Benyon Rejects Canoeists’ ‘Right to Paddle’ Campaign

[Windy]

For the avoidance of doubt I do not suggest that it is a good idea to use reasonable force in lawful self help in these circumstances, hence my reference to Tony Martin.

That word "reasonable" is one of the siren songs of the law, causes more problems than its worth. What is reasonable ? What a Judge and possibly a jury (if it is a criminal case) but more likely bench of woodentops, aka Magistrates, thinks is reasonable after the whole expensive and stressful process of arrest, bail, charge, months waiting on tenterhooks for the trial, the risks of that trial and the costs of said process.

Always a temptation for politicians (or more accurately the Civil Servants drafting legislation) to include the word reasonable all over the place as a way of making otherwise draconian legislation appear more palatable and more open to argument. It's bad practice.

Call a Policeman and have the canoeist arrested on the bank under Section 5 for harassment. If canoeing up and down someones private water disrupting fishermen about their lawful business isn't harassment and / or abusive behaviour then I don't know what is.

Sadly the Police are very likely to seek to dodge the issue by calling it a civil matter, even though it really isn't, in the way that they used to do with Domestic violence allegations in the days before it was a fashionable issue.

 

[Terry wright]

Windy,
It is not my place to dream of correcting you but you do contradict yourself and I am wary of posting this.

You firstly refered to avoidance of using any reasonable force but then went on to say:

"I see no problem at all with fending a canoeist away from the bank with a boat hook, nor with refusing him access back over my land to recover any car, vehicle or trailer illegally parked on my land. Although I might see a problem if the river were suddenly and dangerously to go into spate conditions or the canoeist had symptoms of a heart attack or other grounds of necessity to land."

The 'fending' would have to be done with the utmost care so that at no time could it be deemed 'reckless'. Which, like reasonable, is open to wide and varied interpretation.

Further the advice you give in the paragraph is addressed to the landowner but in this thread anglers may see it as being addressed to them.

I can see that your words are respected and almost revered here so I am sure you would not want anyone to misinterpret your advice.

 

[Windy]

Windy,
It is not my place to dream of correcting you but you do contradict yourself and I am wary of posting this.

You firstly refered to avoidance of using any reasonable force but then went on to say:

"I see no problem at all with fending a canoeist away from the bank with a boat hook, nor with refusing him access back over my land to recover any car, vehicle or trailer illegally parked on my land."

No problem, appropriate correction. I should have qualified that assertion by saying that "I see no problem in strict legal principle".

The 'fending' would have to be done with the utmost care so that at no time could it be deemed 'reckless'. Which, like reasonable, is open to wide and varied interpretation.

I entirely agree. Hence my qualification. You are right. I wouldn't advise anyone to actually do so, call the Police and pursue the Section 5 route, far safer.

My Mother, oddly enough, summed up the problem with standing on one's strict legal rights better than anyone I can remember when I was a young lawyer in training and frankly full of it.

"If you're waiting to cross a pedestrian crossing and a ten ton lorry is coming down the road at speed you may be within your strict legal rights to step on to the crossing in front of it, but don't complain when you get what's coming to you for your stupidity".

God I miss her. To Mums the world over, and mine in particular, God bless them all.

And any reverence is strictly misplaced, definitely. I am just cheap !

PS. Don't be wary of posting any honest and properly arguable opinion you might hold, if you feel unable to do so on here or anywhere then freedom of speech is diminished. Which I would hold to be far worse than any momentary intemperance in that speech.

 

[geoffmaynard]

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 ?

One reason is that I'm on an iPhone and its a pain in the Rs, another that I can't be bothered to go to the trouble of registering because its the only post I would ever make and thirdly because you are already doing such a good job of being a go between.

 

[Terry wright]

Windy,

I sincerely respect that.

Terry

 

[Windy]

Windy,

I sincerely respect that.

Terry

As I respect your evident sincerity and the way you have argued your position. No problem.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

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.

OK, so reverse my statement, but what is termed a 'river'? To give an example I have jumped across the Thames before now (well upstream, I'm not Superman), which some might argue is still a river, but to me at the time it was no more than a few feet wide and not deep enough for you guys to stick a paddle in - I wouldn't think...

Amongst 40,000 miles though there must be a few where you do have permission from landowners or someone does so I doubt that it is as bleak (pardon pun) as you state. However, if that is the case then maybe the BCU or the clubs can buy some extra navigation for you, can't expect everything for free. It's what we anglers have to do after all, we can't just fish anywhere we like so we have agreements with landowners/farmers in exchange for dosh to fish their parts of rivers.

It seems (dare I say) that you're a decent enough fellow and respect the privacy of landowners and riverkeepers so good luck to you. We should be indebted to Windy, as always, for his considerable knowledge and enlightenment on this subject. It's a made a normally dull Saturday night on the forums more interesting and thoughtful.

In the meantime, where we can share the water I hope we can do so in peace together in future.

 

[Windy]

In passing, looking back on it, when I did have a mini with a roof rack and canoes strapped on top of it in the '80s my girlfriend and I just stopped where we fancied and paddled regardless. I don't think we did any harm and I know where the lovers of freedom are coming from.

Am I a hypocrite ? I hope not, but there is far too much modern obsession with rights and not enough on either responsibilities or respecting the rights of others.

If someone were to try and restrict any rights of public navigation where it is established and legal then believe me, I shall be on my way to the waterside bringing my canoe to join (incompetently) in the protest.

 

[barbelboi]

Evan, what's the point?..........by the time you'd got there everyone else would have gone home
Jerry

 

[Terry wright]

You are right Jeff you can probably remove at least 10% off that figure.

The unfortunate thing about buying a stretch is that the 'paddle' is not a half mile stretch of river it is the complete journey.

Some seek to do a river from source to the sea, others seek to circumnavigate Wales by sea, river and canal. The journey is the thing and the nature you are privileged to see along the way.


For most it is done solo or as a pair. Very few like to travel in groups, much of the pleasure is lost with a crowd. The solitude and silence is what makes it precious much as it is for many anglers, I have always been one of the idiots who thinks that catching a fish is a bonus....the location and atmosphere are primary.

I hope I am around to see the solution, having said that I enjoy chatting with the anglers I have seen and I have retrieved many lures and floats and recieved sincere thanks for it.

 

[Windy]

Evan, what's the point?..........by the time you'd got there everyone else would have gone home
Jerry

Ouch. Sad but true.... always been a night bird, early mornings

I should perhaps take up night fishing for sea trout in the coming year !

 

[Berty]

You are right Jeff you can probably remove at least 10% off that figure.

The unfortunate thing about buying a stretch is that the 'paddle' is not a half mile stretch of river it is the complete journey.

Some seek to do a river from source to the sea, others seek to circumnavigate Wales by sea, river and canal. The journey is the thing and the nature you are privileged to see along the way.


For most it is done solo or as a pair. Very few like to travel in groups, much of the pleasure is lost with a crowd. The solitude and silence is what makes it precious much as it is for many anglers, I have always been one of the idiots who thinks that catching a fish is a bonus....the location and atmosphere are primary.

I hope I am around to see the solution, having said that I enjoy chatting with the anglers I have seen and I have retrieved many lures and floats and recieved sincere thanks for it.

I may have misjudged you and placed you in the wrong group of paddlers.......i can understand your reasoning after your last post, for i was the angling idiot who once thought a canoe would give me an insight into a river........i travelled alone and now fully understand your thoughts.

 

[barney20]

Sorry to come rather late to this disscussion, but I have a few things I would like to add.
First up I will be honest and state I am a canoeist, and I would like to thank bennygesserit for his posts on the SOTP canoe forum, which have been interesting and polite.

My main point is that Windy has stated why the Clauses of the Magna Carta do not apply, but no one has mentioned any of the other laws that are often quoted by those who argue in favour of a general right to navigate.
eg Act for Wears and Fishgarths 1472,
Many (All?) Navigation Acts seem to have wording that states the right to navigate
the river they refer to already existed, and the Act is just to allow for the river to be
improved.
If some one (Windy?) can provide a comprehensive legal arguement, based on legal instruments and case law, that discredits those arguements put by the BCU and the Rivers Access Campaign, there are a large number of canoeists who will stop paddling on rivers where there is not a Navigation Act.

There have been several references to money and the amount paid by anglers, I don't think this is relevant to the legal situation, car owners pay a variety of fees to have there vehicle on the road eg Road Fund Licence, Mot, Fuel Duty, etc, but a cyclist still has the right to use the road even though they pay nothing.
In fact canoeists are required to have a navigation licence on many rivers and canals and therefore are paying something.

I await a response with interest.

 

[Berty]

The money IS relevant........as is our right to enjoy in peace that for we pay for!

The comparison with bikes is irrelevant because the we are told that tax levied on motor vehicles is NOT for the maintaince of our roadways.

You are trespassing and causing grief and distress to other river users but no where do i hear or read of you giving a damn about that.

You are entitled to try to prove you have access, but the fact remains you have been told you HAVE NOT and untill such a time as you have written proof based upon modern law you should abide by the law of the day.

Just as i have to with regard to my car tax!!!

 

[geoffmaynard]

Barney, less vehemently but I have to agree with Bertie.
Can you please list exactly what these supposed 'arguments' by the BCU and the RAC comprise of?
The law has been clearly spelt out. The fact than these organisations don't like it is irrelevant, it's still the law. Attempting to weasel-word around the facts don't get anywhere, though it does give someone a money making bandwagon to profit from. Someone earlier compared the BCU to the caravan club which seemed a bit harsh. On caravanners

 

[bennygesserit]

Here is my latest post on sotp
I don't think anglers are voting to ban access , that isn't my impression.
I read a long article on FM where there was a choice for canoeists over whether they took the left or right fork in a stretch and so the anglers had provided signage and asked paddlers to use the much larger fork as the smaller fork is where matches were held.

Sure enough most were happy to comply but some , apparantley to prove a point , wouldn't and matches were spoiled.

Now , firstly i know most anglers and paddlers are happy to get along , it must be a nice sight to have someone languidly paddling past you , seems a nice peaceful image, its only the most vociferous , and usually on forums who have points to prove or stances to take.

I cycle quite a bit sometimes in the local park , I have a right to cycle whereever I want but if there is a footy match or cricket match on I don't cycle right through it , even though I have the right to.

Like I said you can spend all day feeding and preparing a swim and to have someone spoil that to prove a point seems a bit sad.

Maybe if you have to go through that stretch because of shallows or rocks you could explain why at the time , that would help I think.

Also this link provides the reasons why paddlers think they have a universal access right

Rivers Access for All

They invite comments

 

[Berty]

Sorry Benny but i don't think you have the right to cycle where you please either.......but i don't want to get drawn into a long drawn out debate on that one, at least not untill you attach your bike to your kayak and pedal through the roach swim that i have been feeding for 3 hours and is now responding

 

[Poshpaul (Angling Trust and PaSC)]

I have always been one of the idiots who thinks that catching a fish is a bonus....the location and atmosphere are primary.

Man of my own heart, Terry )

 

[geoffmaynard]

Also this link provides the reasons why paddlers think they have a universal access right

Rivers Access for All

They invite comments

I had a look Benny. To reinforce their case they quote Roman law and US law which don't apply in the UK anyway and the opinions of various authors and poets from down the ages. None of these are relevant. Perhaps more relevant are the other opinions of people and groups from recent years who have been involved, or have publicly commented (or quoted in or out of context) on their opinions. For which of course there are just as many counter-opinions. They don't seem to have any points of substance to me - it reads like a group of people objecting to laws they don't like. I'm sure if the mafia had a website it would object to laws against extortion, it don't make it right or legal though.
Words and websites are really cheap aren't they?

 

[barney20]

The money IS relevant........as is our right to enjoy in peace that for we pay for!

The comparison with bikes is irrelevant because the we are told that tax levied on motor vehicles is NOT for the maintaince of our roadways.

You are trespassing and causing grief and distress to other river users but no where do i hear or read of you giving a damn about that.

You are entitled to try to prove you have access, but the fact remains you have been told you HAVE NOT and untill such a time as you have written proof based upon modern law you should abide by the law of the day.

Just as i have to with regard to my car tax!!!

To be clear one group of people have told me I do not have the right to access, and another have told me I do have that right. I am trying to get a greater understanding so I can make my own mind up.

You say I need written proof based modern on modern law, law doesn't need to be modern to be valid and enforceable, laws don't expire with age. I accept the Magna Carta and roman laws are not very relevant.
But there are many laws far newer than this which state or imply the right to navigate all rivers exist, therefore if the right to navigate no longer exists a newer Act must have gone through parliament that repeals this right. If some one will tell me what this Act is I and many other canoeists will stop annoying you.

Richard Benyon has phrased his statements on this issue carefully and does not clearly state there is not a right to navigate, this makes me suspicious of his views, why does he not give a totally clear view.

---------- Post added at 09:51 ---------- Previous post was at 09:41 ----------

Barney, less vehemently but I have to agree with Bertie.
Can you please list exactly what these supposed 'arguments' by the BCU and the RAC comprise of?
The law has been clearly spelt out. The fact than these organisations don't like it is irrelevant, it's still the law. Attempting to weasel-word around the facts don't get anywhere, though it does give someone a money making bandwagon to profit from. Someone earlier compared the BCU to the caravan club which seemed a bit harsh. On caravanners

I have already listed the arguments, and I don't see where the law has been clearly spelt out.

You are right attempting to weasel-word around facts won't help, please tell me the facts, not your opinions. i.e the actual laws.

To be clear the Acts I refered to in my first post all state or imply the right to navigate existed, so where is the law that removed this right. The case law quoted by AT and others cannot over rule Acts of Parliment. If an Act does exist that removed the right to navigate please tell me what it is.