Benyon Rejects Canoeists’ ‘Right to Paddle’ Campaign

[The bad one]

I think all that Windy sinks all boats, canoes, kayaks, rafts, large pieces of polystyrene and rubber rings. Yep seen them all come down the NONE NAVIGATIONAL RIGHTS river Ribble.
Some even paddled by High Court Judges

Oh and in some cases dispensed with afterwards by those who paddled them. Now which part of the law would they be infringing the Civil or Criminal wink wink

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

Joining the Caravan club doesn't give you the right to drive your caravan on any road you choose without paying your Road Fund Licence, holding an MOT and Driving licence.

Nor to drive along roads marked 'Private' or where weight and other restrictions exist. (think that';s what you meant)

I do believe that the amount paid over by the BCU to EA (amongst any others now) was less than £1 per year. If so, seems pitiful against the £72 it used to cost me for my boat and that was the minimum and restricted me to the Thames alone.

 

[Windy]

Thank you Windy. BUT - unless there are mining rights involved... I have come across that one before in the house we first started in.

I did say simplified didn't I ? Subject to the reservation to the Crown of all mining rights to valuable coal, minerals, gold, silver and diamond that may be therein and thereon, and etc etc etc....

I seem to remember something about Manhattan...

That's Manhattan England right ? Where English law applies ?

If not then let's just not expand things beyond these shores please please please or I will never get to the end.... Questions at the end ??? Not that I promise to be able to answer them all, or the accuracy of my analysis - remember, free legal advice is exactly worth every penny.

And is a very good reason I am not going to be drawn into commenting on or advising about a specific case, sorry Jason. Happy to chat, perhaps on the phone if at length rather than on here by pm, but not in an open forum and not with any reliance on anything I might say - my liability insurance lapsed with my practice after the heart attack !

 

[Terry wright]

So much to read....so many points many debatable.

Jeff,
"There's many thousands of miles of waterway that can be paddled in this country and just a few thousands that can't. Why not be happy with what you have? "

Slightly incorrect, actual figures are:

There are 4,540 kilometres (2,820 mi) of inland river and canal in England and Wales with navigation rights. There are over 65,000 kilometres (40,400 mi) of inland rivers with no access.

A reference with regard to water control and ownership is partially referred to in the link below quoting directly from a police letter. Page 3 paragraph 2.
I know it is opinion and not fact but so much of this debate is interpretation or opinion.
http://www.assemblywales.org/bus-ho...vidence from Narberth Canoe Club (PDF, 600KB)

I have never disputed that access over private land unauthorised is wrong and unlawful.

I am wary of submitting further posts for two reasons:
1. I am being misquoted and people are believing the misquote rather than reading the original post, understandable with such a long post.
2. My posts are obviously upsetting people so muchso that they are resorting to name calling and asterisk style obscenities. That could end up with the sites owners being liable and that is the last thing I would want for such a good site.

My final comment is that both sides are convinced that they are correct and have the law on their side. It will take time and probably a court case and subsequent appeals before the final resolution is achieved. I sincerely hope this is done in a friendly manner.
I truly believe that the majority of anglers and paddlers get on and respect each other. Unfortunately they are the 'silent' majority on both sides..

Tight lines lads.

 

[jasonbean1]

thanks windy....will be in touch

 

[Windy]

7) Posher's specific query about Criminal Damage....

Criminal Damage is an irrelevance in truth.

The question in Trespass is simply proof of "damage" required as an element to found the Civil action in Tort, generally without damage there is no trespass.

However, it seems from Rawson and Others v Peters (1972) 116 SJ 884 that trespass to fishing rights can be sustained against canoeists without proof of actual damage.

It is noteworthy that the Claimants in that case were awarded only nominal damages and given leave - ie. a boot up the arse from Lord Denning - to apply to the County Court for the real remedy, ie. an anticipatory injunction of the sort I have been banging on about.

Criminal Damage does not require that the object or legal rights interfered with are actually permanently damaged.

The squashed hat case is in point, but a better example is the chap who let down the tyres on a police car with the officers sitting sleeping on duty inside it, then sped past in his motor with predictably hilarious results.

Held that the simple alteration of state of an object without the owner's authority (ie. reduction of pressure of the tyres) is sufficient to found a charge of criminal damage, although the case is generally cited as extreme and more easily explained by the Court of Appeal's wish to protect Police officers from ridicule than anything else.

 

[jasonbean1]

So much to read....so many points many debatable.

Jeff,
"There's many thousands of miles of waterway that can be paddled in this country and just a few thousands that can't. Why not be happy with what you have? "

Slightly incorrect, actual figures are:

There are 4,540 kilometres (2,820 mi) of inland river and canal in England and Wales with navigation rights. There are over 65,000 kilometres (40,400 mi) of inland rivers with no access.

A reference with regard to water control and ownership is partially referred to in the link below quoting directly from a police letter. Page 3 paragraph 2.
I know it is opinion and not fact but so much of this debate is interpretation or opinion.
http://www.assemblywales.org/bus-ho...vidence from Narberth Canoe Club (PDF, 600KB)

I have never disputed that access over private land unauthorised is wrong and unlawful.

I am wary of submitting further posts for two reasons:
1. I am being misquoted and people are believing the misquote rather than reading the original post, understandable with such a long post.
2. My posts are obviously upsetting people so muchso that they are resorting to name calling and asterisk style obscenities. That could end up with the sites owners being liable and that is the last thing I would want for such a good site.

My final comment is that both sides are convinced that they are correct and have the law on their side. It will take time and probably a court case and subsequent appeals before the final resolution is achieved. I sincerely hope this is done in a friendly manner.
I truly believe that the majority of anglers and paddlers get on and respect each other. Unfortunately they are the 'silent' majority on both sides..

Tight lines lads.

Terry, i'm no expert on anything but that is the most vague back down i've ever seen...

can you answer my questions please seeing as you are a volunteer for the canals and rivers trust

 

[bennygesserit]

Windy I know I am impinging on your good will but this is a post from a member on SOTP

The Angling Trust and their friend R. Benyon MP have continuously failed to cite a law of this Kingdom that states canoeists have no right of navigation. The current state of affairs is a legacy from an age, when being a land owner meant they could keep people off "their" land. Sadly, too many believe that this illegal state is law. IT IS NOT.

The AT clearly have friends in high places, (they will topple) but with only 15,000 members they make far too much nonsense.

Doug

PS
The Angling Trust is very concerned that governing bodies of canoeing are frequently misstating
the law on navigation on rivers in England and Wales and thereby encouraging
conflict.

This copy from the AT statement, Benny refers to, talks about the law of navigation on rivers in England and Wales. The AT have never produced this law.

and my reply

I'll have to take it slowly as I have no legal training , firstly we are discussing a universal right to the canoeist to paddle anywhere as no one owns the actual water is that right ? I have sympathies with this view but I don't think its correct.
If you want a more informed view talk to Windy on FM but I'll try , you might be better just reading the links and posts I reposted , also we are not talking about the practicalities of enforcing that law - you just want the actual law all wrapped up in a neat bow ? is that right ?

I will do some reading honest ! but if you can tell me the name of the actual law that would be great , am I being too simplistic ?

 

[Windy]

2. My posts are obviously upsetting people so muchso that they are resorting to name calling and asterisk style obscenities.

With respect old chap that is outrageous. You are the one who started the ad hominem attacks - sod the merits of argument, go for the author.

See your post number 56 in this thread. Not good.

Pot, Kettle, and you seem to be the one putting the match to the kindling under both...

My final comment is that both sides are convinced that they are correct and have the law on their side.

If that is genuinely so then why is it that the paddling lobby doesn't put its membership funds into real use and apply to the High Court for a declaration ?

Instead of all this silly posturing and guerilla tactics, deliberate trespass and deliberate damage of fishermen's enjoyment of their sport where there is no public right to navigation.

Where there is a public right of navigation then so be it, paddle away, you might just as well argue with merit that the fishing lines in the water are impeding your free passage and good luck to you.

Your case, as I understand it, is that there is a time immemorial public right of navigation on all water in England and Wales capable of floating a boat of shallow draft such as a canoe, kayak or even punt. Therefore, except for waters where that right has been abolished by subsequent statute or other law, you can lawfully paddle anywhere you like.

OK, simple application for a declaration by the BCU etc in a matter of genuine public interest for your members and everyone in the country, confirm that there is such a general and blanket public right of navigation. Or not. Put up or shut up.

I think I know why there is no put up. It's fairly obvious that the BCU etc have taken advice* and know full well that your central proposition is simply wrong and that this is all about deliberately contumelious trespass, pure and simple.

(* from lawyers specialising in the field, in current practice and to whom I would undoubtedly defer for analysis if any such would care to post on this thread with BCU authority and permission. Although that won't be forthcoming for obvious reasons of legal privilege)

 

[bennygesserit]

My post in reply to Doug on Sotp
I think I can only reproduce what the AT has on its web site
THE LAW OF NAVIGATION ON FRESHWATER IN ENGLAND AND WALES
... cut some bits out here its on post 31 of this thread or on the AT web site ...
End.

And also an extract from Windy's post on FM ( feel free to join in the fun and talk to him direct on there )

1) Is the Magna Carta good law ?

Nope. It was repealed almost immediately after signature by Papal Bull. A Papal Bull had direct effect in English law at the time, was valid and final. Various provisions and clauses which were in the Magna Carta were re-enacted and re-framed in various charters and statutes thereafter. It is more than arguable that the effect of Papal Bull was to render such re-enactments void ab initio, but in any event almost all of the clauses so re-enacted have been repealed or over ruled by subsequent and more modern (ie. circa post 1700) statutes. Anyone invoking the Magna Carta in an argument about English law is IMHO just invoking a sub-division of Godwins law and loses credibility from there on.]

end quote

Coupled with the fact that it is possible to prevent canoeists paddling across a river which you own by seeking an injunction - I don't know anyone who has but I believe that to be the case ?


So can I give you the name of that Law Doug , no in all honesty , Has Windy changed my mind from my previous belief that you had universal access via canoe and could go anywhere you wanted , again in all honesty yes he has.

Should both sides be conciliatory and try and see the others point of view - I would hope so.

 

[Berty]

So much to read....so many points many debatable.

Jeff,
"There's many thousands of miles of waterway that can be paddled in this country and just a few thousands that can't. Why not be happy with what you have? "

Slightly incorrect, actual figures are:

There are 4,540 kilometres (2,820 mi) of inland river and canal in England and Wales with navigation rights. There are over 65,000 kilometres (40,400 mi) of inland rivers with no access.

A reference with regard to water control and ownership is partially referred to in the link below quoting directly from a police letter. Page 3 paragraph 2.
I know it is opinion and not fact but so much of this debate is interpretation or opinion.
http://www.assemblywales.org/bus-ho...vidence from Narberth Canoe Club (PDF, 600KB)

I have never disputed that access over private land unauthorised is wrong and unlawful.

I am wary of submitting further posts for two reasons:
1. I am being misquoted and people are believing the misquote rather than reading the original post, understandable with such a long post.
2. My posts are obviously upsetting people so muchso that they are resorting to name calling and asterisk style obscenities. That could end up with the sites owners being liable and that is the last thing I would want for such a good site.

My final comment is that both sides are convinced that they are correct and have the law on their side. It will take time and probably a court case and subsequent appeals before the final resolution is achieved. I sincerely hope this is done in a friendly manner.
I truly believe that the majority of anglers and paddlers get on and respect each other. Unfortunately they are the 'silent' majority on both sides..

Tight lines lads.

As i suspected, YOU are the one incapable of real discussion and simply like to pretend you are above the rest of us.

I have seen angling lost to much and will stand up and forcibly voice an opinion about our right to enjoy what we have PAID for and are LEGALLY intitled to.

May i remind you that it was YOU who started insulting people and ignoring others points of view.

Silent majorities rely on vociferous minorities to stand up and fight for them.......it has always been the way.

I drink ale and drive a truck, i talk as i do and make no apologises to anyone for it......but that doesn't mean i'm unfriendly.....just that you think your self above my type.

you aint!!!

 

[geoffmaynard]

Windy, I love you!

 

[Berty]

Should both sides be conciliatory and try and see the others point of view - I would hope so.

Benny, it would be nice to think so but as a seasoned river angler all i can tell you is that the vast majority of "paddlers" have no understanding of the needs of anglers and no desire to do so.......in short they don't give a damn and see us as idiots.

There are always some who understand but they are a very silent majority and kayaking IS ruining fishing.

 

[Windy]

Windy I know I am impinging on your good will but this is a post from a member on SOTP

You are a bit, and I repeat my warning about being drawn into actual cases and reliance.

The Angling Trust and their friend R. Benyon MP have continuously failed to cite a law of this Kingdom that states canoeists have no right of navigation.

The question itself is misconceived in its underlying assumptions. There is no such "law" as in written down piece of wisdom or statute which can be directly and definitively quoted as, "ta dah, the answer". It's like the right to free speech before the Human Rights Act made it statutory. It's common law.

The current state of affairs is a legacy from an age, when being a land owner meant they could keep people off "their" land. Sadly, too many believe that this illegal state is law. IT IS NOT.

News to me. As far as I am aware that's exactly what being a land owner meant and continues to mean, subject to such exceptions as the right to roam acts etc.

Equally that's exactly what the riparian owner and owner of the channel and riverbed is entitled to, unless over-ridden by an historically known and established general right of navigation. If there is a GRN the landowner / riverbed owner is stuck with it, if not they are entitled not to have trespassers paddling up and down.

BTW "General" plainly means that it is a right of navigation that anyone can exercise, not that it is a right that is "general" all over the country. I suspect that misunderstanding that fact is possibly the source of some of the canoeists confusion ? Perhaps some of them genuinely think they have a General right exercisable anywhere ?

If so then the sooner they are disabused then the better.

---------- Post added at 19:41 ---------- Previous post was at 19:33 ----------

Windy, I love you!

I know, but you refused to have my children and its too late to try and make up now.

I shall always treasure that one night tho....


...and the crushed bivvy bed

 

[bennygesserit]

Windy I take your point and I am very grateful for your time - cheques in the post mate , I work in IT and suffer in a similar fashion.

 

[Windy]

I think I am done for now....

There are so many side issues and red herrings I could go on for the rest of the night but I think I have hit the main issues of principle.

Now off to the dugout, tin hat on, and let the bombardment begin :wh

 

[Terry wright]

Jason,
First I have to say my reply is my personal opinion and I have no right, authority or intent to speak as a CRT representative.

Car park: Does your lease give you 'access' or 'exclusive'? Is there any guarantee of space for your members. I guess it is probably just access. I am sure if you had been aware of what the future held you would have negotiated the latter.
Is it at all possible to get a section gated off for your members?
River Access: If the hire company are leasing land for the business and probable buy a 'block; navigation permit then perhaps there is provision for a condition of a 'duty of care' for your fishery and access to it by their customers.
I may be talking rubbish but this is my personal opinion.

One word of warning for you. As the hire company is attracting bargee type people look closely at your towpath. Is it a 'hard edged' towpath? There are certain rules that you are probably aware of. Make sure you are clear what rights visiting boats will have to moor on your stretch of canal and

Good luck

---------- Post added at 20:25 ---------- Previous post was at 19:57 ----------

I said I was leaving but I cannot go without giving you a word of caution.

You have been advised that using a pole to prevent a kayak/canoe and it's occupant(s) from landing 'might' be acceptable.

Be very careful if you consider doing this. Anything can become an 'offensive weapon'. If you happened to catch a hand gripping the side of the boat, or missed the boat and caught a part of the paddlers body then your are into a new ball game.

I am genuine when I say that I dread to think of the headlines such an incident would cause and the repercussions between boyh sides. Be careful and do not leave yourself vulnerable to a serious charge.

 

[geoffmaynard]

Be very careful if you consider doing this. Anything can become an 'offensive weapon'. If you happened to catch a hand gripping the side of the boat, or missed the boat and caught a part of the paddlers body then your are into a new ball game.

I am genuine when I say that I dread to think of the headlines such an incident would cause and the repercussions between boyh sides. Be careful and do not leave yourself vulnerable to a serious charge.

Terry, I regularly fish a stretch of water where anglers wade whilst flyfishing. On at least six occasions this year I have witnessed a canoe party crash into anglers there; if the anglers concerned had been less than fit they could easily have drowned. There is no PRN on this stretch. Can you suggest something which will stop this happening as its an H&S nightmare, an accident waiting to happen. What do you suggest the riparian owners should do to address this situation?

---------- Post added at 22:04 ---------- Previous post was at 22:00 ----------

Perhaps Benny can post this question on the sotp website and see what the padders think ?

 

[Terry wright]

Geoff,
Sorry I have no resolution and I neither condone nor excuse them for their inconsiderate behaviour.

 

[bennygesserit]

Terry, I regularly fish a stretch of water where anglers wade whilst flyfishing. On at least six occasions this year I have witnessed a canoe party crash into anglers there; if the anglers concerned had been less than fit they could easily have drowned. There is no PRN on this stretch. Can you suggest something which will stop this happening as its an H&S nightmare, an accident waiting to happen. What do you suggest the riparian owners should do to address this situation?

---------- Post added at 22:04 ---------- Previous post was at 22:00 ----------


Perhaps Benny can post this question on the sotp website and see what the padders think ?

Geoff you could do it yourself , its easy.

I have done this a few times , I joined a polish fishing forum to talk about catch and release ( tricky subject - in Poland they say "break a rod" rather than tight lines )

I got the guy from the Abingdon Hydro Project to come and put his point of view across

Terry came here to put his point of view across , which I thought he did very well , its not even a hard thing to do.

Why don't you try it ?