Benyon Rejects Canoeists’ ‘Right to Paddle’ Campaign

[richiekelly]

Doesn't offend me but continually using the example of off road motorcycles to compare what canoeists do is IMO wrong, the word illegal before off road motorcycles would help explain the analogy better. as for your statement that for every legal rider there are many illegal, where do you get your figures from? do you know how many licenced ( ACU/AMCA and others) riders there are in this country? it seems you don't like motorcycles

 

[nicepix]

Benny, after a period of recuperative duties following a serious eye injury I went back onto the beat as a Neighbourhood Police Officer than as a Response officer for the last five years of my service. Before that I'd been a dog handler for nine years so I had lost touch with the softer side of policing.

All I seemed to do for the last five years was take reports from scum and binners that they had been 'Harassed' either by text message or on Facebook. I hadn't time to deal with serious matters because I was continually tied up with this sort of dross. Why did I have to do it? Because the Crime Recording Standards say so and any police force has to obey those rules.

So, if you are a law abiding angler fishing on your well-earned day off on a private water that costs you an arm and a leg to fish, and some clown(s) come paddling down the river which has no right of navigation then all you have to do is phone the local police communications center and say that you are being harassed by canoeists and as long as you use the magic words that you feel harassed, distressed or alarmed by their actions the police have no option but to record and investigate it.

If you just said that canoeists are trespassing on your stretch of water the call handler is likely to just say "That is a civil matter" and put the phone down.

Senior police officers receive bonuses based on performance figures and none of them will want anglers phoning up every day reporting crimes on their patch. So they will task the Neighbourhood Teams to deal with it.

You must use those magic words though

---------- Post added at 18:08 ---------- Previous post was at 17:57 ----------

Doesn't offend me but continually using the example of off road motorcycles to compare what canoeists do is IMO wrong, the word illegal before off road motorcycles would help explain the analogy better. as for your statement that for every legal rider there are many illegal, where do you get your figures from? do you know how many licenced ( ACU/AMCA and others) riders there are in this country? it seems you don't like motorcycles

I've had motorcycles from the age of 16 up until round 50 years old. What I don't like are illegal off road motorbikes and the antisocial on road types who go round waking the dead with their illegal exhausts.

But you are right. I will prefix 'illegal' to off road motorbikes if that makes you happy. As for where I get my figures from, you only have to go out in the woods, fields and footpaths near any town, city or large village to see how many illegal off road motorcycles there are. And, in my force area 30% of all the calls received on Saturdays and Sundays in summer are to do with nuisance illegal off road motorbikes.

Whilst the police can confiscate them what isn't readily known is that the owners can get them back for around £150 to £200 depending on force area and length of time between seizure and collection. The money goes to the recovery people not the police. Nor is it easy for police to seize them and in my area Magistrate's refused to find riders of illegal off road bikes guilty of having no insurance, etc. even though the offences were complete.

That is why I would like to see a Fixed Penalty Notice for using a boat on a non-navigable water. It would simplify the enforcement.

Now talking about enforcement. Would your organisation be happy to be held responsible for the actions of the illegal riders? That is exactly why I don't think the canoeists organisation can speak for all canoeists. Many will and already do flout the laws.

 

[bennygesserit]

Benny, after a period of recuperative duties following a serious eye injury I went back onto the beat as a Neighbourhood Police Officer than as a Response officer for the last five years of my service. Before that I'd been a dog handler for nine years so I had lost touch with the softer side of policing.

All I seemed to do for the last five years was take reports from scum and binners that they had been 'Harassed' either by text message or on Facebook. I hadn't time to deal with serious matters because I was continually tied up with this sort of dross. Why did I have to do it? Because the Crime Recording Standards say so and any police force has to obey those rules.

So, if you are a law abiding angler fishing on your well-earned day off on a private water that costs you an arm and a leg to fish, and some clown(s) come paddling down the river which has no right of navigation then all you have to do is phone the local police communications center and say that you are being harassed by canoeists and as long as you use the magic words that you feel harassed, distressed or alarmed by their actions the police have no option but to record and investigate it.

If you just said that canoeists are trespassing on your stretch of water the call handler is likely to just say "That is a civil matter" and put the phone down.

Senior police officers receive bonuses based on performance figures and none of them will want anglers phoning up every day reporting crimes on their patch. So they will task the Neighbourhood Teams to deal with it.

You must use those magic words though

---------- Post added at 18:08 ---------- Previous post was at 17:57 ----------



I've had motorcycles from the age of 16 up until round 50 years old. What I don't like are illegal off road motorbikes and the antisocial on road types who go round waking the dead with their illegal exhausts.

But you are right. I will prefix 'illegal' to off road motorbikes if that makes you happy. As for where I get my figures from, you only have to go out in the woods, fields and footpaths near any town, city or large village to see how many illegal off road motorcycles there are. And, in my force area 30% of all the calls received on Saturdays and Sundays in summer are to do with nuisance illegal off road motorbikes.

Whilst the police can confiscate them what isn't readily known is that the owners can get them back for around £150 to £200 depending on force area and length of time between seizure and collection. The money goes to the recovery people not the police. Nor is it easy for police to seize them and in my area Magistrate's refused to find riders of illegal off road bikes guilty of having no insurance, etc. even though the offences were complete.

That is why I would like to see a Fixed Penalty Notice for using a boat on a non-navigable water. It would simplify the enforcement.

Now talking about enforcement. Would your organisation be happy to be held responsible for the actions of the illegal riders? That is exactly why I don't think the canoeists organisation can speak for all canoeists. Many will and already do flout the laws.

First you have my respect for putting your self in harms way mate.

Would you phone every time you see a canoeist though ? I understand that some might manipulate the system would you for this ?

 

[nicepix]

First you have my respect for putting your self in harms way mate.

Would you phone every time you see a canoeist though ? I understand that some might manipulate the system would you for this ?

Whilst it pains me to say it; if canoeists are determined to break the law then I don't see why anglers cannot use an interpretation of the law on Harassment to get the police to deal with it. The laws on Harassment were brought out to deal with stalkers; Jill Dando and all that, but these days its all: "He's called me a **** on Facebook and is harassing me". mg:

The police are bound by certain rules and regulations and senior officers try everything in their powers to manipulate these to suit their purposes. So, if you reported a trespass or that your tenant had trashed your house they are likely to have instructed the call handlers to treat these incidents as 'civil matters' and not to record them as crimes.

It is obvious that DEFRA are not intending bringing in new legislation to clarify the situation so let's use the system that we have got in a creative way. I'll bet you that it wouldn't take more than half a dozen complaints by anglers of being harassed by canoeists on one stretch of river before the District Superintendent is onto his Tasking Officer to get something done. After all, his bonus and promotion chances are at stake

Edit;- Just to add that the offence of Harassment is largely based on the victim's feelings. There are defences, but it is unlikely that they would be appropriate in these instances.

 

[waterways]

Nicepics I can see it now

Police car arrives, sirens screaming!

Angler (sobbing) : Thank God you are here! A canoeist harassed me!

Policeman: Oh dear, we have had a lot of this around here. Don't worry, I am here now.

Angler (sobbing): I am so upset. Nothing like this has ever happened to me before. I can hardly speak.

Policeman: (taking the angler's hand): Now, now, you are safe now. Blow your nose on my handkerchief.

Angler (trying to hold back the tears) : I am so glad you are here. I don't know what I might have done.

Policeman: What did he do?

Angler: He paddled past me!

Policeman (shaking his head in astonishment): The swine! These psychopaths have to be stopped.

Angler: And He looked at me. I felt defiled!

Policeman: This is how these perverts operate. They have no morals at all.

Policeman: I know how hard it is to relive this trauma, but I have to ask you. Can you give me a description of this animal?

Angler (sobbing some more): It was all over so quickly. He was only here about 5 seconds. The canoe was red.

Policeman: This how they get away with it. Don't worry, I am calling in the Canoe Fast Response Squad. They have helicopters, the dogs, the armed response team. They will catch him before some other angler falls prey.

Policeman: Now, you have been very brave, but you need our counsellor team. Just sit quietly until they arrive.

Angler: (whimpering and sucking his thumb): You have been wonderful. My friend Nicepics told me you would be if this ever happened. You won't leave me on my own, will you?

Policeman (taking the Angler in his arms and giving a hug): Don't worry. It's all part of the service.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

edited as I decided to save good bandwidth rebutting daft repetitive argument from paddlers.

 

[nicepix]

Waterways,
you forgot the bit about the police man driving along the road downstream and coming across a guy with a red canoe just about to load it onto his car. The appointment at the police station, or arrest if the canoeist doesn't agree to a voluntary attendance (and by necessity impounding car and canoe for safe keeping at your expense), interview, bail, re-attendance and possible charge, or if he is lucky, a caution. Fingerprints, photo, possible further attendance at Magistrate's Court.

I'm sure you'll have a lovely time and it will make a change for the officer to deal with something other than a report of a domestic that turns out to be a squabble over ownership of the Play Station following the break up of another long term two-week relationship.

Or then again you could actually get together with some other paddlers and buy yourselves some river access. :wh

 

[geoffmaynard]

It might also explain why The Angling Trust has not taken the very simple step of suing one or more canoeists for trespass. My guess is that they agree with DEFRA, although they are not prepared to admit this in public, and prefer to let their membership be ignorant of their true opinion, while they continue to posture and strut as the defender of Anglers' rights.

I think when they do take action it will be rather more aggressive than just a piddly little trespass action. If you read Windy's earlier posts you will see a barristers position on what the law actually is and how legal actions should proceed. All points have been dealt with. Your head-in-the-sand attitude in attempting to deny the true and accepted legal position as laid out by him is therefor redundant.

 

[waterways]

Hi Nicepix
Can you point us at a case in court where this has actually occurred; that is , a canoeist has been charged and/or convicted of 'hassling' an angler? My guess is that this has never happened. Possibly because no angler would dream of lowering himself to make such a pathetic claim.

Can you provideh some hard fact which might make canoeists pay attention rather than what appear to be empty threats. We have enough of those already from The Angling foot in the mouth Trust.

By the way... This thread is the only one I know where canoeists and anglers are actually talking to one another. This is great.

Also by the way I paddled past an angling competition yesterday. The anglers had to lift their rods out of the water to let me and two other canoeists past. This was all done with cheerful and smiling courtesy on both sides. A couple of the anglers remarked that they hoped our boats might wake up the fish. In my experience it is only a few anglers who have any problems with canoeists.

 

[bennygesserit]

Good post Waterways , I am pleased that its not all about legalities and confrontation.

There have been about 15 different people contributing to this , not a massive sample , so maybe not representative of the moderate view.

Please could those sending me private messages telling me I am betraying angling , or repeating the same guff on this thread stop, its just a discussion , its all theoretical , please get some perspective. .

 

[nicepix]

That might be because you are a responsible canoeist using waters that are accepted as having a right of navigation.

Don't worry about the Harassment situation. Anglers might not have been aware of it until now. Next time you get chance to speak to a police officer who does the beat work ask them about the Harassment Act and how it is being abused. If Chantelle can bring a case against Dwayne for Harassing her over payments for the rented plasma TV that they bought during their short term together, anglers will have no problems in reporting Harassment caused by illegal canoeists. It is the way forward.

Of course if you stuck to your legal venues or put your hands in your pockets and bought some water none of this would be a problem would it?

 

[bennygesserit]

That might be because you are a responsible canoeist using waters that are accepted as having a right of navigation.

Don't worry about the Harassment situation. Anglers might not have been aware of it until now. Next time you get chance to speak to a police officer who does the beat work ask them about the Harassment Act and how it is being abused. If Chantelle can bring a case against Dwayne for Harassing her over payments for the rented plasma TV that they bought during their short term together, anglers will have no problems in reporting Harassment caused by illegal canoeists. It is the way forward.

Of course if you stuck to your legal venues or put your hands in your pockets and bought some water none of this would be a problem would it?

Do you think that is a good use of police time though ? Unless there actually is a problem i.e. you really are being harrassed then it doesn't seem it.

 

[geoffmaynard]

Do you think that is a good use of police time though ? Unless there actually is a problem i.e. you really are being harrassed then it doesn't seem it.

And if I have dozens of the things coming past me every day of the week that's not being harrassed?

 

[nicepix]

Do you think that is a good use of police time though ? Unless there actually is a problem i.e. you really are being harrassed then it doesn't seem it.

As I have already said; the Harassment Act gives a great deal of credence the the stated feelings of the aggrieved party because it is designed to protect the vulnerable.

If you have paid a lot of money for a day's fishing or been really looking forward to a day off from work without any stress and some clowns on canoes come along spoiling your day then you are entitled to feel harassed. Especially when they have no right to be there.

Without any other legislation specifically targeting nuisance canoeists there is little option but to use the laws that we already have. It might seem trivial but it is the only way that you will get the police to act in my opinion.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Do you think that is a good use of police time though ? Unless there actually is a problem i.e. you really are being harrassed then it doesn't seem it.

The 'problem' as I see it (with my mod hat off) is that we pay inordinate amounts to fish in peace and tranquility whereas the majority of these paddlers want absolute access for nothing.

So, yes, in my book that is a perfect use of Police time; compare it to your own garden that you lavish time and money over only to have a bunch of people come traipsing over it at any time of the day.
Wouldn't you want to get the police involved?

I would, and if I see paddlers on my club or synducate stethches then I'll be on my mobile straight away.

 

[bennygesserit]

And if I have dozens of the things coming past me every day of the week that's not being harrassed?

Geoff you are right it does

 

[Berty]

Good post Waterways , I am pleased that its not all about legalities and confrontation.

There have been about 15 different people contributing to this , not a massive sample , so maybe not representative of the moderate view.

Please could those sending me private messages telling me I am betraying angling , or repeating the same guff on this thread stop, its just a discussion , its all theoretical , please get some perspective. .

But they (i haven't Pm'd you on this subject) have a valid point!! you use the term "please get some perspective".......well i'm sorry but as i see it you can not have any perspective on the matter.

Surely they have a right to make their views known to you if you make them feel that way?......that is so long as they keep it polite.

PS, it is not theoretical from an anglers view point, it is FACT.

 

[waterways]

I think when they do take action it will be rather more aggressive than just a piddly little trespass action. If you read Windy's earlier posts you will see a barristers position on what the law actually is and how legal actions should proceed. All points have been dealt with. Your head-in-the-sand attitude in attempting to deny the true and accepted legal position as laid out by him is therefor redundant.

Geoff, strangely I feel it is not me that has his head in the sand.

DEFRA's position has been set out by their lawyers. I agree with them that the legal position is confused. Even Dr Caffyn states that even he will not be sure what the legal position actually is, despite having spent several years on the study of the law surrounding river access, until there is a case and a judge to decide.

The DEFRA lawyers are specialists in Environmental Law. Windy has stated that he is not a specialist in this area and it would take him months to bring himself up to speed.

I think it is sensible to accept the view expressed by the experts. If you think that is burying my head in the sand, then so be it.

 

[nicepix]

The general feeling in Parliament is for there to be no access beyond that of legally defined navigable waters. That is why the various Bills introduced by MPs in the past have never made it to the voting stage. If canoeists force the issue as they seem intent on doing I have a feeling that this will cause Parliament to bring in legislation to reinforce their views that paddlers should not be allowed to impinge on the privacy of anglers and owners of riverside properties.

 

[bennygesserit]

".......well i'm sorry but as i see it you can not have any perspective .

Its that bit mate that does my head in , people express opinions all the time on all sorts of things they do not directly have experience of , have you experienced everything in life ? Have you been on a space shuttle ? But you could express an opinion on the cost of space exploration on a forum , in fact that analogy is less related to me in that I do actually fish.

To me it smacks of the usual forum technique , I don't agree with you , neither does tinker , so post any old b*****s to win the forum point.

I have tried to understand why you can't see my point and I have tried just as hard to understand yours , equally I can't so lets just disagree on this one issue as we have so much else in common on most of the other things that crop up on here ..... Tight lines mate.