Results 1 to 39 of 39

Thread: Canoe Wales Statement Regarding Accusation of Trespass on the River Dee

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Keynsham near Bristol
    Posts
    3,748

    Default Canoe Wales Statement Regarding Accusation of Trespass on the River Dee

    Earlier today Canoe Wales issued a very clear and comprehensive statement regarding the recent accusation of trespass on the River Dee.

    The full text can be found here.

    I like it!
    Keith

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    North Notts
    Posts
    388

    Default

    Seems clear enough.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    20,038

    Default

    Seems to me like a good thing!
    Covering as many malmiles as possible before being distracted by the pub!

    Paddle Points - where to paddle

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Exmouth, Devon, England
    Posts
    2,736

    Default

    Lest it vanish one day, and for those who may be blocked from that website or don't have a PDF viewer, here's the text:

    Statement Regarding Accusation of Trespass on the River Dee
    16 November 2016

    On 24 October Canoe Wales was contacted by a member seeking advice on a letter he had received
    from angling clubs on the River Dee. The letter accused him of ‘trespass and nuisance’ and
    threatened an injunction unless he signed an undertaking not to trespass; not to cause a nuisance;
    and to comply with the terms of the access arrangement established by the Welsh Dee Partnership.
    Canoe Wales recommended that the member should seek independent legal advice and that he
    should not admit to trespass in any undertaking he might choose to sign; and offered to advise the
    member’s legal representative on trespass-related matters if required. While awaiting further contact
    on how we can help and support our member, Canoe Wales and British Canoeing have taken the
    opportunity to review jointly their approach to this incident and to make the following statements.

    1. British Canoeing and Canoe Wales have worked together in our response to this incident and
    will continue working together to offer the best advice and support that we can to paddlers facing
    such threats, by advising their legal representatives and / or providing information and resources
    relating to rights of navigation as required.

    2. We are disappointed that the angling clubs have chosen to take this action, particularly since
    these clubs are participants in the Welsh Dee Partnership with whom Canoe Wales has been
    attempting to build a constructive relationship for the last 6 months.

    3. We regret that we have been unable to provide immediate legal assistance to the member in this
    case since we are not legal authorities and do not maintain legal teams, so cannot act in a legal
    capacity; and since legal or trespass cover was not at the time of the incident available under the
    third-party liability insurance provided for members by Canoe Wales (although we are pleased
    to confirm that these have now been added to our new insurance policy which commenced on 1
    November).

    4. We believe that there is compelling evidence that a public right of navigation exists generally on
    physically-navigable rivers in England and Wales and specifically that a public right of navigation
    exists on the Dee.

    5. We acknowledge, however, that many angling interests believe that there is no general public
    right of navigation on non-tidal rivers in England and Wales and that the angling clubs in question
    believe that there is no public right of navigation on the Dee.

    6. We welcome the recent confirmation by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and
    Rural Affairs that “the law regarding the right of navigation on unregulated waters is unclear” and
    that “only the courts can clarify whether the right of navigation exists on particular watercourses”.
    We also welcome the recent petition by the ‘Waters of Wales’ campaign group that “calls on the
    National Assembly for Wales to urge the Welsh Government to implement a Bill to establish
    statutory public rights of access to land and water for recreational and other purposes”.

    7. Although we believe there is compelling evidence of a public right of navigation, we consider in
    the current legal and political climate that arguing about the law will not reduce the difficulties
    around access on our rivers. We also recognise that, on some rivers, either numbers of users or
    patterns of use can create legitimate difficulties between user groups. In these cases we believe
    there can be a role for local partnerships to manage shared use in a way that protects the
    environment; supports land owners and local communities; and enables all water users to have
    the fullest opportunity to engage in their chosen sport. For these ‘hotspot’ locations, such as the
    Llangollen section of the Dee, we advocate partnership arrangements that include all interested
    parties, where all views are treated equally and decisions are based on evidence. We wish to
    work with willing partners, whether the Welsh Dee Partnership or others, to attract responsible
    river users to the area to support the local infrastructure and support the economy of Lllangollen;
    which is particularly important through the winter period when paddling can contribute significant
    income. We recognise that this represents a recent change in policy for Canoe Wales and we
    are engaging actively with members in developing this approach.

    8. We do not endorse the current access arrangements promoted by the Welsh Dee Partnership –
    since they were formed between angling clubs and commercial outdoor companies to manage
    their use of the river and do not meet our criteria listed above. However, we do welcome recent
    moves by the Welsh Dee Partnership that have encouraged Canoe Wales to consult members
    on the likely acceptability of revised management arrangements – although we now fear that the
    current action by the angling clubs is likely to lessen significantly the likelihood of our members
    accepting any arrangements offered by the Partnership, since we believe this action will only
    serve to entrench differences and increase conflict.

    9. In view of the close relationship between the Welsh Dee Partnership and the angling clubs who
    have threatened our member, Canoe Wales is concerned that the Partnership may no longer be
    regarded as a credible and legitimate body “to promote good relations between anglers and
    canoeists on the Welsh Dee”. We will therefore propose an alternative forum to establish fair and
    shared use of the river unless the Partnership can convince us that it is prepared to continue to
    work with us, with operators and with clubs to improve relationships on the river in the manner
    we have described above and without continued threats of legal action against paddlers.

    10. We wish to remind all paddlers that the decision whether or not to paddle this stretch of river at
    any time is one for them to make as individuals. However, we recognise that the current
    arrangements have brought a certain amount of clarity and security to commercial operators on
    the river, so we ask all paddlers to be aware of the sensitivities involved on the river; to be polite
    and courteous to other users; and to be aware of the need to work constructively with everyone
    who has an interest in the river.

    Details of our latest information and advice on access arrangements for the Dee may be found at
    http://www.canoewales.com/white-water; and details of the Welsh Dee Partnership arrangements
    at: http://www.welshdeepartnershipltd.co.uk/river_access. Our guidance to paddlers on trespass
    may be found at https://www.britishcanoeing.org.uk/g...s-and-the-law/.
    Steve Rayner, Canoe Wales Waterways & Environment Officer, environment-officer@canoe.wales

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Redhill, Surrey
    Posts
    394

    Default

    odd that legal 3rd-party insurance hasn't been included in the past

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Romsey, Paddle estuaries within an hour, also club member and coach, and scout canoeing helper
    Posts
    657

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aannddyyhh View Post
    odd that legal 3rd-party insurance hasn't been included in the past
    Perhaps the insurers (their lawyers) are now convinced paddlers are worth covering (Although has anyone seen the Terms and Conditions?)
    Brevan,
    1664 - a great year for river access
    Romsey, Hampshire
    Twitter: BrevanM
    Follow my blog at http://riveraccessrights.blogspot.com/

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Bucks
    Posts
    6,654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aannddyyhh View Post
    odd that legal 3rd-party insurance hasn't been included in the past
    Third party insurance generally relates to negligence and this has always been included as part of the membership. The recent change is to add trespass to the insurance. I don't know how this differs or is reflected in the policy so I am keen to read this once it becomes available.

  8. #8

    Default

    Does anyone else worry that the anglers may win and access may be restricted to us?

    Whilst I agree that the law needs to be cleared up where unclear, what if it doesn't go in our favour?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Bucks
    Posts
    6,654

    Default

    I have made that point often. I doesn't seem to go down well.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Redhill, Surrey
    Posts
    394

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adrian Cooper View Post
    Third party insurance generally relates to negligence and this has always been included as part of the membership. The recent change is to add trespass to the insurance. I don't know how this differs or is reflected in the policy so I am keen to read this once it becomes available.
    I know this is the case for car insurance & the like, but you would hope that your activity-specific insurer would include legal cover for anything that might reasonably relate to that activity, particularly if it has the potential to be dangerous or there are known contentious issues relating to it.


    I suppose it's not something you might immediately think about unless you know of an example. for instance, there was a huge row within BSAC (British Sub-Aqua Club) recently when their insurance either couldn't or wouldn't assist a member who was facing extradition to Malta on manslaughter charges relating to the death of his buddy on a dive whilst on holiday on the island.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    1,594

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aGingerPaddler View Post
    Does anyone else worry that the anglers may win and access may be restricted to us?

    Whilst I agree that the law needs to be cleared up where unclear, what if it doesn't go in our favour?
    If this was to happen I would expect the Anglers/Land owners to actively bar all paddlers from the rivers, this would cause a very volatile situation and the only way forward would be to campaign for rivers to be included in the CROW Act, in a strange way it could help us as I believe public opinion would be in our favour. All blood sports are on the decline as the world becomes more conservation minded and I expect them to continue to decline, whereas healthy outdoor physical recreations like canoeing are on the increase and have the backing of the Government.
    "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"
    Grp Cpt Sir Douglas Bader CBE,DSO,DFC,FRAeS.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Bucks
    Posts
    6,654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cloudman View Post
    ........ have the backing of the Government.
    I wouldn't have put it that strongly.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Keynsham near Bristol
    Posts
    3,748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aGingerPaddler View Post
    Does anyone else worry that the anglers may win and access may be restricted to us?

    Whilst I agree that the law needs to be cleared up where unclear, what if it doesn't go in our favour?
    Have you looked at the evidence on which such a case would be decided? The anglers have! That's why there has never been a case to resolve the issue.
    Keith

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    1,663

    Default

    Out of interest -

    I've lost track of the initial incident this is in response to. Has it got any further than a couple of letters from a no-win-no-fee ambulance chaser?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southport, really in Lancashire, UK
    Posts
    1,883

    Default

    This intervention by Canoe Wales on the members Third Party Insurance is good news. But has British Canoeing followed suit, this is not clear.

    This extra barrier to the fishy folk may stir things up.

    We must have clarity over the law. But how?

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


  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Keynsham near Bristol
    Posts
    3,748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Per View Post
    Out of interest -

    I've lost track of the initial incident this is in response to. Has it got any further than a couple of letters from a no-win-no-fee ambulance chaser?
    No. The solicitor is Paul Thomas Stafford who is also a director of the Welsh Dee Partnership (Welsh Dee Partnership Limited (WDP) was formed in 2012 to promote good relations between anglers and canoeists on the Welsh Dee in the Llangollen area) and Welsh Dee Fishing.
    Last edited by KeithD; 18th-November-2016 at 03:40 PM.
    Keith

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    1,663

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KeithD View Post
    No. The solicitor is Paul Thomas Stafford who is also a director of the Welsh Dee Partnership (Welsh Dee Partnership Limited (WDP) was formed in 2012 to promote good relations between anglers and canoeists on the Welsh Dee in the Llangollen area) and Welsh Dee Fishing.
    So, even less likely to actually amount to anything?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    1,594

    Default

    A bit more info on Mr Stafford. http://www.checkdirector.co.uk/direc...omas-stafford/

    Paul Thomas Stafford, Solicitor from Pershore

    Paul Thomas Stafford is a formally registered professional born in November 1955. Up to this point, Paul Thomas was hired as a board member in 5 companies. The initial appointment happened in Dispute Support Limited on October 6, 2014. The company was founded on October 6, 2014, with headquarters set up in Pershore, Worcestershire county. Stafford is also a director at Negligence Direct Limited in Pershore, Worcestershire county, employed since January 14, 2014, director in Welsh Dee Partnership Limited in Llangollen, Denbighsire county, employed since January 30, 2013, a present director in Welsh Dee Fishing Limited in Llangollen, Denbighshire county, employed since August 10, 2012, Worcs county, employed since March 8, 2010. The executive worked in collaboration with Alisdair James Findlay (accountant). This 60-year-old managing director is listed in 32 formal filings, such as: the filing reported on October 16, 2015 in the name of Dispute Support Limited, the filing reported on July 8, 2015 in the name of Negligence Direct Limited, and the filing reported on June 5, 2014 in the name of Negligence Direct Limited in the category of officers - appointments. Paul is a person of British nationality.


    About
    Name: Paul Thomas Stafford
    Date of Birth: November 1955
    Age: 60
    Nationality: British
    Residence: United Kingdom
    Address: Pershore
    United Kingdom
    WR10 3JA
    Worcestershire
    Last updated: 2016-06-25

    Director at:
    Dispute Support Limited
    Occupation: Solicitor
    Appointed: 2014/10/06
    Address: Woodmans Cottage Hill Lane
    Pershore

    WR10 3JA
    United Kingdom
    Incorporation date: 2014/10/06
    "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"
    Grp Cpt Sir Douglas Bader CBE,DSO,DFC,FRAeS.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mid-Wales (River Wye)
    Posts
    1,110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aGingerPaddler View Post
    Does anyone else worry that the anglers may win and access may be restricted to us?

    Whilst I agree that the law needs to be cleared up where unclear, what if it doesn't go in our favour?
    Unlikely, but a possibility nevertheless. However in my view it needn't go to law, and in case it has escaped your attention it doesn't seem that paddling or angling has much stomach for it, no matter how much blustering from either side.

    A much better solution is to have separate agreements in place for each waterway/river. Proper agreements - agreed by the relevant parties. That's me and you.
    Some rivers or stretches may charge a small annual fee - they would need to provide safe parking/toilets of course. Some may require membership of the BCU or CW, and some may allow free, unhindered access to all. But not to anglers, who still have to pay an annual rod licence.
    I already pay for some of my paddling. £9.50 a launch on Llangorse. It's worth it for secure parking and toilets which are open all year round.
    If I fish on Llangorse it costs me an extra £7.00 a day.

    I would like to see clear registration numbers on all hire boats, but that's a personal thing - I know how much trouble they can cause, and of course all paddlers get tarred with the same brush.

    This is from the point of view of an angler/paddler, so I expect some flak - from both sides. I've already had it from some anglers .
    I emphasise that any agreement would have to be ratified democratically, so that we don't have AT or BCU (or BOPA) making blanket agreements to which no-one agreed.

    The current agreement as highlighted in this document, which seems to be between anglers and hire companies, is likely to contain restrictions on paddling. It looks to me very like vested interests making an agreement on behalf of all paddlers.
    Last edited by davidh; 2nd-December-2016 at 09:47 AM.

  20. #20

    Default

    A much better solution is to have separate agreements in place for each waterway/river. Proper agreements - agreed by the relevant parties. That's me and you.
    Agreements between individuals about passage along the river are just not feasible, for many reasons. (eg, not needed where there's a PRoN, but opinions differ where there is one; too many landowners & paddlers, many paddlers use each river infrequently so time negotiating would exceed time paddling… and I'm sure there are more from the angling side).

    Access across land to reach the river is a different question; that and provision of facilities like parking and toilets is worth discussion. I don't mind paying for facilities I need but I'm not prepared to pay for exercising my rights (although I am happy to recognise other people's rights while doing so, provided they recognise mine). Also worth discussion is the idea of voluntary limitations on use, like the suggestion that mountain bikers don't use the bridleway up Snowdon during months when it's busy with walkers - it doesn't take away any right to use it, just reduces conflict. It shouldn't be called an agreement - it doesn't require agreement, just publicity - if you don't agree, don't follow it, but expect that you might annoy other people. There's a similar thing on the River Greta near Keswick with regard to water level and environmental damage.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mid-Wales (River Wye)
    Posts
    1,110

    Default

    Some barriers and preconceived ideas would have to come down/be changed, on both sides. You've given two examples of agreements, then you're saying they won't work.

    You check a river before you paddle - water heights and things? Checking a "there's a loose agreement in place to ????????? to keep everyone happy guys - please respect" will take seconds to read and digest. I really don't think anyone wants to go down the legal road, or at least no-one wants to pay to go down the legal road, which is not quite the same thing of course.

  22. #22

    Default

    You've given two examples of agreements, then you're saying they won't work.
    No, I've given two examples of suggested behavior, which isn't an agreement. I'm not being pedantic, there's a real difference. The word "agreement" is part of the problem. I'm happy to take note of suggestions to avoid conflict, but nobody can bind me to agreement unless I've been party to making it.
    You check a river before you paddle - water heights and things? Checking a "there's a loose agreement in place to ????????? to keep everyone happy guys - please respect" will take seconds to read and digest.
    I've no problem with that (although I'd prefer to modify it to "please respect if you reasonably can") - but calling it an agreement creates false expectations on all sides.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mid-Wales (River Wye)
    Posts
    1,110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris_B View Post
    No, I've given two examples of suggested behavior, which isn't an agreement. I'm not being pedantic, there's a real difference. The word "agreement" is part of the problem. I'm happy to take note of suggestions to avoid conflict, but nobody can bind me to agreement unless I've been party to making it.

    I've no problem with that (although I'd prefer to modify it to "please respect if you reasonably can") - but calling it an agreement creates false expectations on all sides.
    Of course - an agreement is only an agreement if everyone agrees. That's why VAAs don't/can't work.
    But that's only words - I have no problem with changing those to suit. Those are the least of our worries .

  24. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris_B View Post
    No, I've given two examples of suggested behavior, which isn't an agreement. I'm not being pedantic, there's a real difference. The word "agreement" is part of the problem. I'm happy to take note of suggestions to avoid conflict, but nobody can bind me to agreement unless I've been party to making it.

    I've no problem with that (although I'd prefer to modify it to "please respect if you reasonably can") - but calling it an agreement creates false expectations on all sides.
    David is correct technically here - both the Snowden MTB & Greta situations are badged as Access Arrangements/Agreements. We can go to town on the semantics of these - and we are well aware of the baggage different terms bring with them. We are potentially looking instead at 'Shared Use Partnerships'.

    However, the semantics aside, you can name these what you want - as you touch upon Chris, it's the content, intent, communication and cooperation that underpin them that affect their success. The Greta AA is widely seen as one of the very few AAs that carry broad support from paddlers. Why? Because they feel included in the process, trust the partners involved are making genuine recommendations based on sustainability and the terms of it are seen as both fair and proportional. The many others that fail are the polar opposite: overly restrictive, not done in partnership with paddlers, deemed as 'granting permission', etc, etc.

    We currently only sign up to new AAs (or SUPs, or VAAs or any preferred acronym!), after engagement with members and the paddling community, if they are:
    - Without prejudice to the law, that issue should be parked at the door;
    - Voluntary - they should work by engaging and building trust, not any attempt at rules or regulation;
    - Based on the Least Restrictive Possible principle - all activities able to be as free as possible;
    - Be evidence based;
    - Be genuinely inclusive, treating ALL stakeholders as equal partners working together.

    There is a place for such arrangements, and not just on rivers where access is contested - in fact I believe it would work better if everyone stood on a common ground of rights and responsibilities - but by ensuring they are fair and treat all equally.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mid-Wales (River Wye)
    Posts
    1,110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BC Waterways&Environment View Post
    David is correct technically here - both the Snowden MTB & Greta situations are badged as Access Arrangements/Agreements. We can go to town on the semantics of these - and we are well aware of the baggage different terms bring with them. We are potentially looking instead at 'Shared Use Partnerships'.

    However, the semantics aside, you can name these what you want - as you touch upon Chris, it's the content, intent, communication and cooperation that underpin them that affect their success. The Greta AA is widely seen as one of the very few AAs that carry broad support from paddlers. Why? Because they feel included in the process, trust the partners involved are making genuine recommendations based on sustainability and the terms of it are seen as both fair and proportional. The many others that fail are the polar opposite: overly restrictive, not done in partnership with paddlers, deemed as 'granting permission', etc, etc.

    We currently only sign up to new AAs (or SUPs, or VAAs or any preferred acronym!), after engagement with members and the paddling community, if they are:
    - Without prejudice to the law, that issue should be parked at the door;
    - Voluntary - they should work by engaging and building trust, not any attempt at rules or regulation;
    - Based on the Least Restrictive Possible principle - all activities able to be as free as possible;
    - Be evidence based;
    - Be genuinely inclusive, treating ALL stakeholders as equal partners working together.

    There is a place for such arrangements, and not just on rivers where access is contested - in fact I believe it would work better if everyone stood on a common ground of rights and responsibilities - but by ensuring they are fair and treat all equally.
    Sounds good. I've pm'd you.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    West Sussex.
    Posts
    3,229

    Default

    I an fundamentally against access agreements beyond accepting that there proven environmental reasons for not paddling a river.

    We should not enter any arrangement that binds paddlers rights to enjoy the water as long as they access the water through public rights of way.

    I will pay for parking but never for paddling on a river I have a right to enjoy.

    Bushcraft Survival and First Aid Training.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mid-Wales (River Wye)
    Posts
    1,110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wayne View Post
    I an fundamentally against access agreements beyond accepting that there proven environmental reasons for not paddling a river.

    We should not enter any arrangement that binds paddlers rights to enjoy the water as long as they access the water through public rights of way.

    I will pay for parking but never for paddling on a river I have a right to enjoy.
    Hi Wayne,

    I understand your point, which many others on here share. There is the question, however, of sharing the water with other users. I'm starting a thread on this in a little while on this forum, and invite your views.
    Thanks.

    David

  28. #28

    Default

    Sad how times have changed, many years ago when some mates and I were 15 years old, young and irresponsible. We canoed up the Dee from Chester for a few days touring. One evening the tent was up and we were cooking up some chow when a man in full game keeper gear suddenly appeared. With a menacing look and a very posh accent he said "do you know you are on the Duke of Westminster's estate?". We didn't have a map so replied "no". We feared the worst but he simply said, "well have a good night and don't be here in the morning". So for one night we where guests of the richest man in Britain at the time.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Bucks
    Posts
    6,654

    Default

    I heard the Duke of Westminster was a generous man and would have wanted you to stay, I am sure the game keeper would not have wanted to disavow you of that.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southport, really in Lancashire, UK
    Posts
    1,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adrian Cooper View Post
    I heard the Duke of Westminster was a generous man
    Unfortunately not true.
    When there's trouble on shore, there's peace on the wave,
    Afloat in the White Canoe.
    Alan Sullivan


  31. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Bucks
    Posts
    6,654

    Default

    You will understand my comment was flippant but:

    President, Scope (formerly the Spastics Society), 1982–2005[4]
    President, National Kidney Research Fund, 1985–97[4]
    President, Royal National Institute for the Blind, 1986–2012[4]
    President, North of England Zoological Society, 1987 until death[4]
    President, Drugs and Alcohol Foundation, 1987–97[4]
    Vice-President, Royal Society of St George, 1987 until death[4]
    President, Holstein UK & Ireland (formerly British Holstein Society), 1988[4]
    Life Vice-President, National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, 1988 until death[4]
    President, Abbeyfield Society, 1989–95[4]
    President, Institution of Environmental Sciences, 1989–2013[4]
    Director, Business in the Community (BITC), 1991–95[4]
    Life Governor, Royal Agricultural Society of England[4]
    Committee member, North American Advisory Group, British Overseas Trade Board, 1994[4]
    Committee member, Nuffield Hospitals, 1995 until death[4]
    Vice-President, Country Landowners' Association, 1999 until death[4]
    President, Life Education Centre (Drug Prevention), 2000–12[4]
    Vice-President, Royal Smithfield Club, 2004 until death[4]
    Maybe he wasn't all bad but might not have supported your chosen charity.

  32. #32
    Crow's Avatar
    Crow is offline こんにちは。私はカラスと私はスコットラ ンドの出身で す。
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Third stone from the sun
    Posts
    15,876
    Journal Entries
    10

    Default

    He was the third richest person in Britain, apparently, worth £9 billion. And owned 133,000 acres of land, which is more than the Queen has.

    "I stepped up on the platform. The man gave me the news. He said - you must be joking, son, where did you get those shoes?"

    Crow Trip Log

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southport, really in Lancashire, UK
    Posts
    1,883

    Default

    He was instrumental in the near extinction of Hen Harriers in England.

    His large hunting estate (37,000ha) in Spain, he managed to persuade the Spanish government to not put a motorway through. It would have followed the high speed railway line that already existed. The cost would have been considerably less than what he got away with. It would have saved the livelihood of many small farmers in the adjacent valley where the motorway was built.

    But such wealth has little concern for real people.

    With a little searching there are probably many more misdemeanors he was involved in. Horrible man.

    Doug
    Last edited by dougoutcanoe; 4th-January-2017 at 06:26 PM.
    When there's trouble on shore, there's peace on the wave,
    Afloat in the White Canoe.
    Alan Sullivan


  34. #34
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mid-Wales (River Wye)
    Posts
    1,110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dougoutcanoe View Post
    He was instrumental in the near extinction of Hen Harriers in England.

    His large hunting estate (37,000ha) in Spain, he managed to persuade the Spanish government to not put a motorway through. It would have followed the high speed railway line that already existed. The cost would have been considerably less than what he got away with. It would have saved the livelihood of many small farmers in the adjacent valley where the motorway was built.

    But such wealth has little concern for real people.

    With a little searching there are probably many more misdemeanors he was involved in. Horrible man.

    Doug
    Off with their heads!

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Currently Bristol UK, Sometimes Quebec Province, Canada
    Posts
    336

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davidh View Post
    Off with their heads!
    It doesn't work in the long term.

    I once stayed in an immaculate B & B in France; bees-waxed wooden floors, glorious views, been farmed by the elderly couple all of their married lives - but they were having to leave as they retired, despite having sons who had been to agricultural cottage. Why, Because the Marchionesse (or equivalent) who lived in the chateau wanted it for her children to use when they came on holidays....

    (As if the chateau wasn't big enough as it was!)

    "But I thought that you fought a revolution to change that" said I.

    They shrugged - as only the French can shrug ;-)

    Harumph!
    G

    'Adventure is relative. My adventure is another's commonplace.'

  36. #36
    Crow's Avatar
    Crow is offline こんにちは。私はカラスと私はスコットラ ンドの出身で す。
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Third stone from the sun
    Posts
    15,876
    Journal Entries
    10

    Default

    I blame the Thermidorian reaction!

    "I stepped up on the platform. The man gave me the news. He said - you must be joking, son, where did you get those shoes?"

    Crow Trip Log

  37. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Currently Bristol UK, Sometimes Quebec Province, Canada
    Posts
    336

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crow View Post
    I blame the Thermidorian reaction!


    "For historians of revolutionary movements, the term Thermidor has come to mean the phase in some revolutions when power slips from the hands of the original revolutionary leadership and a radical regime is replaced by a more conservative regime, sometimes to the point where the political pendulum may swing back towards something resembling a pre-revolutionary state. Leon Trotsky, in his book The Revolution Betrayed, alleges the rise of Joseph Stalin to power was a Soviet Thermidor." Wikipedia

    Alternatively;

    "The recipe of Lobster Thermidor was created around 1880 by Auguste Escoffier then working in Maison Maire, a Parisian restaurant near the theatre Comédie-Française. In January 1891, the play Thermidor by Victorien Sardou opened in that theatre. The play took its name from a summer month in the French Republican Calendar, during which the Thermidorian Reaction occurred, overthrowing Robespierre and ending the Reign of Terror.[1] Mr Paillard (Maison Maire's owner) changed the name of this recipe after the play gained in popularity."

    I prefer the lobsters ;-)

    Amazing what you learn on this site!
    G

    'Adventure is relative. My adventure is another's commonplace.'

  38. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Derby England
    Posts
    194

    Default

    British canoeing have supported the waters of Wales petition in their news section today and written a letter to the Welsh Senedd. Nice to see that they are starting to be more vocal on the subject of access.

    link here
    Last edited by smurf; 6th-January-2017 at 10:43 PM.

  39. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Wirral
    Posts
    539

    Default

    Except they have the date wrong for the paddle to the senedd, it is the 14th February.
    There can be worse obsessions

Posting Permissions

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