Fishing MPs

[Peter Jacobs]

I would totally agree with you Steve that a few well-aimed prosecutions would at the very least bring the topic back to the front pages.

The only problem being, just who would instigate and cover the costs of the case?

Also, what would the charge be likely to be?

Trespass?

Paddling outwith the Navigation Rights (as yet to be proven in the courts) or what?

It is a very complicated situation . . . . .

 

[thecrow]

It is a very complicated situation . . . . .

Should that not have been recognised by the trust before raising anglers hopes of a solution and the resulting fanfare of publicity that is becoming the norm for the trust.

I found this on the internet

Trespassing is usually a civil wrong and dealt with accordingly. However, in England and Wales certain forms of trespassing, generally those which involve squatters, raves and hunt saboteurs are covered by criminal law. There are offences under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 Sections 61 and 62 of trespassing on land and trespassing with vehicles. With this in mind, police attendance may be required. Otherwise the owner of the land may need to deal by way of injunction. If you are in any doubt, you should seek legal advice.

Is a canoe a vehicle?

 

[no-one in particular]

Should that not have been recognised by the trust before raising anglers hopes of a solution and the resulting fanfare of publicity that is becoming the norm for the trust.

I found this on the internet

Trespassing is usually a civil wrong and dealt with accordingly. However, in England and Wales certain forms of trespassing, generally those which involve squatters, raves and hunt saboteurs are covered by criminal law. There are offences under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 Sections 61 and 62 of trespassing on land and trespassing with vehicles. With this in mind, police attendance may be required. Otherwise the owner of the land may need to deal by way of injunction. If you are in any doubt, you should seek legal advice.

Is a canoe a vehicle?

Anything that carries people or goods or cargo I would have thought could be classed as a vehicle, some definitions quote boats.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Anything that carries people or goods or cargo I would have thought could be classed as a vehicle, some definitions quote boats.

The accepted definition of a "vehicle" is a device that has an energised source of power . . . . Energy can be extracted from the surrounding environment, as in the case of a sailboat, a solar powered car, or an American Streetcar.

Said energy must also be stored, in any form, provided it can be converted on demand and the storing medium's energy density and power density are sufficient to meet the vehicle's needs.

Now, personally I highly doubt if a canoe would qualify as a "vehicle" and any lawyer worth his grand-a-day would easily be able to disregard it . . . . .

 

[binka]

I would totally agree with you Steve that a few well-aimed prosecutions would at the very least bring the topic back to the front pages.

The only problem being, just who would instigate and cover the costs of the case?

Also, what would the charge be likely to be?

Trespass?

Paddling outwith the Navigation Rights (as yet to be proven in the courts) or what?

It is a very complicated situation . . . . .

I know, sadly it's the old chestnut Peter

I have been given to understand, from the link below on the CPS.GOV website, that the civil offence of trespass escalates to a criminal offence if the person involved becomes so much as abusive to not only the land owner but anyone with the right to be on the land which they term as...

"they have used threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour to the occupier, the occupier's family, employees or agents;"

That quote also defines the point at which the CPS see as the transition from a civil to a criminal offence and hence should then be dealt with by the Police and not via the private actions and expense of an individual.

I've filmed one particular paddler doing just this but when reported to the Police it didn't even get a reply from the person who was supposedly our designated rural crime officer

Trespass and Nuisance on Land: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service

I think it is possible to prosecute, by the definition of the CPS themselves it would appear that I have a cast iron case especially where, as in this instance, paddlers have gained access to a river with no PRN over dry (private) land but with that kind of response there's just no hope, hence me not believing that the will exists amongst the authorities to tackle the problem.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

"they have used threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour to the occupier, the occupier's family, employees or agents;"

. . . and therein lies the "hook" on which to hang a potential case.

I've filmed one particular paddler doing just this but when reported to the Police it didn't even get a reply from the person who was supposedly our designated rural crime officer

If that were me then I would continue to take the complaint right up the entire chain of command and not to let it lie until I have received a suitable reply.

I know that takes lot of effeort and you will be met with many a blind alleyway but in the end you will get a proper response.

In my experience a letter from your MP usually prompts the Police into action . . . .

 

[thecrow]

. . Energy can be extracted from the surrounding environment, as in the case of a sailboat,

Stretching a point here I know but isn't a canoe that is not being paddled but using the current of the river to move extracting energy from the surrounding environment?

---------- Post added at 12:00 ---------- Previous post was at 11:59 ----------

I've filmed one particular paddler doing just this but when reported to the Police it didn't even get a reply from the person who was supposedly our designated rural crime officer

And that's the reason why I have always said that the publicity put out by the trust and the police is just that PR rubbish.

---------- Post added at 12:01 ---------- Previous post was at 12:00 ----------

In my experience a letter from your MP usually prompts the Police into action . . .

Why should it need that? are we all not entitled to the same protection from the law?

 

[no-one in particular]

Now, personally I highly doubt if a canoe would qualify as a "vehicle" and any lawyer worth his grand-a-day would easily be able to disregard it . . . . .

A grand a day!, criminal-should be a law against it.TIC

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Stretching a point here I know but isn't a canoe that is not being paddled but using the current of the river to move extracting energy from the surrounding environment?

That would, in my view be needing to be proven in court and it is not a topic I'd want to try to propose.

---------- Post added at 12:00 ---------- Previous post was at 11:59 ----------



And that's the reason why I have always said that the publicity put out by the trust and the police is just that PR rubbish.



---------- Post added at 12:01 ---------- Previous post was at 12:00 ----------
The Angling Trust can only become engaged when requested by a member, an in this case the onus of responsibility is firmly in the hands of the Police and nothing to do with the Trust.


Why should it need that? are we all not entitled to the same protection from the law?

Of course we are all entitled to protection under the laws of the land, it is just sometimes that you need to pursue your claim or petition using whatever methods are necessary, and that us also what your PO is there for . . . . .


---------- Post added at 09:05 ---------- Previous post was at 07:21 ----------

A grand a day!, criminal-should be a law against it.TIC

Really?

In fact a grand per day is relatively cheap for a qualified and experienced Barrister.

Remember, it takes around 7 to 8 years to become qualified, including a law degree, a year or two as an intern (unpaid usually) and then to take the Bar exam.

My daughter has just begun her career and in is reading law at uni' o she has a very mong at ot go form now.

Comparatively speaking, many of the senior managers in my field who are consultants earn the same sort of day rate . . . . .

 

[thecrow]

Peter you said The Angling Trust can only become engaged when requested by a member, an in this case the onus of responsibility is firmly in the hands of the Police and nothing to do with the Trust

My comment about PR was because both the police AND the trust have been involved together in publicity about doing this that and the other that at the end of the day has been shown to be nothing more than PR. If it wasn't then Steve would not have received the service he did from them regarding the paddler he filmed.

---------- Post added at 10:02 ---------- Previous post was at 09:58 ----------

Of course we are all entitled to protection under the laws of the land, it is just sometimes that you need to pursue your claim or petition using whatever methods are necessary, and that us also what your PO is there for

Its the job of the police to take action against law breakers, in the case of paddlers they haven't and worse than that have ignored a complainant, like I said just PR rubbish.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Peter you said The Angling Trust can only become engaged when requested by a member, an in this case the onus of responsibility is firmly in the hands of the Police and nothing to do with the Trust

My comment about PR was because both the police AND the trust have been involved together in publicity about doing this that and the other that at the end of the day has been shown to be nothing more than PR. If it wasn't then Steve would not have received the service he did from them regarding the paddler he filmed.

I do not agree that it is simply PR. If you check with people like Phil Hackett he can prove to you that a lot of success can and has been made elsewhere.

---------- Post added at 10:02 ---------- Previous post was at 09:58 ----------



Its the job of the police to take action against law breakers, in the case of paddlers they haven't and worse than that have ignored a complainant, like I said just PR rubbish.

In the case of the paddlers it is just not a simple action to embark upon, mainly because we have yet to have a full legal ruling on the PRN question; unless and until we do, then we only have the relatively weak "Trespass" to fall back on.

 

[thecrow]

Peter you said I do not agree that it is simply PR. If you check with people like Phil Hackett he can prove to you that a lot of success can and has been made elsewhere.

Yes I remember Phis account, if I remember correctly the action was prompted by the chief constable being involved but not through having to chase people for action to be taken, like I said PR rubbish.

---------- Post added at 10:16 ---------- Previous post was at 10:14 ----------

In the case of the paddlers it is just not a simple action to embark upon, mainly because we have yet to have a full legal ruling on the PRN question; unless and until we do, then we only have the relatively weak "Trespass" to fall back on.

Then why did the trust put out all the publicity they did about this? if they did not know how complicated abd expensive it could be they were very naieve, if I was a cynic I would say it was an attempt to get anglers to join them but they wouldn't do that would they?

 

[Peter Jacobs]

It is almost gratifying, in a rather perverse manner, to see that in this ever-changing world that the one of the very few constants is that the Crow will always take every available opportunity to . . . .











Have a pop at the Angling Trust.

:wh

 

[thecrow]

And conversely you take every opportunity to defend the indefensible and having a pop at me will not change my views,

Like I said PR rubbish.

Might I remind you of what was said by ML on here about sponsorship from polluters.

We do get some sponsorship of Riverfest, the new national competition we set up which has been incredibly successful, and of Tidefest in London, from water companies like Thames Water and Severn Trent. To be honest, we couldn’t find anyone else who would provide the financial support needed to get these competitions off the ground

Talk about hypocrisy, this only shows the contempt the trust hold anglers in when it comes to money, selling ones soul to the devil comes to mind, oh how I wish that Fish Legal were nothing to do with them.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

And conversely you take every opportunity to defend the indefensible and having a pop at me will not change my views,

Not true, as any even cursory review of my posts will show.

Like yourself I dislike, and say it on here, that the Trust should not be accepting sponsorship from the Country's main polluter.

Even so, I will continue to support publically the Trust when they have their successes while reserving the right to voice my concerns regarding things that go against the grain.

oh how I wish that Fish Legal were nothing to do with them.

I take it that you are maybe one of those who mourns the passing of the ACA?

Are you aware that you can contribute to support Fish Legal without being a member of the Trust?

 

[thecrow]

I take it that you are maybe one of those who mourns the passing of the ACA?

Are you aware that you can contribute to support Fish Legal without being a member of the Trust?

Yes I am but I will not contribute anything when I don't trust where my money will go, in short I don't trust the trust.

---------- Post added at 09:04 ---------- Previous post was at 09:00 ----------

Like yourself I dislike, and say it on here, that the Trust should not be accepting sponsorship from the Country's main polluter.

Even so, I will continue to support publically the Trust when they have their successes while reserving the right to voice my concerns regarding things that go against the grain.

That's your choice Peter, mine on the other hand is to criticise the hypocrisy of the trust whenever I can, I will never contribute to an organisation that is willing to take money from a polluter "because there was no one else" that imo is not and never will be a reason for taking money from Thames Water or indeed any other polluter.

---------- Post added at 09:06 ---------- Previous post was at 09:04 ----------

I take it that you are maybe one of those who mourns the passing of the ACA?

I was a long time member both as an individual and through the specimen group I was secretary of.

 

[binka]

Hello Mark,

I've checked the Trust's website but can't see anything relating to this announcement, I appreciate it may have dragged on further than anticipated but is there any news and if not when do you expect to be in a position to offer an update?

Many thanks.

Appreciating that this issue might be dragging on longer than expected I have emailed the Trust to repeat the above question.

As soon as I receive a reply I will let everyone know.

---------- Post added at 17:10 ---------- Previous post was at 15:28 ----------

Credit where credit is due, Mark Lloyd has very kindly replied to me earlier and very quickly too.

As suspected the issue is dragging on, with Mark's permission I can post the details of his reply by way of an update:


Hi Steve,

Thanks for your understanding. You’re right, it has dragged on longer than we had hoped, due to the intransigence of British Canoeing.

We have just commissioned some more legal advice from a QC and when we have received that then we will be making a further public statement. This will almost certainly be by the end of November and possibly sooner.

Feel free to post this information on the Forum and thanks for getting in touch.

All best wishes

Mark

PS Do contact me direct if you wish on this e-mail address


Fingers crossed now for a positive outcome for us

 

[thecrow]

Thanks for the update Steve.

 

[rubio]

How about filling time waiting with fishy MP's;
Amber Rudd and NicolaSturgeon

Any others?

 

[binka]

How about filling time waiting with fishy MP's;
Amber Rudd and NicolaSturgeon

Any others?

Alex Salmon-d?