Results 1 to 47 of 47

Thread: DEFRA and Dr Caffyn

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,969

    Default DEFRA and Dr Caffyn

    I received this response when I requested information on legal opinions they might have obtained on Dr Caffyn
    l
    "Thank you for your email of 13 January 2013 asking for a copy of any legal opinion provided to the Department, either by internal or external lawyers, on the work of the Revd. Dr Douglas Caffyn on access to rivers. We have handled your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
    I am writing to advise you that the information that you have requested is not held by Defra. We are aware of the work of the Revd. Dr Douglas Caffyn but have not sought or received advice on it nor formed a legal opinion on the validity of his research. We therefore do not hold any advice received or given."
    Doug Dew
    "The best is yet to come" My Father


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Keynsham near Bristol
    Posts
    3,751

    Default

    Unbelievable!
    Keith

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    south doncaster
    Posts
    2,211

    Default

    does that translate as 'scared of monied landowners'?
    nature is m X-box

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southport, really in Lancashire, UK
    Posts
    2,016

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by andym View Post
    does that translate as 'scared of monied landowners'?
    Not so scared of the monied... but in league with them and a strong desire to protect them from the low life we are considered to be.

    My petition is still battling through to try and get to the truth over Public Rights of Navigation according to Rev. Dr. Caffyn's findings.

    Emails are flying to and fro my MP over my petition.

    Doug
    When there's trouble on shore, there's peace on the wave,
    Afloat in the White Canoe.
    Alan Sullivan


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Keynsham near Bristol
    Posts
    3,751

    Default

    If the reply to Doug is to be believed Owen Paterson gave his observations to parliament without his department having formed any opinion on the validity of the assertion in it. But since the observations made no reference whatsoever to the substance of the petition it probably didn't make any difference.
    Keith

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,969

    Default

    I should have mentioned that prompt and courteous response came from

    Richard Hepburn
    Commons and Access Implementation Team

    Zone 109,Temple Quay House
    Bristol
    Tel: 0117 372 3553

    Email: richard.hepburn@defra.gsi.gov.uk

    The response indicates to me that we need to up our attention seeking game... when is anyone in Government going to start taking us seriously?
    Doug Dew
    "The best is yet to come" My Father


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Doncaster
    Posts
    606

    Default

    Would there be any mileage in everyone on here to contact the same guy at DEFRA just to give an indication of scale. If we all ask the same question. Might be worth posting on UKRGB as well

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Keynsham near Bristol
    Posts
    3,751

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by andibs View Post
    Would there be any mileage in everyone on here to contact the same guy at DEFRA just to give an indication of scale.
    Past attempts at pressing our arguments through weight of numbers (e.g. petitions etc) have proved woefully unimpressive. The anglers have been much better organised. We will win recognition of the PRN through the quality of the evidence we present to those that are prepared to change their views not by the weight of numbers to those that have closed minds.

    If anyone on here really does have the will to do something, sign up as a supporter of River Access For All and become part of a coordinated campaign.
    Keith

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    717

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Burton on Trent
    Posts
    452

    Default

    Defra have moved house in cyberspace and guess what there is no reference to unregulated watercourses and no policy statement on access to rivers requiring VAAs. It looks like their previous policies have been consigned to the National Archive.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/polici...-rural-affairs

    https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/protecting-and-improving-people-s-enjoyment-of-the-countryside

    Have they decided not to be involved anymore or have they decided to pretend we do not exist?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southport, really in Lancashire, UK
    Posts
    2,016

    Default

    Hi Angut,

    Things have been unusually quiet over the past months. I will still be doing my bit and standing up for our rights.

    Doug
    When there's trouble on shore, there's peace on the wave,
    Afloat in the White Canoe.
    Alan Sullivan


  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Burton on Trent
    Posts
    452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dougoutcanoe View Post
    Hi Angut,

    Things have been unusually quiet over the past months. I will still be doing my bit and standing up for our rights.

    Doug
    Stuff is still happening I have sent them a FOI over their apparent lack of policy

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Burton on Trent
    Posts
    452

    Default

    http://www.anglingtrust.net/news.asp...ing+Trust+News

    It seems odd that AT do not cite any Defra document. Are they just whistling in the dark and making old stuff look new. Some of the quotes are old.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southport, really in Lancashire, UK
    Posts
    2,016

    Default

    The AT seems to be under pressure from anglers and possibly angling supply shops, to abolish the closed season.

    This will not do their conservation credentials any good.

    On the other hand the proposers for No Closed Season are indicating that spawning fish are not disturbed by human activity. Strange isn't it?

    Doug
    When there's trouble on shore, there's peace on the wave,
    Afloat in the White Canoe.
    Alan Sullivan


  15. #15

    Default

    Yeah there's no sign of anything supporting on the DEFRA site at all....even after keyword searching.

    I've also seen the majority of this alleged statement before, can anyone remember where or when?

  16. #16

    Default

    Hold on....the magic of Google, it was published in an email dated 28th October 2004

    http://www.gov.uk/government/uploads...cations_v2.pdf

    The DEFRA letter at the bottom of the doc ACTUALLY describes caffyns work as having been researched thoroughly and an important historic perspective. It also states that only the courts can provide a solution.
    Last edited by FlipT; 30th-May-2014 at 10:53 PM.

  17. #17

    Default

    I cant remember if its already been posted byt Andy, theres a link to the 20 May 14 Fish legal statement that AT have made their statement from http://www.accesscymru.org/Fish%20Le...2014-05-20.pdf

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Yep that is about right. Publish a 10 year old text as if it was new and change the wording in their own statement. Nothing new. DEFRA statement has changed since then.

    Thank you for your email of 13 January 2013 asking for a copy of any legal opinion provided to the Department, either by internal or external lawyers, on the work of the Revd. Dr Douglas Caffyn on access to rivers. We have handled your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
    I am writing to advise you that the information that you have requested is not held by Defra. We are aware of the work of the Revd. Dr Douglas Caffyn but have not sought or received advice on it nor formed a legal opinion on the validity of his research. We therefore do not hold any advice received or given.
    and then

    There is no clear case law on whether a 'common law right of navigation' exists on unregulated rivers. This is widely accepted to be an unclear and unresolved issue

  19. #19

    Default

    Is there much point in clutching at straws when we are all sinking.

    Get some Real qualified advice guys. Individual outbursts and bar room lawyers opinions are not good enough - as you should be able to see.

  20. #20

    Default

    In the words of DEFRA in 2004 as so well reposted as 'current' by fish legal;
    "Only the courts can decide"
    For paddlers we feel we can currently go as we please. We don't have massive issue with current access but would like to remove some of the conflict.
    Only the angling bodies with their fingers in ears are sinking, and it seems fish legal don't have the confidence in their view to take it to court.
    Horayy for another step to increased access for all water users!

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Burton on Trent
    Posts
    452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FlipT View Post
    In the words of DEFRA in 2004 as so well reposted as 'current' by fish legal;
    "Only the courts can decide"
    For paddlers we feel we can currently go as we please. We don't have massive issue with current access but would like to remove some of the conflict.
    Only the angling bodies with their fingers in ears are sinking, and it seems fish legal don't have the confidence in their view to take it to court.
    Horayy for another step to increased access for all water users!
    The question is why did Fish Legal feel the need to demonstrate that they are doing something when clearly there is no effective action to report. Is their inability to challenge my legal argument while I continue to assert the PRN on all and sundry causing disaffection among their supporters. Both the EA and Natural England have backed away from supporting Fish Legal's unsupported assertions on the lack of a general PRN. I am still waiting confirmation from Defra but it does look as if Defra is also backing away from AT's position. It is looking more and more like AT has become a toxic asset.

    Watch this space

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    1,629

    Default

    The Anglers hold the view that we need to ask permission from all the Riparian owners of a river we wish to navigate, this would give the same controls that exists on the land. If anyone wishes to cross private land the law is quite clear that excluding public rights of way the land owner can stop them and if he wishes charge them for using his land. There are numerous cases over a considerable period of this happening and being upheld by the courts, the most dramatic being "Ransom Strips" where someone obtains a small strip of land over which others need to cross to access their property, then charging absobident prices for it's use or purchase.

    If the law on the rivers was the same as on the land each Riparian owner would be in possession of a "Ransom Strip", in effect freezing navigation on all rivers, it is inconceivable to believe that if they had this power that no one has used it. There would be barriers across rivers with Toll booths as there was on some roads, has there ever been any? NO. If something has existed in the past there will allways be evidence of it either physical or documentary, there is no evidence to show that such a system has ever existed on our rivers, without any evidence to back up their claim that this is "Generally accepted to be the law" then there words are worthless.

    We are not lawyers so our opinions on the law are only that opinions, but the evidence to back up our opinions are available to everyone who wishes to look for it, Dr Caffyn did and found plenty, so let our Angler friends on the thread point us towards the evidence to back up there claims.
    "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"
    Grp Cpt Sir Douglas Bader CBE,DSO,DFC,FRAeS.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Burton on Trent
    Posts
    452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cloudman View Post
    If something has existed in the past there will allways be evidence of it either physical or documentary, there is no evidence to show that such a system has ever existed on our rivers, without any evidence to back up their claim that this is "Generally accepted to be the law" then there words are worthless.
    The words "Generally accepted to be the law" are always meaningless and only means that the persons making this statement can not support their assertions with any actual legislation or case law. The law is not determined by taking a straw poll among lawyers. The law is determined by fact, legislation and judgements in actual cases. Anyone faced with the phrase, "Generally accepted to be the law" should always demand that the authority for the assertion be presented according to the rules set out in PD - PAC that a clear statement of the case must be made.

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FlipT View Post
    In the words of DEFRA in 2004 as so well reposted as 'current' by fish legal;
    "
    Horayy for another step to increased access for all water users!

    Errr yes I agree, but it's backwards.

  25. #25

    Default

    [QUOTE=cloudman;534248]T
    We are not lawyers so our opinions on the law are only that opinions,

    This is true as well.

  26. #26

    Default

    Skipjack glad you agree. And yes Angling trust misquoting a document and posting it 10 years later out of context as up to date news is 'backward'

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Burton on Trent
    Posts
    452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skipjack View Post
    Errr yes I agree, but it's backwards.
    Backwards is an opinion but it would have to pass a reality check before it became a fact. To do this we would first have to define direction on the phase space of all possible outcomes then examine the possible trajectories from this step to the outcomes. Following Feynman we would then integrate over all possible paths to get the probabilities of the outcomes and thus determine an expectation value for the parameter "Backwards" Alternatively it would be simpler to await the outcome then we will know for certain because all possible paths would then have become one definite path.
    There are an infinite number of opinions when we don't know the truth.

  28. #28

    Default

    Backwards -a motion back towards the starting point. It doesn't need a reality check. Going backwards is exactly what it say's on the box and is understood by everyone -well nearly.
    The rest of the post is psuedo mumbo jumbo

  29. #29

    Default

    Exactly as I said, Angling trusts 2014 understanding of everything is that of 2004 ....it's like theyve gone back in time (but then I guess fishing licence numbers are on their way back to the 2004 figure too)

  30. #30

    Default

    So much misinformation Where do you get it from. Oh yes -Angut probably told you. What on earth has fishing licences got to do with anything.
    Have you flipped - Flip?

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Burton on Trent
    Posts
    452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skipjack View Post
    Backwards -a motion back towards the starting point. It doesn't need a reality check. Going backwards is exactly what it say's on the box and is understood by everyone -well nearly.
    The rest of the post is psuedo mumbo jumbo
    True everyone knows what backwards means in general but each particular instance of backwards does need a reality check to see if it really does conform to the general meaning of backwards.

    You fell straight into the trap and called the standard methods used in the science of physics mumbo jumbo. Thus demonstrating your usual modus operandii of rejecting all that you do not understand. In future we will have to take your negative statements as expressions of your own ignorance.

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Burton on Trent
    Posts
    452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skipjack View Post
    So much misinformation Where do you get it from. Oh yes -Angut probably told you. What on earth has fishing licences got to do with anything.
    Have you flipped - Flip?
    Bad guess I do not monitor fishing licence numbers. Do you have any real knowledge about anything or do you just believe everything that happens to be rattleing around in your own skull.

    Tell us the numbers for 2004 to 2013
    Last edited by Angut; 31st-May-2014 at 06:58 PM.

  33. #33

    Default

    Your ego is amazing. Like many others with over estimations of their own importance you believe everything you say has to be true and no one else knows anything. I have no idea what the fishing licence figures are and care even less. I have no idea what relevance this has to this forum.
    The problem you all seem to have is that anyone with a counter point of view, anyone who tries to let the light into you prejudices, just has to be a fisherman.
    Wrong again. There are many of us out there sick and tired of the way you portray our sport . You can't see it -won't see it- and like the facts even less.
    Your way is not necessarily the right way. Current reactions to it clearly show that. Swallow the pill, admit you were wrong and bring some commonsense to the table and talk to those who you will ultimately have to deal with.

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Burton on Trent
    Posts
    452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skipjack View Post
    Your ego is amazing. Like many others with over estimations of their own importance you believe everything you say has to be true and no one else knows anything. I have no idea what the fishing licence figures are and care even less. I have no idea what relevance this has to this forum.
    The problem you all seem to have is that anyone with a counter point of view, anyone who tries to let the light into you prejudices, just has to be a fisherman.
    Wrong again. There are many of us out there sick and tired of the way you portray our sport . You can't see it -won't see it- and like the facts even less.
    Your way is not necessarily the right way. Current reactions to it clearly show that. Swallow the pill, admit you were wrong and bring some commonsense to the table and talk to those who you will ultimately have to deal with.
    But you can't be bothered to give us any facts. Tell us about the current reactions. You only tell us your reactions.

    You complain of misinformation but refuse to give us facts to prove us wrong

    If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it must be a duck. If it talks like StealthFox and Brickbat and uses the same turn of phrase, what are we to think?

    What canoe do you use and where do you use it?

  35. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skipjack View Post
    So much misinformation Where do you get it from. Oh yes -Angut probably told you. What on earth has fishing licences got to do with anything.
    Have you flipped - Flip?
    Angling trust website mostly.
    ....and I'm simply adding that after having stagnated for 4 years, licenced anglers are decreasing. This has been attributed to a poor economy, though in the same period the more expensive outdoor sport tourism figures have increased dramatically.

  36. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Your ego is amazing.
    Skipjack, you said when you first appeared on these forums that you did not care about other statements and just wanted to go and paddle or do whatever you do and yet you have proved again and again that you cannot leave without having the last word.

    If you don't agree with what others are doing just go and paddle.... What is your problem?
    If you don't agree with other research and just want to paddle then go and paddle..... What is your problem?
    If you don't agree... say so... and give valid reasons why.... not just saying you disagree and everyone should aggree with you.

    Caffyn st all have placed references in there work so everyone can read the research. Once again after reading it all you may not agree but as you have said you would rather just go and do your own thing... So why don't you.....

    You have mentioned again and again about....

    Swallow the pill, admit you were wrong and bring some commonsense to the table and talk to those who you will ultimately have to deal with.
    Why would others want to if they believe there research is correct?
    If other bodies think they are wrong then they have the option to take them to court and try out all theories there.... In the mean time..... as you say you are not interested in the research/... then just go and paddle....

    I have no idea what relevance this has to this forum.
    I have no idea what the majority of your posts are about..... apart from seemingly trying to stir up arguments.

    You disagree with the approach by others..... that is fine...... just go and paddle.....
    It seems to are getting wound up by or are trying to wind up people of a different viewpoint....

    You have mentioned before you did not care about what others are doing... so why are you still posting on here which is a section about access and the research done etc.

    If you don't agree.... fine.... but why are you just not going and paddling.....

  37. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angut View Post
    But you can't be bothered to give us any facts. Tell us about the current reactions. You only tell us your reactions.

    You complain of misinformation but refuse to give us facts to prove us wrong

    If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it must be a duck. If it talks like StealthFox and Brickbat and uses the same turn of phrase, what are we to think?

    What canoe do you use and where do you use it?
    ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?. You lost me there! WHO???????????
    Think whatever you like

  38. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Burton on Trent
    Posts
    452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skipjack View Post
    ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?. You lost me there! WHO???????????
    Think whatever you like
    Ok I've lost you. Lets do it one at a time. What canoe do you use?

  39. #39

    Default

    You are totally illogical. What possible reason could you have for wanting to know that.

  40. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Burton on Trent
    Posts
    452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skipjack View Post
    You are totally illogical. What possible reason could you have for wanting to know that.
    If you could tell us that it would make you claim to be a canoeist more believable. It's another one of those reality checks. Quick answer no searching the internet.

  41. #41

    Default

    Oh God. Do I have to humour you again. Guess you won't sleep tonight unless I tell you.
    Its nothing exciting. M
    A Mad River Adventure 14 if you must know. I usually travel accompanied. Now give your computer a rest and get some sleep.
    Dream of PRNs all over the place but when you wake up let reality soak in.

  42. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Burton on Trent
    Posts
    452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skipjack View Post
    Oh God. Do I have to humour you again. Guess you won't sleep tonight unless I tell you.
    Its nothing exciting. M
    A Mad River Adventure 14 if you must know. I usually travel accompanied. Now give your computer a rest and get some sleep.
    Dream of PRNs all over the place but when you wake up let reality soak in.
    Anyone want to ask him any intimate detail about this canoe?

    Now the next one. Where do you paddle?

  43. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Now give your computer a rest and get some sleep
    likewise.... This is a forum post about DEFRA and Dr Caffyn, Lets try and keep it to that...

    You have already said you don't agree with the research being done. Then fine... just go and enjoy paddling.
    You seem to have a problem with people doing the research.... fine.... Just go and paddle.... stop worrying about it.... (and going round in circles)

    as for the EA and DEFRA. They have now changed there advice on paddling after various people have questioned there statements and sent them case law. If they still believed there original statements why are they now changed and they have admitted like the EA they have no juristriction over rivers they once said they controlled.

    As for DEFRA they said for years that paddlers were incorrect in there theories until the evidence was presented and they quickly changed there statements....
    Last edited by Quicky; 31st-May-2014 at 09:16 PM. Reason: Spelling

  44. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Bucks
    Posts
    6,902

    Default

    Ignorance of the law is no defence. Is that a fact or just barrack room lawyer stuff? Well, if the law is not clearly stated in statute then one must do what research one can and formulate your best assessment of what the law is, surely no one could bring a successful suit against you if you do this. If the best legal minds are saying the law is unclear then surely you could not be accused of breaking it. I have done what research I feel I could reasonably do and have made my mind up as to what I may and may not do within the law. If that doesn't coincide with your own assessment then I guess we will just have to live with it and so will anyone else who disagrees until someone wants to trouble the courts to come up with their determination.

  45. #45

    Default

    [QUOTE=Angut;534333]Anyone want to ask him any intimate detail about this canoe?

    Now the next one. Where do you paddle?[/QUOTE

    Are you serious!!! What do you think this is you meglomaniac. Sort sort of inquisition where I have to answer to you and your fellow zealots.
    All proceed into the distance with the light of the evangelical in your eyes led by the great Ph.D one and the barrack room lawyer. In other words. F*** Off. You are a disgrace to our sport!.

    I suppose now the Moderator will come riding to your defense, ignore your insults to me and ban me forthwith. Well it was ever so on here was it not.
    Last edited by skipjack; 1st-June-2014 at 09:31 AM.

  46. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Lochwinnoch, Scotland
    Posts
    17,244

    Default

    I'm locking this as I know this sort of nonsense is annoying so many members.

    The crircular childish posts are doing this forum no credit.

    shipjack have you seen the Monty Pythin argument sketch? Just saying no it isn't is not an argument. Make a point or give reasons for disputing the points of others but done just say no it isn't as it is a waste of time.

    Agnut / Quicky it makes no difference if shipjack is a paddler or not. If he make a great point but is a fisherman it is still a great point. If his argument cannot hold water but he is a canoeist then it is still a rubbish arguement. Frankly if you have to reply on the "he is a fisherman in disguise" defence then I see no merit in your points at all.

    There has been some great work and research been done on the access issue but unless we can learn to deal with challanges without lowering ourselves to childish responses the good will be hidden by the nonsense.
    John

  47. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Lochwinnoch, Scotland
    Posts
    17,244

    Default

    I was writing the post above while shipjack was making his post, which he now has an infraction for.
    John

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •