Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 60 of 89

Thread: Access Rights

  1. #1

    Default Access Rights

    Great work from Phillip Thomas!

    Please join this campaign: http://www.change.org/p/natural-resourc ... e_petition

    "Since their first application for funding in 2012 under the name 'Welsh Dee Fishing Ltd' the Welsh Government have stated that the Law is 'unclear' regarding navigation of our rivers as a blanket statement. In this light, it can not be considered appropriate to award public funding to an organisation made up of angling interests whom independently have made it very clear they wish to reduce and heavily restrict the main water users (canoes and kayaks) without the legislation to support them.

    By providing SPLASH funding to a group with published interest in reducing access as recently explored in the media - including the BBC One show, you are effectively providing a government seal of approval to their viewpoint, which may in due course be proven incorrect in law. We would ask that you take a neutral stance in this matter and seek another method of encouraging fair usage of our rivers until the law is clarified.

    All members of public, including those who take their children to the river to feed the ducks, paddle in the water, canoe, swim or kayak in/on the river anywhere in Wales should take interest in this petition.

    Welsh Dee Partnership Ltd rules (which are not supported in law) prohibit all non angling users from the water for the majority of daylight hours, and have been given government support in order to publicise and police their rules.

    If we do not stand against such elitist schemes whose aim is to restrict our rivers for exclusive use by a minority there is chance for them to pop up all over the country - paid for with public funds."

  2. #2

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    4,760

    Default

    Shouldn't this be in 'access' ?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mid-Wales (River Wye)
    Posts
    1,103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus2 View Post
    Shouldn't this be in 'access' ?
    The clue is in the title

  5. #5

    Default

    Where ever it fits best, but where ever it gets the most views would also be good.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Stone , Staffs
    Posts
    1,787

    Default

    Change the thread title and leave it here

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    1,547

    Default

    Petition signed, Well done.

    We must remember that this is a private agreement between those who signed it, it is only binding for the signatories or any private landowner who wishes to impose it on anyone launching from his property. If the signs are displayed in such a way as to give the impression that it is binding on the general public launching from public property then they are fraudulent and we should do all we can to get them removed.
    "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"
    Grp Cpt Sir Douglas Bader CBE,DSO,DFC,FRAeS.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Stone , Staffs
    Posts
    1,787

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cloudman View Post
    Petition signed, Well done.

    We must remember that this is a private agreement between those who signed it, it is only binding for the signatories or any private landowner who wishes to impose it on anyone launching from his property. If the signs are displayed in such a way as to give the impression that it is binding on the general public launching from public property then they are fraudulent and we should do all we can to get them removed.
    They have already said that the general public paddling outside the WDP agreement will be callenged by the so called access officer ...

    And if you read the papers they seem to think its a landmark agreement

    http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/nort...access-7731861


    The WDP aggrement in full very much aimed at all rivers users and banning swimmers and even rolling a kayak and play boating on parts of the river

    http://www.welshdeepartnershipltd.co.uk/river_access
    Last edited by pipster3; 24th-September-2014 at 06:59 PM.

  9. #9

    Default

    There...you've got permission. What more do you want!

  10. #10

    Default

    What i and i imagine the rest of the paddling/swimming communities and almost certainly the public at large would like is for the "gerr orff maaa laaand" brigade to realise water isnt land and stop banging on about permission.
    Promoting sustainable access on the welsh Dee from gradientfood.com - an outdoor sports themed sandwich bar in Llangollen

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Dinnington, Sheffield
    Posts
    1,920

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robbo11 View Post
    There...you've got permission. What more do you want!
    Never needed 'permission' thanks.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    3,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Falcn View Post
    Never needed 'permission' thanks.
    Right On Keith.............and fair play Gradient food! They'll get my custom next time I paddle the Dee.....(in a responsible manner)......which will be whenever I feel like it.......and not on the whim of this money grabbing partnership
    All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mayobren View Post
    Right On Keith.............and fair play Gradient food! They'll get my custom next time I paddle the Dee.....(in a responsible manner)......which will be whenever I feel like it.......and not on the whim of this money grabbing partnership
    Taa very much!
    Promoting sustainable access on the welsh Dee from gradientfood.com - an outdoor sports themed sandwich bar in Llangollen

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Dinnington, Sheffield
    Posts
    1,920

    Default

    FlipT - I'm there this weekend - where are you ? I'll pop in for breakfast mate

  15. #15

    Default

    [QUOTE water isnt land and stop banging on about permission.[/QUOTE]

    Neither is the airspace above or the stata below land, but it is owned. Authority; Skyviews. Bacardo (subject to fracking rights now).

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Somerset
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    Nice to see you back Robbo11. Your comments are as entertaining as ever.
    ​Change is inevitable; progress is optional.

  17. #17

    Default

    Robbo, i dont believe mentioning airspace or stata - nor actually the ownership of the water - just the permission. Correct me if i am wrong but fracking is being done without landowner consent?.....and aircraft above the landowner without their consent? Not sure i can fathom the relevance but i thought i would reply.

    Falcn - im on Oak street in llangollen. If you look up gradientfood.com - its a half effort of a page but the map and menu are there (or search it on facebook)
    Look forward to seeing you!
    Promoting sustainable access on the welsh Dee from gradientfood.com - an outdoor sports themed sandwich bar in Llangollen

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    1,547

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pipster3 View Post
    They have already said that the general public paddling outside the WDP agreement will be callenged by the so called access officer ...
    And if you read the papers they seem to think its a landmark agreement

    http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/nort...access-7731861

    The WDP aggrement in full very much aimed at all rivers users and banning swimmers and even rolling a kayak and play boating on parts of the river

    http://www.welshdeepartnershipltd.co.uk/river_access
    Just because they say it and the papers print their spin does not make it legal, for it to be legal they first have to prove they have the right to control navigation. As we know they have not been able to do that, so as I said it is a private agreement and only concerns those who signed it.

    I used the term fraudulent as I believe the misuse of this agreement constitutes a fraud, maybe the legal eagles may wish to comment.

    http://www.sfo.gov.uk/fraud/what-is-fraud.aspx
    "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"
    Grp Cpt Sir Douglas Bader CBE,DSO,DFC,FRAeS.

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FlipT View Post
    Robbo, i dont believe mentioning airspace or stata - nor actually the ownership of the water - just the permission. Correct me if i am wrong but fracking is being done without landowner consent?.....and aircraft above the landowner without their consent? Not sure i can fathom the relevance but i thought i would reply.
    You said water isn't land. Well my point, with the authority found in Skyviews, is that the airspace to a reasonable height above land isn't land either, but it is owned. That means that I cannot come into your garden and float around on a noisy jet pack without you seeking a remedy. The judges didn't care whether you were fishing your garden pond at the time or not.
    Bacardo has been qualified only to allow fracking at depths under your land.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Hebrides
    Posts
    3,169

    Default

    I believe that that the property ownership rights that extend to the space above the land were determined by cases in civil courts.

    What cases in civil courts have established property rights over who may travel on a flowing river passing through the land?

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Quercus View Post
    I believe that that the property ownership rights that extend to the space above the land were determined by cases in civil courts.

    What cases in civil courts have established property rights over who may travel on a flowing river passing through the land?

    Attorney General Ex rel Yorkshire Derwent Trust Ltd v Brotherton [1992] 1 A.C. 425 (HL)
    Attorney-General v Earl of Lonsdale [1868] LR7 Eq 377- 391
    Banèr v Sweden, No. 11763/85
    Bernstein of Leigh (Baron) v Skyviews & General Ltd. [1978] 1 QB 479
    Bliss v Hall [1838] 4 Bing NC 183
    Bourke  v.Davis [1889] 44 Ch.D. 110
    Dawes v Hawkins [1860]
    De Keyser's Royal Hotel v Spicer Bros Ltd [1914] 30 TLR 257
    Duke of Buccleugh v. Cowan [1866] 5 M. 214
    Ellis v Loftus Iron Co [1874] L.R. 10 C.&.P 10
    Hargreaves v Diddam [1875]
    Holford v Bailey, (1849) 13 Q.B. 426
    John Trenberth v National Westminster Bank [1979] 39 P & CR 104
    Mayor of Lynn v. Turner1 Cowp. 86
    Menzies v Breadalbane [1828] 32 R.R. 103
    Murphy v Ryan [1868] Ir.R. 2 C.L. 143
    Oxfordshire County Council v Oxford City Council [2004] Ch 253, [2004] EWHC 12 (Ch.)
    Rex v Montague [1825] 4 B. & C. 598, 601
    Rowland v The Environment Agency [2003] All ER (D) 386
    Sim E Bak and An others v Ang Yong Huat [1923] A.C. 429
    R (on the application of Wayne Smith) v Land Registry and Cambridgeshire C.C. [2010]
    Simpson v Attorney-General and Others [1904] A.C. 476
    Sir James Grant and others v Duke of Gordon [1782]
    Star Energy Weald Basin Limited v Bocardo SA [2010] UKSC 35
    Sturges v Bridgman [1879] 11ChD 852
    Tilbury v Silva [1889] 45 Ch Div 98
    Tyler v Wilkinson [1827] 24 F. Cas. 472
    WillsTrustees v Cairngorm Canoeing and Sailing School Limited [1976]S.C. (H.L.) 30
    Wood v Waud [1849], 3 Exch. 748, 154 Eng. Rep. R. 1047
    Woolerton and Wilson Ltd v Richard Costain Ltd [1970] 1 WLR 411.

  22. #22

    Default

    An impressive list of cases yes - but none actually relevant....
    Promoting sustainable access on the welsh Dee from gradientfood.com - an outdoor sports themed sandwich bar in Llangollen

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FlipT View Post
    An impressive list of cases yes - but none actually relevant....
    Each of these cases has decided, or has been used to decide, who can and who cannot use certain water for some type of navigation. This is by no means an exhaustive list. The human race has squabbled about access and ownership over water for centuries and sadly that is likely to continue.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Somerset
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    Robbo, I'm not for one moment suggesting that you might put up such an exhaustive list of cases to baffle and bemuse, but if there is soooo much case law, why are there not regular prosecutions by land owners (and don't quote the one where the paddler did not offer a defence)?
    ​Change is inevitable; progress is optional.

  25. #25

    Default

    English case law reports are often stranger than fiction and great fun to read. How Lord Davidson turned Wills Trustees on the discovery, while keeping the law library, of Duke of Gordon! In answer to your question, there are surprisingly few cases of trespass to land being heard currently, especially when you consider how populated the country is. Perhaps it is because the remedies are nominal and injuctions are equitable and discretionary. Cases against canoeists have been traditionally hard to advance because the buggers slip down the far bank and out of sight before they can be collared.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Romsey, Paddle estuaries within an hour, also club member and coach, and scout canoeing helper
    Posts
    657

    Default

    Of course Robbo will have checked each case to ensure it is relevant to navigation on non tidal waters where there isn't (or wasn't) a statutory or other recognised public right of navigation.
    Hargreaves V Diddams concerned public rights to fish on a river made navigable by several acts of parliament and only confirms owner of soil has rights to fishing. It states the right to navigation system s one of locomotion only, i.e the rigjt to pass and re pass so does not extend to any rights associated with the soil (e.g. fishing).
    Also have all of those cases considered the current evidence for any historical right of navigation?
    If I wanted to come onto your land and take fish, divert the water or take gravel from the river then most of those cases apply. Navigation by paddling does none of these so listing unrelated cases creates a misleading view of the situation.
    Perhaps you would like to revise your list?
    Brevan,
    1664 - a great year for river access
    Romsey, Hampshire
    Twitter: BrevanM
    Follow my blog at http://riveraccessrights.blogspot.com/

  27. #27

    Default

    No, that is not what was asked by Quercus. You seem to be asking another question; what cases would Their Lordships follow is passing down a judgment against a PRN across England and Wales? I am afraid only they will know that, if indeed they chose to take it.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Poole, Dorest
    Posts
    240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pritch1 View Post
    Great work from Phillip Thomas!

    Please join this campaign: http://www.change.org/p/natural-resourc ... e_petition

    I see that 800 have signed it so far but what is the significance when it says, "200 is needed"

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Keynsham near Bristol
    Posts
    3,742

    Default

    Robbo, No-one disputes the existence of riparian rights to fishing or to navigation. But our claim is to the existence of public rights of navigation. I think you will agree that it is accepted that public rights are superior to private rights. What matters therefore are the cases where public rights (using the evidence and arguments now available) were ruled not to exist.
    I'm not familiar with all the cases you cite but I'll pick just a few

    1. Hargreaves v Didhams dealt with the claim that since the Itchen Navigation (there's a clue there) was navigable, there was also a public right to fishing. No one disputed the Public Right of Navigation on the Itchen and the court ruled that this was different to a public right of fishing which did not exist there.
    2. Rowland v The Environment Agency was about whether the non use of navigation rights and the encouragement of the EA for Mrs Rowland to believe that the rights had in some way lapsed following the diversion of the normal navigation channel had actually ended PRN. The ruling by the House of Lords was that it hadn't, that despite anything said or done by anybody, once a PRN always a PRN unless parliament, or a statutory body delegated by parliament, ended them. The EA and the expensive lawyers that advised Mrs Rowland did not have that authority and therefore the PRN still existed.
    3. Simpson v Attorney-General and Others. The House of Lords ruled that there was a PRN between the locks and a right to portage around the locks but no obligation on the proprietors of the locks to maintain them forever at their own expense once they stopped collecting tolls.
    4. WillsTrustees v Cairngorm Canoeing and Sailing School Limited. The House of Lords ruled that the PRN established by floating logs downstream was in all ways superior to any riparian rights. It also established that a PRN, even if establish by floating logs downstream, applied to all navigation, upstream and downstream for recreation and training as well as commerce and was not lost by non use over an extended period.


    Lets keep it simple rather than play the game of "my list is longer than your list"! Educate us that we are wrong in the views we hold on these four cases or concede the points and then pick 3 or 4 of your own.
    Keith

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Somerset
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by poolebay View Post
    I see that 800 have signed it so far but what is the significance when it says, "200 is needed"
    I think the "200 needed" is to reach the target of 1000. Not bad given that I think the original target was 100!
    ​Change is inevitable; progress is optional.

  31. #31

    Default

    I suspect my list will always be longer than yours, as an alumnus with access to Lexus and Westlaw. There isn't a snowballs chance in hell of me educating you at all, we both know that. It is a pointless exercise which I am not about to enter into. In any case, my interest in the subject has waned since I put it into perspective.

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Keynsham near Bristol
    Posts
    3,742

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robbo11 View Post
    I suspect my list will always be longer than yours, as an alumnus with access to Lexus and Westlaw.
    I expect Josie Rowland had some of those on her team - but it didn't change the law!
    Keith

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robbo11 View Post
    I suspect my list will always be longer than yours, as an alumnus with access to Lexus and Westlaw. There isn't a snowballs chance in hell of me educating you at all, we both know that. It is a pointless exercise which I am not about to enter into. In any case, my interest in the subject has waned since I put it into perspective.
    Does that mean that despite an impressively long list of citations you don't actually have anything that really supports your point of view?

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    717

    Default

    I suspect my list will always be longer than yours,
    I have a big list.... and I still forgot the jam....

    but have you actually got anything more?

    How about links to your acts or cases and reference to were you think are the relevant points....

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Romsey, Paddle estuaries within an hour, also club member and coach, and scout canoeing helper
    Posts
    657

    Default

    If you believe that flowing non tidal water* is exclusively private property then of course all these cases support your view. From there it is reasonable to assume any court will accept that volume of case law in making any new.judgement. Most people find it hard to be objective and will see what they want to see. That applies to both sides in a dispute.
    *where there is no statutory right of navigation.
    Brevan,
    1664 - a great year for river access
    Romsey, Hampshire
    Twitter: BrevanM
    Follow my blog at http://riveraccessrights.blogspot.com/

  36. #36

    Default

    Robbo, I think it's spelled "Lexis".

  37. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    546

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robbo11 View Post
    I suspect my list will always be longer than yours, as an alumnus with access to Lexus and Westlaw. There isn't a snowballs chance in hell of me educating you at all, we both know that. It is a pointless exercise which I am not about to enter into. In any case, my interest in the subject has waned since I put it into perspective.
    I'd love to have a Lexus but I can only afford a Toyota
    Mike

  38. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brevan View Post
    If you believe that flowing non tidal water* is exclusively private property...
    I don't Brevan, it isn't.

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KeithD View Post
    I expect Josie Rowland had some of those on her team - but it didn't change the law!
    Correct. Those laws were the Thames Preservation Act 1885 and Thames Conservation Act 1932

  40. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Keynsham near Bristol
    Posts
    3,742

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robbo11 View Post
    Correct. Those laws were the Thames Preservation Act 1885 and Thames Conservation Act 1932
    Are you suggesting these Acts "created" the public Right of Navigation or do you think that Magna Carta ("All fish-weirs shall be removed from the Thames, the Medway, and throughout the whole of England, except on the sea coast." as clarified by the Act for Wears and Fishgarthes, 1472 ("Whereas, by the laudable Statute of Magna Carta, among other Things, it is contained That all Kedels by Thamise and Medway, and throughout the Realm of England, should be taken away, saving by the Sea-banks, which Statute was made for the great Wealth of all this Land, in avoiding the straitness of all Rivers, so that Ships and Boats might have in them their large and free Passage...") are witness to the fact that the public rights of navigation on the Thames and "throughout the Realm of England" were there from time as far back as the records have anything to say on the subject?
    Keith

  41. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John K View Post
    Does that mean that despite an impressively long list of citations you don't actually have anything that really supports your point of view?
    What is my point of view?

  42. #42

    Default

    Keith, you said 'laws', from that I read statute, hence the two acts applicable to Ms Lonrho and her backwater. Those Acts confirmed public rights of navigation over every part of the Thames from Tide-ending-town Lock to Cricklade, even though the river is non-tidal. The Great Charter was made void ab initiovia a papal bull from Pope Innocent III only 70 days after it was signed.


  43. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KeithD View Post
    Are you suggesting these Acts "created" the public Right of Navigation or do you think that Magna Carta ("All fish-weirs shall be removed from the Thames, the Medway, and throughout the whole of England, except on the sea coast." as clarified by the Act for Wears and Fishgarthes, 1472 ("Whereas, by the laudable Statute of Magna Carta, among other Things, it is contained That all Kedels by Thamise and Medway, and throughout the Realm of England, should be taken away, saving by the Sea-banks, which Statute was made for the great Wealth of all this Land, in avoiding the straitness of all Rivers, so that Ships and Boats might have in them their large and free Passage...") are witness to the fact that the public rights of navigation on the Thames and "throughout the Realm of England" were there from time as far back as the records have anything to say on the subject?
    You conviently miss out the great rivers qualification and the fact the Great Charter was made void abinitio via a papal bull only 70 days after it was signed. Caffyn was just trying his arm when he linked Rowland to 1215. Round in circles as a suspected. I've got better things to do.

  44. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Keynsham near Bristol
    Posts
    3,742

    Default

    Robbo, Magna Carta and all the other medieval statutes were evidence of the public right of navigation which they protected - they didn't create the PRN. So it doesn't matter whether they were repealed or made void in the same year (what about all the other times Magna Carta was confirmed by subsequent monarchs) in Victorian Times or in 1969. The protection they provided is gone (i.e. we don't have to tear down all weirs) but the evidence of PRN remains.

    What do you think "the great rivers qualification" means? Magna Carta and Wears and Fishgarthes talk about "throughout the whole of England" and "all rivers". Which great rivers do you think the great rivers qualification refers to?
    Keith

  45. #45
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mid-Wales (River Wye)
    Posts
    1,103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robbo11 View Post
    You conviently miss out the great rivers qualification and the fact the Great Charter was made void abinitio via a papal bull only 70 days after it was signed. Caffyn was just trying his arm when he linked Rowland to 1215. Round in circles as a suspected. I've got better things to do.
    I like to see a reasoned argument - this isn't one.

  46. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    717

    Default

    I've got better things to do.
    Begs the question, why did you start again in the first place John....

  47. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Keynsham near Bristol
    Posts
    3,742

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davidh View Post
    I like to see a reasoned argument - this isn't one.
    Don't be hard on him, David. He's doing the best he can but he hasn't been given any decent arguments to work with.
    Keith

  48. #48

    Default

    The rest of 1472 that you lot never mention. Caffyn chose 1472 amongst all the other Wear Acts of the time because the great rivers qualification wasn't embedded in the first paragraph like the rest. It came later thanks to the draftsmen. Here it is;

    'And in affirmance of the said statute Magna Carta, divers statutes have been made after and ordained amongst which in the parliament held in the 5th year of the usurped of King Henry IV was recited that in the 25th year of King Edward III because the common passage of ships and boats in the great rivers of England were oftentimes disturbed by the levying of wears, keddels, etc to the great damage of the people
    '.

    ...and then again many times through the Act.

    Which are these 'great rivers?'


    Petition to the King March 25 1348
    Calendar of Patent Rolls Edward III vol 8 p76

    ‘whereas the four great rivers, Thames, Severn, Ouse and Trente, from ancient time have been open for the passage, of ships and boats for the common profit of the people, of late, in the river Thames between London and Henlee, co. Oxford, and in the other rivers aforesaid there are so many and so great obstructions and impediments under erection and building of wears and mills and fixing of piles that ships or boats can only pass to London or other cities and good towns of the realm by these rivers in time of excessive abundance of water.

    Round and round we go...
    Last edited by Robbo11; 26th-September-2014 at 09:31 PM.

  49. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robbo11 View Post
    What is my point of view?
    Something along these lines?

    Quote Originally Posted by Robbo11 View Post
    Caffyn was just trying his arm

  50. #50

    Default

    No. I want this small militant group to stop trying to steal rights from others in exactly the same way as continuing to trespass on someones garden and when challenged you, over the hedge int the next doors you go. I canoe on some wonderful rivers, in some wonderful places, with the blessing of those around me, and all I have done for this privilage is to lean on a gate and talk to a farmer. Its a far better way than to have a miasma following you where ever you go afloat. The Rowland/Magna Carta argument gives someone just enough confidence to take what they want. Canoeists have rounded on anglers, but this is a landlaw issue and it will be fought on that basis when the silly thing comes to court, when by the way, we should be thoroughly embarrassed of ourselves for not sorting it out amicably.

  51. #51

    Default

    ..and now the usual moderation I guess, so you can continue this sham without being challenged. 'Just to tidy it up and in the interests of the reader of course...' Perhaps you will even revert to people having their posts vetted before even being seen; 'In the interests of not hearing the same arguments again'.


  52. #52
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Keynsham near Bristol
    Posts
    3,742

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robbo11 View Post
    'And in affirmance of the said statute Magna Carta, divers statutes have been made after and ordained amongst which in the parliament held in the 5th year of the usurped of King Henry IV was recited that in the 25th year of King Edward III because the common passage of ships and boats in the great rivers of England .......

    ‘whereas the four great rivers, Thames, Severn, Ouse and Trente, ........
    I think this is new territory, Robbo. So let me understand. You rely on a statute that affirms the Magna Carta (that you say is void) and then link it to a petition to Edward III to restrict it to four rivers. So have a look at what the same king said in a commission under the same statute (25 Edward III c iv) that you refer to.

    1366 April 23
    Commission pursuant to a statute of the Parliament held in the twenty-fifthyear, to Alan de Bukeshull,constable of the Tower of London, Thomasla Vache, John de Ardern, Edmund Fitz Johan and Robert de Aldebury, to survey all weirs, mills, stanks, piles and kiddles erected in the river running from the town of Ware to the town of Waltham and thence into the Thames near the Tower of London,which ought to be repaired by the constable of the said Tower, and to make inquisition in the counties adjoining the said river as to which and how many of the said weirs etc. were erected in the time of Edward I or later, and to remove such as are nuisances ; to make inquisition also touching all other defects ,purpestures, shelves (shelpis), bridges and other nuisances, and cross currents existing to the prejudice of the king and his people, and touching the names of those who have taken tolls,customs or other prises, on their own authority and without title, of all ships and boats passing the said weirs, mills, stanks, piles and kiddles, also of all owners of ships and boats, 'shoots(schutis) of all masters, governors and mariners who have taken excessive wages, against the statute of labourers,or excessive payment for carriage of goods by the said river ; and by whose default the cross current exists and common passage of ships. EdwardIII, vol. 13, p. 282
    Not only does he confirm that the statute applies to more than your proposed four rivers but he confirms that obstructions to be resolved included those that claimed the right to restrict navigation (by tolls, customs or other prises on their own authority). Believe it or not there are still people like that today.

    Henry VI called the Lea a "great river"

    1440 May14
    The like to Ralph Crumwell, knight, John Fray, Robert Rolleston, clerk,Nicholas Dixon, clerk, Thomas Cokayn, Thomas Gloucestre, John Carpenter, Walter Grene and Richard Riche, for the water called ‘laLey' in the counties of Essex, Hertford and Middlesex, from Ware to the Thames, the said water being a great river, by which boats used to go down from Ware to the Thames, and would still do so but for faulty weirs,mills, stanks, stakes and kidels therein.HenryVI, vol 3, p 371


    There are many examples in the Calendar Rolls of commissions for rivers (sometimes called great and others not) well beyond the four that you suggest the statutes were limited to.

    Don't you just hate it when a carefully constructed theory falls apart?
    Keith

  53. #53

    Default

    I dont think your theory falls completely apart but its been rejected twice now by the Welsh Assembly and once by DEFRA. You know its not just not enough to take to a judge, so keep slipping along under the far bank and hope to establish what Biddulph calls his 'tipping point'.

  54. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Keynsham near Bristol
    Posts
    3,742

    Default

    Last year when setting up the consultation process prior to the proposed Green Paper the Welsh Government said
    Our aim is to secure better access to the outdoors for recreation, modernise and simplify the current regulatory framework, and provide clarity and certainty over where people can go and what they can do there.
    This year in relation to the Green Paper the Minister said
    "More work is required including further evidence gathering before we should decide the way forward."
    Neither of those statements were rejections.

    Defra said
    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.
    Sooner or later this will be resolved on the basis of the evidence. The evidence you have offered so far

    1. Magna Carta didn't really exist
    2. "All rivers" should be translated as "only four rivers"

    has been totally unconvincing, even you have not tried to defend it. So, lets avoid the circular arguments and opinions. Give us your best evidence, Robbo (or have we already had it?)
    Last edited by KeithD; 27th-September-2014 at 03:18 PM.
    Keith

  55. #55
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Burton on Trent
    Posts
    452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robbo11 View Post
    Attorney General Ex rel Yorkshire Derwent Trust Ltd v Brotherton [1992] 1 A.C. 425 (HL)
    Attorney-General v Earl of Lonsdale [1868] LR7 Eq 377- 391
    Banèr v Sweden, No. 11763/85
    Bernstein of Leigh (Baron) v Skyviews & General Ltd. [1978] 1 QB 479
    Bliss v Hall [1838] 4 Bing NC 183
    Bourke  v.Davis [1889] 44 Ch.D. 110
    Dawes v Hawkins [1860]
    De Keyser's Royal Hotel v Spicer Bros Ltd [1914] 30 TLR 257
    Duke of Buccleugh v. Cowan [1866] 5 M. 214
    Ellis v Loftus Iron Co [1874] L.R. 10 C.&.P 10
    Hargreaves v Diddam [1875]
    Holford v Bailey, (1849) 13 Q.B. 426
    John Trenberth v National Westminster Bank [1979] 39 P & CR 104
    Mayor of Lynn v. Turner1 Cowp. 86
    Menzies v Breadalbane [1828] 32 R.R. 103
    Murphy v Ryan [1868] Ir.R. 2 C.L. 143
    Oxfordshire County Council v Oxford City Council [2004] Ch 253, [2004] EWHC 12 (Ch.)
    Rex v Montague [1825] 4 B. & C. 598, 601
    Rowland v The Environment Agency [2003] All ER (D) 386
    Sim E Bak and An others v Ang Yong Huat [1923] A.C. 429
    R (on the application of Wayne Smith) v Land Registry and Cambridgeshire C.C. [2010]
    Simpson v Attorney-General and Others [1904] A.C. 476
    Sir James Grant and others v Duke of Gordon [1782]
    Star Energy Weald Basin Limited v Bocardo SA [2010] UKSC 35
    Sturges v Bridgman [1879] 11ChD 852
    Tilbury v Silva [1889] 45 Ch Div 98
    Tyler v Wilkinson [1827] 24 F. Cas. 472
    WillsTrustees v Cairngorm Canoeing and Sailing School Limited [1976]S.C. (H.L.) 30
    Wood v Waud [1849], 3 Exch. 748, 154 Eng. Rep. R. 1047
    Woolerton and Wilson Ltd v Richard Costain Ltd [1970] 1 WLR 411.
    Robbo, you are being disengenuous as usual. Listing cases by name is not a legal argument. What you need to do is give us the exact words in these cases which you claim support your argument. Please quote at least a paragraph so we know you are not quoting out of context.

  56. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Hebrides
    Posts
    3,169

    Default

    Just out of interest I searched for one of the cases - John Trenberth v National Westminster Bank [1979] 39 P & CR 104

    I found a site ISURV from which below -

    [1979] 39 P&CR at 104 Access to neighbouring land - repairs - building in dangerous condition - essential to access land - necessity - trespass This case established that in common law there is no right of access to neighbouring land even for works of repair...

    Has an awful lot to do with canoeing on rivers as you can see

  57. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robbo11 View Post
    No. I want this small militant group to stop trying to steal rights....
    Your definition of small and everyone elses appears to differ.

    Please take the time to first explain how the tens of thousands of canoeists and kayakers who do not believe the same as you do are 'militant'?
    Then please explain how it is you come to regard those same tens of thousands of people as a 'small group'?

    Finally, could i trouble you to explain which rights are being 'stolen' from you and how?
    Promoting sustainable access on the welsh Dee from gradientfood.com - an outdoor sports themed sandwich bar in Llangollen

  58. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robbo11 View Post
    I want this small militant group to stop trying to steal rights from others
    I thought this thread was about your average paddler who simply wants to peacefully enjoy the country's rivers whilst not preventing anyone else from doing the same. There must be something else going on that I'm not aware of.

    Who are the small group you are campaigning against, and what does their militant behaviour consist of? What are they trying to steal? I'm sure that if you can identify this band of rogues we'll back you all the way.

  59. #59
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Burton on Trent
    Posts
    452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robbo11 View Post
    You conviently miss out the great rivers qualification and the fact the Great Charter was made void abinitio via a papal bull only 70 days after it was signed. Caffyn was just trying his arm when he linked Rowland to 1215. Round in circles as a suspected. I've got better things to do.
    The funny thing is that Parliament then passed the statute of Magna Carta in 1297. They obviously rejeced your argument about the civil contract of 1215 which incidentally is still in force because Parliament did not exist at that date so can not repeal it.

  60. #60
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Burton on Trent
    Posts
    452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robbo11 View Post
    The rest of 1472 that you lot never mention. Caffyn chose 1472 amongst all the other Wear Acts of the time because the great rivers qualification wasn't embedded in the first paragraph like the rest. It came later thanks to the draftsmen. Here it is;

    'And in affirmance of the said statute Magna Carta, divers statutes have been made after and ordained amongst which in the parliament held in the 5th year of the usurped of King Henry IV was recited that in the 25th year of King Edward III because the common passage of ships and boats in the great rivers of England were oftentimes disturbed by the levying of wears, keddels, etc to the great damage of the people
    '.

    ...and then again many times through the Act.

    Which are these 'great rivers?'


    Petition to the King March 25 1348
    Calendar of Patent Rolls Edward III vol 8 p76

    ‘whereas the four great rivers, Thames, Severn, Ouse and Trente, from ancient time have been open for the passage, of ships and boats for the common profit of the people, of late, in the river Thames between London and Henlee, co. Oxford, and in the other rivers aforesaid there are so many and so great obstructions and impediments under erection and building of wears and mills and fixing of piles that ships or boats can only pass to London or other cities and good towns of the realm by these rivers in time of excessive abundance of water.

    Round and round we go...
    The argument that the medieval public right of navigation was confined to great rivers is dead in the water. Look at all the places it was enforced by Edward III. No distinction is made between tidal waters, great rivers, named rivers, and other streams and waters not named as rivers.

    http://andybiddulph.co.uk/ESW/Files/...ation_Laws.pdf

    A petition to Parliament is not a definition of the law or the scope of the law.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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