geoffmaynard
Content Editor
Oh yes we can. The law is the law, and it clearly defines where a PRN exists, simples. You paddlers are merely questioning the existence of that law. Good luck with that!
Benyon Rejects Canoeists’ ‘Right to Paddle’ Campaign
- Thread starter FishingMagic
- Start date
Oh yes we can. The law is the law, and it clearly defines where a PRN exists, simples. You paddlers are merely questioning the existence of that law. Good luck with that!
Lord Paul of Sheffield
Well-known member
the law is the law
Ten Unrepealed Laws in the UK | Socyberty
I'm off to more to Chester and buy arows - see number 2
Ten Unrepealed Laws in the UK | Socyberty
I'm off to more to Chester and buy arows - see number 2
dangermouse
Well-known member
Funny, I prefer the idea of the topless tropical fish store.
Lord Paul of Sheffield
Well-known member
itsfishingnotcatching
Well-known member
Don't annoy them M'Lud, they'll be paddling round the moat at Furkum Hall next.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 2,225
- Reaction score
- 4
From the song of the paddle forum.
Izzetafox's Avatar
Izzetafox
Izzetafox is offline Established member My location
Join Date
Mar 2011
Location
Leicester
Posts
179
Default
Quote Originally Posted by TheOldHobbit View Post
Hey ho new kayak coming on Monday from the states for review, wonder where I should paddle it..........
How about his Alimentary canal?
Izzetafox's Avatar
Izzetafox
Izzetafox is offline Established member My location
Join Date
Mar 2011
Location
Leicester
Posts
179
Default
Quote Originally Posted by TheOldHobbit View Post
Hey ho new kayak coming on Monday from the states for review, wonder where I should paddle it..........
How about his Alimentary canal?
Lord Paul of Sheffield
Well-known member
david perry
Active member
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.
Jeff
I used words to describe Windy that he had used himself. It was not an attempt to deride him or his experience and I did much the same for the Rev Caffyn and Mr Benyon.
Jeff Woodhouse
Moaning Marlow Meldrew
Windy is always a little sef-critical, perhaps that's his nature, never to be absolutely certain of anything, but I can tell you that to disregard his considered legal (and free) advice would certainly be at your peril.
Oh yes we can. The law is the law, and it clearly defines where a PRN exists, simples. You paddlers are merely questioning the existence of that law. Good luck with that!
Geoff, If you so sure of the above statement could you tell me which law "clearly defines where a PRN exists". None of the experts who have studied this area of the law have found such a Law. I accept they have different opinions on the exact legal opinion, but none would say the PRN is clearly defined.
---------- Post added at 13:13 ---------- Previous post was at 13:09 ----------
To disregard the considered legal opinion of anyone with Windy's qualifications and experience, however Windy (by his own admission) has not yet presented his considered opinion. He's told us what he thinks the situation is and said he will return with his considered opinion.
B
Berty
Guest
barney.........what bit of "Take it to court" don't you understand?....i think thats what most of the anglers who have bothered to post have said.
Before all this i would have simply ignored a canoist passing through my swim, now i will probably shout that they have no right to be there and if they disagree "TAKE IT TO COURT" !!
If you came here for support your arrogance has lost you more than you know, and may cause more bitterness than ever previously encountered between our two pastimes.
Windy, i don't know what the others think but personally i think you have done angling proud and should now let the paddlers work it out for themselves.
geoffmaynard
Content Editor
So now you are saying there are no PRNs? Sigh... Make your mind up Barney.
I swear that if you looked at this image you would claim it means 'bring as many dogs as you like except Scotties'
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/No_dogs.svg
Nicepix,
I am not sure of my case.... I have already said several times here that I do not know what the law is. I contend no one does. If Mr Benyon knew the law he would have stated it unambiguously, not hid behind weasel politician words, advocating access agreements. Read what he says and tell me where he states what the law is.
I write posts here because it is the only place where canoeists and anglers are talking to one another.
What I do know, is that Canoeists and Paddlers will never agree on what the law actually is. That is until the Government takes this problem seriously and sorts it out, or some private individual is prepared to risk a huge sum in legal fees to test the law.
sam vimes
Well-known member
May I ask why you think your governing bodies haven't backed one of those private individuals? Is it because they have a fair idea that they would be on for a hiding to nothing? From this side of the fence it would certainly seem to be the case.
Neil Maidment
Moderator
Despite the many hilarious and often ill informed contentions espoused on this thread, I find that an incredibly positive statement!
Windy
Well-known member
Blimey, I leave for a fortnight of hard work followed by a little R&R and then come back to find another 30 pages of repetitive nonsense has been added to this thread to no discernible effect... and no, I'm not going to trawl through all of those pages and posts in a vain attempt to reply to any of it.
Rule one of Usenet* (*and yes, I am that old :doh:
Don't feed the Trolls !
And now I will demonstrate why you shouldn't by breaking the rule, just this once... Again :wh I know it won't do any good but you know how it is....
xkcd: Duty Calls
You suggested PRN claims enforceable rights of navigation over all water with a foot or so of draft throughout the country of England and Wales without restriction (save direct prohibitory statute).
ie. 9,289 miles of water instead of the 1,361 miles unarguably subject to the GRN.
The suggested basis of your claimed rights to do so amount to no more than the Reverend Caffyn's deeply flawed and frankly legally risible Theses, suggesting that Roman river law has somehow survived the intervening 1,500 odd years since they left. and, even more risible, is now valid and enforceable. I am sorry to have to describe his opinion in such terms, but there it is.
Let's just consider the status of Roman law in England. The Romans abandoned this island in 410 - 440AD. There was a complete collapse of all Roman administration and law in this country, followed by over 500years of Anglo Saxon culture and law. Anglo Saxon culture and law derived nothing from Roman law whatsoever. Followed by a garnish of Norman law on top from 1066 on. Norman laws equally devoid of Roman roots.
(The 16th century revival of Roman law concepts on the Continent was not taken up in England. The Wikipedia summary on this point is really quite good, go read for yourselves. Roman law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Particularly the passages starting with the words "Only England did not take part in the wholesale reception of Roman law...." and "Today, Roman law is no longer applied in legal practice... " might help)
How the good Reverend can seriously suggest - with no cited authority whatsoever to support his assertion when you examine his theses with care - that Roman river law has somehow miraculously survived these circumstances and is now, today, valid and enforceable, is, I am afraid, something that I wouldn't credit to a first year undergraduate essay. Let alone theses presented for consideration of Masters and Doctorate degrees. Certainly not the basis for a campaign of civil disobedience.
---------- Post added at 13:13 ---------- Previous post was at 13:09 ----------
You and your like remind me of those idiots that linked vaccination to autism without evidence, leading to the deaths of hundreds of children when the effects of non-vaccination hit home.
Plainly you desperately want to do nothing more than disregard and ignore my considered legal opinion. Which is considered and complete.
What I have not had the time to do (and lord knows when I will find that much time) is to draft a full written opinion in terms I consider adequate and appropriate for internet propagation.
That does not mean for one moment that my expressed conclusions on this forum are not considered or that I have any real doubt about them either.
A legal opinion is obviously and inherently what I "think", but that opinion is based on the evidence and research into the law, not mere prejudice. The strength of such an opinion can vary all the way from advising that the proposition sought is a dead loser, through 50/50 uncertainty to a strong winner.
In that context I have no real doubt whatsoever that the suggestion that a PRN exists in the way that you claim is wrong, misconceived and a dead loser when and if ever litigated.
But hell, what do I know, it's just my opinion you say. And I am sure you will say.... and misquote selected bits elsewhere out of context to show just how doubtful I am. To the Troll his tactics.
Ok, so you want certainty, then I have already long since told you how to get it. Take it to the Supreme Court. If you are serious and not just contumeliously mischievous it is not difficult to apply for an appropriate Declaration. It is certainly a matter of general public importance worthy of a leap-frog appeal to the Supreme Court if you are right. The various canoeing and kayaking bodies are certainly big enough and wealthy enough to be able to afford to do so. Angling would love such a well organised representative body....
It hasn't happened and won't happen because they know exactly how much of a dead loser it is on the basis of Advice from QC's and others far more eminent and expert than me.
Short answer, "Put up or shut up".
Rule one of Usenet* (*and yes, I am that old :doh
: Don't feed the Trolls !
And now I will demonstrate why you shouldn't by breaking the rule, just this once... Again :wh I know it won't do any good but you know how it is....
xkcd: Duty Calls
Nonsense. The 1,361 miles of water generally considered to be subject to a modern subsisting General Right of Navigation ("GRN", NOT "PRN") and the extent of those rights from estuary to GRN limits are set out in the BCU’s own guidebooks. There is no argument about those waters, the existence of the GRN over them or the law applicable.
Complete Bull. There is no doubt that the General Right of Navigation exists on certain waters, as set out above. Nor the law applicable, derived from Common Law and Statute in the case of each river.
The General Right of Navigation is clearly defined. The "Public Right of Navigation" or PRN you contend for isn't clearly defined because it doesn't exist and never did.
You suggested PRN claims enforceable rights of navigation over all water with a foot or so of draft throughout the country of England and Wales without restriction (save direct prohibitory statute).
ie. 9,289 miles of water instead of the 1,361 miles unarguably subject to the GRN.
The suggested basis of your claimed rights to do so amount to no more than the Reverend Caffyn's deeply flawed and frankly legally risible Theses, suggesting that Roman river law has somehow survived the intervening 1,500 odd years since they left. and, even more risible, is now valid and enforceable. I am sorry to have to describe his opinion in such terms, but there it is.
Let's just consider the status of Roman law in England. The Romans abandoned this island in 410 - 440AD. There was a complete collapse of all Roman administration and law in this country, followed by over 500years of Anglo Saxon culture and law. Anglo Saxon culture and law derived nothing from Roman law whatsoever. Followed by a garnish of Norman law on top from 1066 on. Norman laws equally devoid of Roman roots.
(The 16th century revival of Roman law concepts on the Continent was not taken up in England. The Wikipedia summary on this point is really quite good, go read for yourselves. Roman law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Particularly the passages starting with the words "Only England did not take part in the wholesale reception of Roman law...." and "Today, Roman law is no longer applied in legal practice... " might help)
How the good Reverend can seriously suggest - with no cited authority whatsoever to support his assertion when you examine his theses with care - that Roman river law has somehow miraculously survived these circumstances and is now, today, valid and enforceable, is, I am afraid, something that I wouldn't credit to a first year undergraduate essay. Let alone theses presented for consideration of Masters and Doctorate degrees. Certainly not the basis for a campaign of civil disobedience.
---------- Post added at 13:13 ---------- Previous post was at 13:09 ----------
Nice try Barney. You will keep fudging and trying to blur the edges to suggest there is some real or legitimate doubt, even though there really isn't.
You and your like remind me of those idiots that linked vaccination to autism without evidence, leading to the deaths of hundreds of children when the effects of non-vaccination hit home.
Plainly you desperately want to do nothing more than disregard and ignore my considered legal opinion. Which is considered and complete.
What I have not had the time to do (and lord knows when I will find that much time) is to draft a full written opinion in terms I consider adequate and appropriate for internet propagation.
That does not mean for one moment that my expressed conclusions on this forum are not considered or that I have any real doubt about them either.
A legal opinion is obviously and inherently what I "think", but that opinion is based on the evidence and research into the law, not mere prejudice. The strength of such an opinion can vary all the way from advising that the proposition sought is a dead loser, through 50/50 uncertainty to a strong winner.
In that context I have no real doubt whatsoever that the suggestion that a PRN exists in the way that you claim is wrong, misconceived and a dead loser when and if ever litigated.
But hell, what do I know, it's just my opinion you say. And I am sure you will say.... and misquote selected bits elsewhere out of context to show just how doubtful I am. To the Troll his tactics.
Ok, so you want certainty, then I have already long since told you how to get it. Take it to the Supreme Court. If you are serious and not just contumeliously mischievous it is not difficult to apply for an appropriate Declaration. It is certainly a matter of general public importance worthy of a leap-frog appeal to the Supreme Court if you are right. The various canoeing and kayaking bodies are certainly big enough and wealthy enough to be able to afford to do so. Angling would love such a well organised representative body....
It hasn't happened and won't happen because they know exactly how much of a dead loser it is on the basis of Advice from QC's and others far more eminent and expert than me.
Short answer, "Put up or shut up".
Last edited:
bennygesserit
Well-known member
OK at the risk of offending fellow forumites it seems so unnatural that there needs to be a law to allow what people have been doing naturally and peacefully for hundreds of years putting boats on rivers,
So presumably those on here who own or run boats for fishing ( not paddlers ) only operate them on permitted stretches ? How do you know its a permitted stretch ?
Please do not tell me its disrespectful to disagree with Windy or tell me to read the forum again or post a picture of someone banging their head against a wall , for all his impressive training and manner , Windy's post is an opinion not law.
So presumably those on here who own or run boats for fishing ( not paddlers ) only operate them on permitted stretches ? How do you know its a permitted stretch ?
Please do not tell me its disrespectful to disagree with Windy or tell me to read the forum again or post a picture of someone banging their head against a wall , for all his impressive training and manner , Windy's post is an opinion not law.
jasonbean1
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 23, 2010
- Messages
- 953
- Reaction score
- 0
mg: benny...no matter how i try to read your post it comes across as totally stupidWindy
The most important element of your posts on the legal position, so far as I am concerned is where you suggest it would be possible to bankrupt a trespassing paddler and/or those who advocate such trespass.
I am confused by this. In the only case I know of, damages of 50p were awarded and an invitation to seek an injunction was invited, and in this case the paddler offered no defense and there was no presentation of argument on the existence or otherwise of a general PRN.
If the paddler pays the 50p and conforms with any injunction, how will he be bankrupted? What effect would this case have on other stretches of river he might paddle on, or other paddlers who paddle the same piece of river or other rivers?
Secondly, do you have a view as to why paddlers, who seem to be committing acts of trespass in increasing numbers, are not being sued?
---------- Post added at 01:18 ---------- Previous post was at 01:05 ----------
Sam
This is a great question... My guess is that they do not want to jeapordise the millions they receive from the government to win Olympic gold medals. They are heavily subsidized and don't want to rock the boat. They are only interested in competitive canoeing, not recreational stuff. I agree it is pathetic.
Of course the same question could be asked of Fish Legal... After all Anglers are the ones who believe they are being damaged. Why don't they back a club or private individual? Do they believe they are on a hiding to nothing?
The most important element of your posts on the legal position, so far as I am concerned is where you suggest it would be possible to bankrupt a trespassing paddler and/or those who advocate such trespass.
I am confused by this. In the only case I know of, damages of 50p were awarded and an invitation to seek an injunction was invited, and in this case the paddler offered no defense and there was no presentation of argument on the existence or otherwise of a general PRN.
If the paddler pays the 50p and conforms with any injunction, how will he be bankrupted? What effect would this case have on other stretches of river he might paddle on, or other paddlers who paddle the same piece of river or other rivers?
Secondly, do you have a view as to why paddlers, who seem to be committing acts of trespass in increasing numbers, are not being sued?
---------- Post added at 01:18 ---------- Previous post was at 01:05 ----------
Sam
This is a great question... My guess is that they do not want to jeapordise the millions they receive from the government to win Olympic gold medals. They are heavily subsidized and don't want to rock the boat. They are only interested in competitive canoeing, not recreational stuff. I agree it is pathetic.
Of course the same question could be asked of Fish Legal... After all Anglers are the ones who believe they are being damaged. Why don't they back a club or private individual? Do they believe they are on a hiding to nothing?
bennygesserit
Well-known member
Jason I have always liked your well constructed posts so i am just bemused by this one , surely some will have sympathy with the view of a river being a National resource to be shared by all - a good socialist view.
No matter how qualified Windys opinion its still just an opinion.
So your post is utter **** - which is just a meaningless thing to say really.