for solicitors and counsel if needed. Any costs/fines awarded for/against and clearly as you go further up any appellate procedures then the costs get exponentially higher....not too mention the time element!!

And then..should it become a criminal matter...and some unfortunate on either side of this discussion...ends up with a criminal record..even the very remote possibility of incarceration (it has happened under aggravated trespass)..the possible cost of loss of employment etc etc.

(*Source - "Unreliable Evidence" Radio Four, Saturday 5th January 10.15 - 11.00 pm)

 

[richiekelly]

One things for sure there are no paddlers where I am off to in the morning as there are no rivers in Malta.

 

[Berty]

One things for sure there are no paddlers where I am off to in the morning as there are no rivers in Malta.

They could lay seige to you, i hear it's been done before there!

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

Went to a 'local' river today, mainly to see how it had faired in the storms, and there's trees fallen over and across the river everywhere.

LOVELY!!! :w :w :w

 

[waterways]

Trouble is Peter you have taken us full circle to a statement that is ambiguous in that it carefully avoids any mention of the fundamental legal position

---------- Post added at 16:02 ---------- Previous post was at 16:00 ----------

So after 50 odd pages we have got nowhere

Benny,
We have established that anglers and canoeists do not agree on what the law is and that canoeists can paddle wherever they like without fear of any serious legal action against them because:

1. the legal position is uncertain and no one wants to risk the costs involved

2. The forum's legal expert has not yet explained how his statement of being able to bankrupt paddlers and their supporters would actually occur.

We have also established that both anglers and canoeists are victims of this confused situation and would do better by combining together to obtain clarity, rather than slagging each other and posturing as amateur legal experts...

 

[richiekelly]

Benny,
We have established that anglers and canoeists do not agree on what the law is and that canoeists can paddle wherever they like without fear of any serious legal action against them because:

1. the legal position is uncertain and no one wants to risk the costs involved

2. The forum's legal expert has not yet explained how his statement of being able to bankrupt paddlers and their supporters would actually occur.

We have also established that both anglers and canoeists are victims of this confused situation and would do better by combining together to obtain clarity, rather than slagging each other and posturing as amateur legal experts...

You are correct that both are victims, paddlers are victims of their inability to accept that that do not have the right to paddle wherever they wish, anglers are victims of paddlers that don't give a toss about spoiling an anglers day.

 

[geoffmaynard]

1. the legal position is uncertain and no one wants to risk the costs involved

2. The forum's legal expert has not yet explained how his statement of being able to bankrupt paddlers and their supporters would actually occur.

1. No it is no uncertain, it is the law.

2. Yes he has. You just refuse to accept it.

 

[nicepix]

If there was a nationwide public right of navigation then how could Mr Benyon make such a statement?

Don't you think that as the Minister concerned with this matter and all the vast depth of legal resources at his disposal he would deny canoeists their lawful right if they actually had any rights?

 

[david perry]

So let's clarify:-


In the one corner we have the anglers.

Anglers believe their case is based on the opinion of 'Windy', an ex lawyer whose freely admitted he's been retired for many years, wasn't a specialist in the area of water law and access and only spent a day or two studying what the paddlers believe confirmed their case.

The anglers argument is also partially, or wholly, depending on what you believe, is based on a sentence or two by conservative politician, Mr R. Benyon, MP for Newbury and government minister. He has a degree in agriculture. Owns an estate or two and according to the Daily Mail this estate has benefitted from £2,000,000 of public money This is the same wildlife minister who refused to outlaw the ownership of carbofuran poison, which is banned throughout the EU and Canada. Gamekeepers use the stuff for killing raptors.. Needless to say he owns a grouse moor himself! He recently caused much controversy recently by allowing the extraction from his estate over 200,000 tonnes of sand and gravel. The anglers trust in this politician.

He is also a Vice President of Berks. County Scout Council, which promotes canoeing and lists several kayaking & canoeing activities as options for scouts.

And in the other corner, the paddlers.

Paddlers believe their right to canoe is based on the evidence contained in two thesis's written by the Reverend Douglas Caffyn, who is a retired Executive Director of the family car sales business and a Chartered Company Secretary.-

The two thesis's are :-

a) A thesis for a Doctorate of Philosophy, (River Transport 1189-1600) and a:-

b) A Thesis for a Master of Laws (The right of Navigation on non tidal Rivers and common law)

Of course the only practical relevant legal case either side has as evidence in recent history of a prosecution, is that infamous case thirty years ago on a northern river where a paddler was prosecuted for trespass. The culprit paddler/s didn't bother turn up so the magistrate granted the riparian owners 50 pence nominal damages.

Of course the paddlers would no doubt point out that for many, many years hundreds of thousands of hillwalkers, climbers and mountaineers have travelled illegally across open moorland & mountain much of which is prized grouse shooting estates and not one successfully prosecution has resulted. At great relief to the (once) criminal hillwalking, climbing and mountaineering fraternity all this open land has now been the subject of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 which now legally allows access to the several million acres of moorland in England, Wales, & Scotland. And guess which minister had a big hand in this legislation? Yes you guessed it.

You couldn't make it up could you?

 

[sam vimes]

It's been said before, paddlers, if you think you've got the right of it, take it to court. If you aren't prepared to, shut up. Anglers aren't going to suddenly agree with you, and even if they do, it makes no difference. As you repeatedly point out, most of us aren't legal eagles, but neither are you. It's the landowners/riparian rights owners you need to convince. They aren't likely to accept your side of the argument without a legal judgement.

On the flip side, leave things as they are, stop moaning about anglers getting shirty. If they get so shirty it becomes a crime, take that to court too.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

If there was a nationwide public right of navigation then how could Mr Benyon make such a statement?

Don't you think that as the Minister concerned with this matter and all the vast depth of legal resources at his disposal he would deny canoeists their lawful right if they actually had any rights?

David, regardless of the opinions by either Windy (who b.t.w. is a retired Barister) or your good Reverend, the only opinion that actually matters is that of the current Minister. right?

And He has had his say, has he not?

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

Anglers believe their case is based on the opinion of 'Windy', an ex lawyer whose freely admitted he's been retired for many years, wasn't a specialist in the area of water law and access and only spent a day or two studying what the paddlers believe confirmed their case.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, and a thousand times NO!

Anglers do not believe it simply because Windy says so. Anglers believe it because other than rivers that have a PRN, none of the others do, simple.

And you're trying to deride Windy in order to weaken his argument, but it will not work. The laws he speaks of have existed for a great many years long before he started practising and are still in existance today. He only recently retired and I am quite sure they are still as fresh in his mind today as when he first studied them.

You're simply trying cheap tactics now and I will have no more truck with you, but I will not see a well learned member of this forum and a former barrister belittled by pipsqueeks like you. You have lost all of my respect now.

 

[waterways]

There is no point in either side insisting that their opinion of the law is correct.

Until a definitive case is successfully prosecuted, Neither Windy, nor Benyon or Caffyn can tell you what the law is...

You can argue all you like... You are wasting your breath. Neither side will change their mind and river conflict will continue. Just read that again...

NEITHER SIDE WILL CHANGE THEIR MIND AND RIVER CONFLICT WILL CONTINUE.

Canoeists and Anglers Need to lobby the Government together to sort this mess out.

 

[nicepix]

There is no point in either side insisting that their opinion of the law is correct.

Until a definitive case is successfully prosecuted, Neither Windy, nor Benyon or Caffyn can tell you what the law is...

You can argue all you like... You are wasting your breath. Neither side will change their mind and river conflict will continue. Just read that again...

NEITHER SIDE WILL CHANGE THEIR MIND AND RIVER CONFLICT WILL CONTINUE.

Canoeists and Anglers Need to lobby the Government together to sort this mess out.

There wasn't a mess until you lot came along and started demanding free and total access to all rivers. What we had before you lot came along was a thousand years or more of positive stewardship.

If you are so sure of your case then why are you bothering to debate it?

 

[david perry]

Can I just make it perfectly clear I was not 'having a go' at Windy in any shape or form.

I have never ever made an insulting remark about anyone on this forum and never will.

I was simply trying to summarise both sides, and I used similar style descriptions for both side's reps. Yes I do appreciate the fact that all anglers' belief is not simply based on what Windy said either any more than the anglers rely totally on the Rev. Caffyn.

I was trying to use irony in looking at some of the 'quirks' in both sides of the issue.

You'll all be telling me you trust polititians next. :wh

 

[nicepix]

At the moment, because the canoeist was found guilty, even though it was in his absence, then the law has been shown to favour prosecuting for trespass.

It now needs the canoeists side to take that to a higher authority if they believe the principle can be overturned. That's how case law works.

So, as has been said many times before; the ball is in the canoeist court to prove their expressed belief that a PRN exists.