Benyon Rejects Canoeists’ ‘Right to Paddle’ Campaign
- Thread starter FishingMagic
- Start date
The bad one
Well-known member
When it's Windy it's always interesting when it hit the immovable objects 
nicepix
Well-known member
e-mail sent to Mr. Benyon at : richard@richardbenyon.com
The Right Honourable Richard Benyon MP
Dear Sir,
I appreciate your time and efforts spent in trying to negotiate an agreed increase in the rights of navigation for small craft. I sometimes think that you would have an easier time dealing with Middle Eastern matters or those in Northern Ireland.
It seems to me that whilst there is no doubt that there are no nationwide public rights of navigation there does not appear to be any recent, relevant and easily accessible legislation covering this matter. May I take this opportunity to suggest consideration to an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 to include a Fixed Penalty Notice of the appropriate amount that could be issued to those who use boats, canoes and other craft on non-navigable waterways where the riparian owner has not been consulted and agreed to their presence?
Such an amendment would allow police forces to enforce the law quickly and easily and would give a clear benchmark to those who choose to disregard the current laws.
Yours sincerely,
The Right Honourable Richard Benyon MP
Dear Sir,
I appreciate your time and efforts spent in trying to negotiate an agreed increase in the rights of navigation for small craft. I sometimes think that you would have an easier time dealing with Middle Eastern matters or those in Northern Ireland.
It seems to me that whilst there is no doubt that there are no nationwide public rights of navigation there does not appear to be any recent, relevant and easily accessible legislation covering this matter. May I take this opportunity to suggest consideration to an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 to include a Fixed Penalty Notice of the appropriate amount that could be issued to those who use boats, canoes and other craft on non-navigable waterways where the riparian owner has not been consulted and agreed to their presence?
Such an amendment would allow police forces to enforce the law quickly and easily and would give a clear benchmark to those who choose to disregard the current laws.
Yours sincerely,
B
Berty
Guest
Maybe we should all send a copy, but include a pharagraph about paddlers having to buy a licence just like anglers do?
At least then the hordes that descend on our rivers and render angling a waste of time are paying to ruin our days!?
At least then the hordes that descend on our rivers and render angling a waste of time are paying to ruin our days!?
sam vimes
Well-known member
The paddlers seem to have mysteriously disappeared.
Thank you to those that seem to have finally shut them up.
Congratulations to those paddlers that have actually managed to make me far less tolerant of illegal paddlers than I was. Way to go:doh:. I'm now even more likely to give your brethren a gobfull back at the merest hint of any attitude which is less than exceedingly contrite.
Thank you to those that seem to have finally shut them up.
Congratulations to those paddlers that have actually managed to make me far less tolerant of illegal paddlers than I was. Way to go:doh:. I'm now even more likely to give your brethren a gobfull back at the merest hint of any attitude which is less than exceedingly contrite.
geoffmaynard
Content Editor
Until the paddlers are compelled to display ID numbers on their craft they will be very difficult to prosecute
nicepix
Well-known member
It is unlikely that those who cause the most problems will have any ID on their canoes just as off-road motorcycles have no registration numbers.
However, given the circumstances I don't think it would be too hard to intercept canoeists at their regular embarkation places in the same way that I used to intercept off road bikes at choke points and laybys where they loaded the bikes into vans and trailers.
I must admit though that it was more fun in the early 1990's when we were allowed to ram them
Another vote of thanks to Windy for refuting the claims of the paddlers.
I wonder now if they will slink off into the night or try in vain to ignore or put their own spin on his opinion?
I wonder now if they will slink off into the night or try in vain to ignore or put their own spin on his opinion?
Windy
Well-known member
Why have I explained the King's prerogative over the great rivers in such detail ? There is a reason. It explains the equally misconceived reference to Magna Carta and to the Law of Fykes and Wears.
Clause 23 of Magna Carta states:
“All kydells from henceforth shall be utterly put down by Thames and Medway, and
through all England, except only by the Sea-coasts”.
Kydells are not weirs. They are fish traps. The river would be dammed up on either side by various means, usually wooden pilings and woven hurdles, restricting the passage of fish to a much reduced channel inbetween. A net or fish traps were then placed in or across this channel. It doesn’t take a genius to realise that this interfered with the ability of ships and boats to pass and repass in exercise of the General Right of Navigation.
The GRN was protected by the King and enforceable by suit in the King’s Courts.
But Bad King John didn’t do so. Why not ? Guess. Money.
The King made a very very good thing out of charging fees payable by the trap setting fishermen, while he got no fees at all from the boats exercising the GRN he was supposed to be protecting.
Which is why the Barons at Runnymede stuck it to him with clause 23.
Why did they care so much about fish traps in the way ?
The Barons, it is to be remembered, were not just fighting men. They were what we would today describe as the CEO's of their particular family, clan or tribe's businesses. Trading the wares of their particular localities' industries, importing the food and goods and luxuries they wanted and needed in return. They needed reliable transport of their goods and wares from place to place.
The roads were hideously inadequate and wooden wheeled bullock carts could hardly move more than a ton or so of goods, if that, at an expensive snail's pace from here to there. Slow, expensive, and vulnerable to the likes of that robbing swine Robin in the Hood.
In contrast Ships could move many tons of goods safely in their strong defensible wooden hulls, like moving forts, far away from the bandits on the bank, far far more quickly and even internationally.
Any interference with their movement or local taxes and tolls was a direct attack on the pockets of the Barons. The King's guarantee of free rights of GRN in the great rivers was therefore of enormous commercial value to the Barons and they were not in the least bit happy to have their trade set at naught in favour of Bad King John's pocketing fees from the netsmen.
Clause 23 did not establish any new GRN’s or have any legal effect upon them. It simply forced the removal of these fish trap obstructions from them, except in the tidal and estuary waters out by the sea coast where they didn't cause a problem. In the estuaries etc they didn’t interfere with navigation, as sufficient sea room existed to sail round and past them without problems.
The first version of Magna Carta was then promptly abolished by Papal Bull. A Papal Bull had direct and valid effect in English law at that time, akin to the direct effect of European Union legislation now, overriding both the King’s Courts and any statute passed or purported to be passed by Parliament.
The re-enactment of Magna Carta, or at least the majority of its provisions, in various subsequent Charters and statutes is very arguable to be ultra vires and void - one of those "interesting" legal questions which are used to plague law students in their first year at University, but irrelevant and academic.
Even if the subsequent re-enactments were / are valid (and in practical terms they have always been treated by English Courts as such) they did no more than repeat the same words confined to the removal of fish traps.
Nothing to do with the establishment of more, further or additional rights of General Navigation over all the rivers in the realm capable of floating a boat. Merely the removal of obstructions making the King stand by his duties to provide the GRN over the great rivers already established to be subject to those rights.
Again I do not propose to deal with the ensuing 700 years. Suffice it to say that the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969 repealed the re-enacted Magna Carta, “The whole statute, so far as unrepealed, except articles 1, 9, 29 and 37”. Good luck trying to establish anything on that basis.
The Law of Fykes and Wyldes 1472
An equally bogus point.
I do not propose to quote it all as lengthy and unnecessary. First things first the passages which are relied upon are in the preface and recitals to the Statute, the “Whereas…” bit. The preface and recitals to a statute are NOT the statute and not the law.
“Item, Whereas by the laudable Statute of Magna Charta, amongst other Things it is contained, That all Kedels… should be taken away… which Statute was made for the great Wealth of all this Land, in avoiding the Straitness of all Rivers, so that Ships and Boats might have in them their large and free Passage…
it was recited that… because that the common Passages of Ships and Boats in the great Rivers of England (my emphasis) were oftentimes disturbed by the levying of Wears, Mills, Millstanks, Stakes and Kedels to the great Damage of the People, it was ordained and established, That all such [etc]…. Should be taken away and broken down…”
So it only applies to repeat and re-instate the removal of obstructions to those waters where the GRN “in the great Rivers of England" subsisted. Limited to those great rivers where the GRN subsisted. Not those where it didn’t. It doesn’t confirm anything in the Magna Carta that wasn’t there, nor does it of itself extend the GRN to any further or other rivers beyond those already subsisting.
Clause 23 of Magna Carta states:
“All kydells from henceforth shall be utterly put down by Thames and Medway, and
through all England, except only by the Sea-coasts”.
Kydells are not weirs. They are fish traps. The river would be dammed up on either side by various means, usually wooden pilings and woven hurdles, restricting the passage of fish to a much reduced channel inbetween. A net or fish traps were then placed in or across this channel. It doesn’t take a genius to realise that this interfered with the ability of ships and boats to pass and repass in exercise of the General Right of Navigation.
The GRN was protected by the King and enforceable by suit in the King’s Courts.
But Bad King John didn’t do so. Why not ? Guess. Money.
The King made a very very good thing out of charging fees payable by the trap setting fishermen, while he got no fees at all from the boats exercising the GRN he was supposed to be protecting.
Which is why the Barons at Runnymede stuck it to him with clause 23.
Why did they care so much about fish traps in the way ?
The Barons, it is to be remembered, were not just fighting men. They were what we would today describe as the CEO's of their particular family, clan or tribe's businesses. Trading the wares of their particular localities' industries, importing the food and goods and luxuries they wanted and needed in return. They needed reliable transport of their goods and wares from place to place.
The roads were hideously inadequate and wooden wheeled bullock carts could hardly move more than a ton or so of goods, if that, at an expensive snail's pace from here to there. Slow, expensive, and vulnerable to the likes of that robbing swine Robin in the Hood.
In contrast Ships could move many tons of goods safely in their strong defensible wooden hulls, like moving forts, far away from the bandits on the bank, far far more quickly and even internationally.
Any interference with their movement or local taxes and tolls was a direct attack on the pockets of the Barons. The King's guarantee of free rights of GRN in the great rivers was therefore of enormous commercial value to the Barons and they were not in the least bit happy to have their trade set at naught in favour of Bad King John's pocketing fees from the netsmen.
Clause 23 did not establish any new GRN’s or have any legal effect upon them. It simply forced the removal of these fish trap obstructions from them, except in the tidal and estuary waters out by the sea coast where they didn't cause a problem. In the estuaries etc they didn’t interfere with navigation, as sufficient sea room existed to sail round and past them without problems.
The first version of Magna Carta was then promptly abolished by Papal Bull. A Papal Bull had direct and valid effect in English law at that time, akin to the direct effect of European Union legislation now, overriding both the King’s Courts and any statute passed or purported to be passed by Parliament.
The re-enactment of Magna Carta, or at least the majority of its provisions, in various subsequent Charters and statutes is very arguable to be ultra vires and void - one of those "interesting" legal questions which are used to plague law students in their first year at University, but irrelevant and academic.
Even if the subsequent re-enactments were / are valid (and in practical terms they have always been treated by English Courts as such) they did no more than repeat the same words confined to the removal of fish traps.
Nothing to do with the establishment of more, further or additional rights of General Navigation over all the rivers in the realm capable of floating a boat. Merely the removal of obstructions making the King stand by his duties to provide the GRN over the great rivers already established to be subject to those rights.
Again I do not propose to deal with the ensuing 700 years. Suffice it to say that the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969 repealed the re-enacted Magna Carta, “The whole statute, so far as unrepealed, except articles 1, 9, 29 and 37”. Good luck trying to establish anything on that basis.
The Law of Fykes and Wyldes 1472
An equally bogus point.
I do not propose to quote it all as lengthy and unnecessary. First things first the passages which are relied upon are in the preface and recitals to the Statute, the “Whereas…” bit. The preface and recitals to a statute are NOT the statute and not the law.
“Item, Whereas by the laudable Statute of Magna Charta, amongst other Things it is contained, That all Kedels… should be taken away… which Statute was made for the great Wealth of all this Land, in avoiding the Straitness of all Rivers, so that Ships and Boats might have in them their large and free Passage…
it was recited that… because that the common Passages of Ships and Boats in the great Rivers of England (my emphasis) were oftentimes disturbed by the levying of Wears, Mills, Millstanks, Stakes and Kedels to the great Damage of the People, it was ordained and established, That all such [etc]…. Should be taken away and broken down…”
So it only applies to repeat and re-instate the removal of obstructions to those waters where the GRN “in the great Rivers of England" subsisted. Limited to those great rivers where the GRN subsisted. Not those where it didn’t. It doesn’t confirm anything in the Magna Carta that wasn’t there, nor does it of itself extend the GRN to any further or other rivers beyond those already subsisting.
Last edited:
Windy , Thank you for replying to my post. I now have a greater understanding of your reasoning. I am still not convinced though, partly because you have not mentioned the 1472 Act for Wears and Fishgarths which seems to be quite a strong part of the case for the PRN.
"Whereas, by the laudable Statute of Magna Carta, among other Things, it is contained That all Kedels by Thamise and Medway, and throughout the Realm of England, should be taken away, saving by the Sea-banks, which Statute was made for the great Wealth of all this Land, in avoiding the straitness of all Rivers, so that Ships and Boats might have in them their large and free Passage..
This clearly refers to all rivers and is much newer and more relevant than the Roman laws and the Magna Carta, which you have said are not relevant.
"Whereas, by the laudable Statute of Magna Carta, among other Things, it is contained That all Kedels by Thamise and Medway, and throughout the Realm of England, should be taken away, saving by the Sea-banks, which Statute was made for the great Wealth of all this Land, in avoiding the straitness of all Rivers, so that Ships and Boats might have in them their large and free Passage..
This clearly refers to all rivers and is much newer and more relevant than the Roman laws and the Magna Carta, which you have said are not relevant.
Windy
Well-known member
Go read the full post Barney.
You are only quoting the recitals to the statute, which are not the law, and establish nothing. The words of the statute itself after the recitals directly, clearly and explicitly refer to the "great rivers of England", ie. those rivers subject to the GRN and no others.
Even if it did have general application it is a prohibitory statute to "avoid the straitness" of all rivers, ie. the artificial narrowing of them by Kedels, not to create or grant new rights of free passage that did not formerly exist. It just requires the removal of all fish traps. No more, no less.
---------- Post added at 21:49 ---------- Previous post was at 21:07 ----------
Seriously.
If there ever were such a wide ranging and effectively universal right of Public Navigation over all waters do you not think that it would be something evidenced in hundreds of historical references and exceptions and particular statutes and revisions of statutes over the centuries.... ?
You seriously want to base a campaign of civil disobedience and trespass on one badly drafted sentence in the recitals to a nearly 600 year old statute ?
"Very brave, Minister", as Sir Humphrey used to say. Good luck with that...
You are only quoting the recitals to the statute, which are not the law, and establish nothing. The words of the statute itself after the recitals directly, clearly and explicitly refer to the "great rivers of England", ie. those rivers subject to the GRN and no others.
Even if it did have general application it is a prohibitory statute to "avoid the straitness" of all rivers, ie. the artificial narrowing of them by Kedels, not to create or grant new rights of free passage that did not formerly exist. It just requires the removal of all fish traps. No more, no less.
---------- Post added at 21:49 ---------- Previous post was at 21:07 ----------
Seriously.
If there ever were such a wide ranging and effectively universal right of Public Navigation over all waters do you not think that it would be something evidenced in hundreds of historical references and exceptions and particular statutes and revisions of statutes over the centuries.... ?
You seriously want to base a campaign of civil disobedience and trespass on one badly drafted sentence in the recitals to a nearly 600 year old statute ?
"Very brave, Minister", as Sir Humphrey used to say. Good luck with that...
geoffmaynard
Content Editor
A "like" button is not enough. We need a Love button!
Good luck indeed . . . . . . . . .
Jeff Woodhouse
Moaning Marlow Meldrew
They should register their boat properly as in this from the EA website -
"If you want to take an unpowered boat on the River Thames, it must be registered with the Environment Agency. An unpowered boat is one without an engine."
It costs them £33.50 a year
I wish Windy was able to answer my questions above. Does the law of civil trespass have any real teeth or is it a paper tiger? If it has real teeth it might stop paddlers.
It would be so interesting if we could have a debate here between Windy and Rev Dr Caffyn. Windy, have you ever approached him? He says that in the many years since he wrote his thesis, no one has ever come up with an argument against it. He seems to me to be a very modest and unassuming man, who agrees that the position is unclear and will not be clarified until some cases are brought. I think he is in his seventies now, and may have retired from the fray... especially as I suspect he might have received abuse from anglers in the past and may not be willing to subject himself to more...
Last edited:
B
Berty
Guest
I can answer your last sentence for you.
Because everyone has turned a blind eye to the occasional paddler on sections of river they SHOULD NOT be on, in fact i'll wager most anglers didn't even know that the paddlers had no right to be there!
But thanks to your actions many more now know the legality of the situation and will be less prone to turning a blind en!
I think the term cutting off your nose to spite your face is apt in this case.
Because everyone has turned a blind eye to the occasional paddler on sections of river they SHOULD NOT be on, in fact i'll wager most anglers didn't even know that the paddlers had no right to be there!
But thanks to your actions many more now know the legality of the situation and will be less prone to turning a blind en!
I think the term cutting off your nose to spite your face is apt in this case.
bennygesserit
Well-known member
Just out of interest the song of the paddle forum has now reached page 6 and just a little of the polite veneer is coming off , except for the paddlers who have took the troule to post here they seem like decent blokes.
Angling Trust statement - Page 6
Angling Trust statement - Page 6
I am just glad that the canoests do not have a right to go where ever they please it is that simple and long may it remain so.
Jeff Woodhouse
Moaning Marlow Meldrew
I think I may be tempted, the next time a canoe passes me on a non-PRN river, to speak to him/her politely and ask his/her name and address so that I can then pass it on to the club who possess the fishing rights and they together with the land owner can take out an injunction against that person and ALL paddlers from trespassing over his land so that if any others do it in future they can be held in contempt of Court.
(I think that is the case that Windy was explaining earlier.)
In the meatime I shall also practice drawing my catapult and loading and firing the hempseed in case said canoeist/s refuses to give his/her name and address and exchanges instead mouthfulls of abuse then paddles off as I'm only feeding my swim after all and trying to prevent the fish from bolting... :wh
(I think that is the case that Windy was explaining earlier.
)In the meatime I shall also practice drawing my catapult and loading and firing the hempseed in case said canoeist/s refuses to give his/her name and address and exchanges instead mouthfulls of abuse then paddles off as I'm only feeding my swim after all and trying to prevent the fish from bolting... :wh
Windy,
You are saying that the PRN doesn't exist, but that a GRN does exist on "the great rivers of England".
How were/are these great rivers defined, I can except that they would include the Thames, the Severn and other major rivers, but there are other rivers on which navigation is accepted now days which are in no way "great" eg the Gipping in Suffolk, the Lugg in Wales, and many others.
These rivers have navigation rights, that were not created in the relevant "Navigation Acts" (these were about improving navigation not creating the right), so if the GRN covers them could it not cover many other rivers which are currently not recognised as having navigation rights.
---------- Post added at 06:40 ---------- Previous post was at 06:18 ----------
Can you quote those lies?
I have the stated that paddlers believe in the PRN, the BCU do not have a position on the PRN, they delegate that to the relevant national bodies eg CE, SCA, CANI, CW. I accept the position of CE on the PRN is unclear, many paddlers are unhappy about this, and the vast majority of paddlers are not members of CE.
The quote you used to prove that i "lied" is out of date, and you are pretending I said something which I didn't.
If I lied about there not being legislation covering the PRN, can you state what that piece of legislation is? A court ruling is not legislation.
I said that the Goverment are not spending money trying to resolve this issue, you quoted a statement dated 2008 to show I lied, clearly that statement refers to money spent up to 2008. We are now in 2013, and I didn't say the government had never spent any money on this issue.
It appears to be you who is trying to bluff your way through.