Results 1 to 39 of 39

Thread: Llangollen Maelor Anglers / Midland Flyfishers v Povey

  1. #1

    Default Llangollen Maelor Anglers / Midland Flyfishers v Povey

    A big case on the Public Right of Navvy has been settled and those fools at Angling Trust aren't wasting anytime in crowing about it. The daft bats are claiming QC advice will swing it once and for all.

    Have a read.

    http://www.anglingtrust.net/news.asp...0026&preview=1

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    1,546

    Default

    It may have been concluded but nothing was proven as he was forced to settle knowing he could not afford to fight the case, basically he was bullied into agreeing.

    An application for an injunction to restrain Mr Povey from paddling outside the terms of the permissive access was sought in the High Court. However, after some initial resistance, Mr Povey decided he did not wish to fight the application and has undertaken to the High Court to stick to the terms of the permissive access and to contribute towards the clubs’ legal costs.
    "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"
    Grp Cpt Sir Douglas Bader CBE,DSO,DFC,FRAeS.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mid-Wales (River Wye)
    Posts
    1,102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cloudman View Post
    It may have been concluded but nothing was proven as he was forced to settle knowing he could not afford to fight the case, basically he was bullied into agreeing.
    That's often how the law works.
    "Mr Povey, when challenged by anglers, refused to say he would not trespass again and later boasted about his trespass online."
    Not a great idea when the law is unclear.

    Of course the AT QC has only given his opinion, and a paddling body like the BCU can easily find another QC to counter-opine.

    Nothing has changed, nothing is settled.
    Last edited by davidh; 27th-January-2017 at 04:36 PM.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cloudman View Post
    It may have been concluded but nothing was proven as he was forced to settle knowing he could not afford to fight the case, basically he was bullied into agreeing.

    It's a pity that the sports governing bodies were not prepared to back this to the hilt and take it as car as they could without risk to andy and his family.

    Sometimes it really does appear that if there is no olympic medal (or event to show gov that participation is up) then they really aren't interested. *

    * the few limited acess staff aside.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    West Yorkshire
    Posts
    3,525

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cloudman View Post
    It may have been concluded but nothing was proven as he was forced to settle knowing he could not afford to fight the case, basically he was bullied into agreeing.
    Quite - as far as I'm aware this is basically a non-news story. An application which might have led to some interesting arguments being put before the High Court has not gone to court... so we are still in a situation where nothing has been tested and no precedent has been set!

    Quote Originally Posted by davidh View Post
    "Mr Povey, when challenged by anglers, refused to say he would not trespass again and later boasted about his trespass online." [..]Not a great idea when the law is unclear.
    With hindsight, I suspect Andy would have handled things a little differently... but who among us has not lived to regret a decision or two?

    Key thing is for the various canoe / kayak / SUP / wild swimming communities to draw lessons from what's happened.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidh View Post
    Nothing has changed, nothing is settled.
    No arguments have been tested and no precedent has been set... so at one level, we've just got a none story.

    At a more significant level, the case led to a few key questions being asked of (and by) British Canoeing... and in the long term, we may end up looking back at a positive period in which the organisation tightened up a few things and got into a better position to serve members on this front

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    cambs
    Posts
    1,392

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GregandGinaS View Post
    At a more significant level, the case led to a few key questions being asked of (and by) British Canoeing... and in the long term, we may end up looking back at a positive period in which the organisation tightened up a few things and got into a better position to serve members on this front
    Lets hope so

    Sam

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    1,546

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GregandGinaS View Post
    With hindsight, I suspect Andy would have handled things a little differently... but who among us has not lived to regret a decision or two?

    Key thing is for the various canoe / kayak / SUP / wild swimming communities to draw lessons from what's happened.
    As you say we can all learn from this. There is no point in anyone getting into this situation again, it is pointless fighting small battles you can not win, the aim is to win the war. They have bigger pockets than an individual paddler, so unless you have the money to take them on in court don't let it go that far. Let them send their letters and huff and puff then before it gets to court tell them you have no intention of paddling that section of river again anyway, this will not set a precedent as it is individual to you. They will have to take the same action against every other paddler individually, this will keep them very busy and in the end not give them the publicity they are so desperate for.

    What we need is "CANOE LEGAL" to even the playing field.
    "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
    May 2007
    Location
    Mid-Wales (River Wye)
    Posts
    1,102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cloudman View Post
    As you say we can all learn from this. There is no point in anyone getting into this situation again, it is pointless fighting small battles you can not win, the aim is to win the war. They have bigger pockets than an individual paddler, so unless you have the money to take them on in court don't let it go that far. Let them send their letters and huff and puff then before it gets to court tell them you have no intention of paddling that section of river again anyway, this will not set a precedent as it is individual to you. They will have to take the same action against every other paddler individually, this will keep them very busy and in the end not give them the publicity they are so desperate for.

    What we need is "CANOE LEGAL" to even the playing field.
    Couldn't agree more.

    London Barrister = 1,000.00 an hour, so another opinion shouldn't cost more than, say 10,000.00 or so.
    FishLegal have sought to wrap this up relatively cheaply with a legal opinion + a case. They are shouting BIG SUCCESS to anyone who will listen. It isn't of course. If it had gone to Court it would have opened up a can of worms - I'm pretty sure Andy was not chosen at random. They probably waited weeks or months for someone to paddle that stretch of water, then shout defiance.

    I hope anglers are not stupid enough to buy into the FishLegal rhetoric, because if they do expect I much more riverside abuse towards paddlers.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Derby England
    Posts
    189

    Default

    We urgently need something along the lines of 'Canoe Legal'. I'm sure many of us would pay into a fund dedicated to this purpose. Ideally this would be via an option on the Canoe England (or Wales) membership form. Ufortunately I think the spin from FishLegal could embolden other anglers to try the same trick. I would be mortified if I found myself in the same position and was unable to paddle my local rivers.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mid-Wales (River Wye)
    Posts
    1,102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smurf View Post
    We urgently need something along the lines of 'Canoe Legal'. I'm sure many of us would pay into a fund dedicated to this purpose. Ideally this would be via an option on the Canoe England (or Wales) membership form. Ufortunately I think the spin from FishLegal could embolden other anglers to try the same trick. I would be mortified if I found myself in the same position and was unable to paddle my local rivers.
    The backing of a bigger paddling body is vital. Much law seems dependant on bluff - "you really want a fight? Remember, my dad is bigger than your dad".
    A fighting fund will not do on it's own. Needed is the will to fight.
    I've made the point before that neither side really want to see this through. FishLegal have now made a lot of political mileage from a single case and a legal opinion. In the grand scheme of things neither mean very much, but to their members they can be seen to have "done something". I suspect that was their aim, rather than removing or restricting paddlers from rivers.

    I don't paddle rivers, but if I did, and I was worried about being prosecuted I would be asking about an insurance package which I could use to defend myself if anyone brought a Court Case against me. It may be that this could be added to current insurance, or there may already be a clause in one of the paddling bodies insurance packages which covers this kind of thing. Would FishLegal see a case through to Court? I doubt it. Many of the Civil Law cases I deal with as a medical Expert Witness are settled just before going into Court, sometimes on the steps, because once in Court the costs escalate alarmingly, and unless you are certain you are going to win it just isn't worth it.
    Last edited by davidh; 28th-January-2017 at 11:49 AM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Romsey, Paddle estuaries within an hour, also club member and coach, and scout canoeing helper
    Posts
    657

    Default

    This was going to happen and will happen again unless one the following occurs
    1) Legislation (or other statutory powers) is introduced covering use of rivers (as in Scotland)
    2) A case goes to court and confirms which of the legal arguments is correct
    3) All groups come to an arrangement which broadly works for them and reduces disputes to a minimum

    The issue for paddlers and other non-riparian river users is coming up with a good strategy for acheiving a reasonable level of shared use of rivers. This is going to need leadership, agreed goals, communication, understanding of other view and needs, compromise, good arguments that will influence and gain support from authorities and business interests, public support and money, and bringing together existing and protential river communities (Paddlers, Swimmers, Anglers) It will be a long haul, but like the ramblers in the 20's and 30's facing similar opposition from entrenched and wealthy interest, things can be changed.

    Brevan
    Brevan,
    1664 - a great year for river access
    Romsey, Hampshire
    Twitter: BrevanM
    Follow my blog at http://riveraccessrights.blogspot.com/

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    3,720

    Default

    Question, does anyone know if BCU insurance benefits cover against this sort of move?
    All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Redhill, Surrey
    Posts
    337

    Default

    it does, although it seems it may be a recent thing, at least in Wales:

    https://www.britishcanoeing.org.uk/m...nce-towergate/

    "As an individual member of British Canoeing, Scottish Canoe Association and Canoe Association of Northern Ireland you have Combined Liability Insurance which provides for legal liability cover following negligence, nuisance or trespass. "

    from this thread:

    http://www.songofthepaddle.co.uk/for...-the-River-Dee

    http://www.riveraccessforall.co.uk/d...e_trespass.pdf

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

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mid-Wales (River Wye)
    Posts
    1,102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aannddyyhh View Post
    it does, although it seems it may be a recent thing, at least in Wales:

    https://www.britishcanoeing.org.uk/m...nce-towergate/

    "As an individual member of British Canoeing, Scottish Canoe Association and Canoe Association of Northern Ireland you have Combined Liability Insurance which provides for legal liability cover following negligence, nuisance or trespass. "

    from this thread:

    http://www.songofthepaddle.co.uk/for...-the-River-Dee

    http://www.riveraccessforall.co.uk/d...e_trespass.pdf

    "
    3. We regret that we have been unable to provide immediate legal assistance to the member in thiscase since we are not legal authorities and do not maintain legal teams, so cannot act in a legalcapacity; and since legal or trespass cover was not at the time of the incident available under thethird-party liability insurance provided for members by Canoe Wales (although we are pleasedto confirm that these have now been added to our new insurance policy which commenced on 1November)."
    Good to know. What is interesting is that the insurance underwriters must have looked at the risk of a paddler being taken to Court and decided it was low.

  15. #15

    Default

    I would support the idea of 'canoe legal' or probably 'paddle legal' to include kayakers, SOT, SUP etc, I would also contribute. I think it may need to be separate from the BCU.
    Ken

  16. #16

    Default

    Anyone know the facts about Andy Bidulph still paying off money? My recollection of that case was that the reasons the case was dropped was nothing like the reason that the AT has published on their site!

    Anyone got any reference to the QC that Rev Caffyn employed? I cannot find any reference online to her conclusions.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    1,546

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SimonMW2 View Post
    Anyone know the facts about Andy Bidulph still paying off money? My recollection of that case was that the reasons the case was dropped was nothing like the reason that the AT has published on their site!

    Anyone got any reference to the QC that Rev Caffyn employed? I cannot find any reference online to her conclusions.
    Andy has his own web site, Link to the case details :- http://www.andybiddulph.co.uk/BMAA_Case.html
    "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"
    Grp Cpt Sir Douglas Bader CBE,DSO,DFC,FRAeS.

  18. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brevan View Post
    The issue for paddlers and other non-riparian river users is coming up with a good strategy for acheiving a reasonable level of shared use of rivers. This is going to need leadership, agreed goals, communication, understanding of other view and needs, compromise, good arguments that will influence and gain support from authorities and business interests, public support and money, and bringing together existing and protential river communities (Paddlers, Swimmers, Anglers) It will be a long haul, but like the ramblers in the 20's and 30's facing similar opposition from entrenched and wealthy interest, things can be changed.

    Brevan
    I agree. We are about to release an update to our Shared Use Position Statement that I hope will start to work towards this goal. It will lay out our views on the law - which is basically the same position as in the current document. However, in our submission to Welsh Government's consultation last year we suggested some criteria for partnerships on our rivers that we believe represent a way forward that is fair and respectful to all. Our new position will elaborate on these points. We do include that any partnerships on our rivers are voluntary, and should be aside from any person or organisation's view of the law - and we recognise very much that there are a very diverse range f views on this issue. I hope when it is released people will be happy with the suggestions we make - and of course feedback will be very welcome.

    Chris Page - W&E Officer, British Canoeing

  19. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davidh View Post

    I don't paddle rivers, but if I did, and I was worried about being prosecuted I would be asking about an insurance package which I could use to defend myself if anyone brought a Court Case against me. It may be that this could be added to current insurance, or there may already be a clause in one of the paddling bodies insurance packages which covers this kind of thing. Would FishLegal see a case through to Court? I doubt it. Many of the Civil Law cases I deal with as a medical Expert Witness are settled just before going into Court, sometimes on the steps, because once in Court the costs escalate alarmingly, and unless you are certain you are going to win it just isn't worth it.
    British Canoeing does provide legal cover in the event of trespass charges. I'm working with the insurers on more guidance regarding this. Agai, I'll pot a link here when it's ready.

    Best wishes Chris Page - W&E Officer, British Canoeing

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Robin Hood's Bay,Yorkshire
    Posts
    2,592

    Default

    It really doesn't matter what Fish Legal tell anglers. They (the anglers)will no doubt find out anyway through media and/or word of mouth.
    http://www.davidwperry.blogspot.co.uk/

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Redhill, Surrey
    Posts
    337

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BC Waterways&Environment View Post
    British Canoeing does provide legal cover in the event of trespass charges. I'm working with the insurers on more guidance regarding this. Agai, I'll pot a link here when it's ready.

    Best wishes Chris Page - W&E Officer, British Canoeing
    I'm assuming that this cover would be along the lines of paying (small) legal costs & telling the member not to do it again, so it wouldn't have assisted in fighting the case in question?

  22. #22

    Default

    That is the worry isnt it? That the legal insurance provider gives you the advice to either sign and agree not to do it again, or chose to fight it on your own (cost analysis for them).

    Hmmmmmmm

  23. #23

    Default

    To be fair, each side is trying to empower their people to either have enough confidence to go ahead and paddle, or stand on the bank and give a good representation of themselves. It's not very good at all. I still think the only way to stop paddlers is to lay enough timber across the river to stop access. No paddler likes to keep getting out and back in again. The timber belongs to the landowner and the paddlers can't touch it. The EA don't care so don't look to them. On the other-hand, paddlers can probably get away with most of their boating as long as they are discrete and don't mind the odd rollocking. This issue is not going to be sorted in the courts or the barrack room anytime soon.

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SimonMW2 View Post
    Anyone know the facts about Andy Bidulph still paying off money? My recollection of that case was that the reasons the case was dropped was nothing like the reason that the AT has published on their site!

    Anyone got any reference to the QC that Rev Caffyn employed? I cannot find any reference online to her conclusions.
    Andy couldn't actually take a case against the fishing club on the Dove. He is not the Attorney General although you'd be forgiven for believing he thinks he is. I like him. Good company in the pub. I wish there were more like him in all sorts of fields. Angling Trust did not press for costs, although I think they could have really buried Andy. Their main advocate has now left and moved on.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Redhill, Surrey
    Posts
    337

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robbo11 View Post
    He is not the Attorney General although you'd be forgiven for believing he thinks he is. I like him. Good company in the pub. I wish there were more like him in all sorts of fields.
    I had a read of some of the documents & was most amused by this:

    "5.5 The damages claimed by the claimant are calculated as follows. From 4th January 1990 until 27thNovember 2011 (the date the claim was submitted) is 7996 days at 50p per day amounts to 3998plus 2 towards the cost of postage produces a total claim of 4000."

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Keynsham near Bristol
    Posts
    3,742

    Default

    For an organisation linked to Fish Legal and receiving so much advice from from a QC, the Angling Trust seems to have a woeful lack of understanding of the law. Their headline is "QC's legal advice proves there is no general public right to navigate non tidal rivers in England and Wales". They must know that it is for courts to "prove" the law. It can't be done by any QC, particularly when the opinion of another QC reaches an entirely different conclusion and Andrea Leadsom,Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, with the benefit of all the legal advice available to DEFRA, confirmed that ...the law regarding rights of navigation on unregulated waters is unclear."

    A court case to resolve the conflicting interpretations of the law could prove extremely expensive and therefore can't be entered into lightly. But it may prove necessary and therefore thought must be given as to how, if necessary, it may be funded. Let's be clear - we are not talking about contributions from individual paddlers equivalent to the price of a cup of tea! As an indication of the resources available to "the other side", here are the published accounts of Fish Legal. http://www.anglingtrust.net/core/cor...mmary+accounts

    So whilst we should prepare for the worst (the possibility of needing to fund a potentially expensive court case) we should continue to hope for the best - a common sense commitment by all to shared use of our waterways.
    Keith

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    NE England
    Posts
    1,304

    Default

    I think we should roll over and accept it.

    You see, I'm sick of the access debate, I'm sick of grey areas of law, I'm sick of arguments this way and that, I'm sick of legal rulings that can be changed by later legal rulings, I'm sick of QC's opinions that apparently mean something, right up until the point where another QC offers a different opinion that apparently means something, when all it really means is more cash stuffed into already full pockets and a debate that is no further forward.

    Let's all agree that the AT can have the legal situation they want. That they legally control the water, that they can restrict access for all other water users however they see fit. Then we can point out how stupid that situation is and ask the government to bring in clear new legislation that gives all of us a legal right to share our national heritage, and until it does, I'll regretfully be forced to commit regular acts of civil disobedience*.

    Can we please stop extending the debate, let them have the damn rope, they'll tie the noose themselves, they're good with knots.



    *An activity previously refered to as paddling.
    The only thing you have to fear is Mergatroid the vengeful, man eating bear.

  28. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aannddyyhh View Post
    I'm assuming that this cover would be along the lines of paying (small) legal costs & telling the member not to do it again, so it wouldn't have assisted in fighting the case in question?
    I'm sure you'll appreciate that second guessing how the insurer would deal with any specific case is not hugely productive. As with anything in insurance, especially when connected to legal protection, it will be case-by-case. However, I have been trying to get more information. It is not as simple as saying the insurer will simply make anyone sign up to anything against their (or our!) wishes. They will seek to find a cost effective solution - they are not there to settle the legal debate. But, I have been advised that making people sign any agreement that they believe is invalid would possibly not be the way forward - there are other ways a legal team could settle. They would also consider allowing a case through the legal system if it was felt there was strong evidence the paddler wasn't actually Trespassing. It would be up to us then to have strong enough evidence to show them a case was winnable, but also they would then balance up all the considerations, such as length of time it would take, the way certain cases could go to appeal/counter-appeal etc. Either way settling would be unlikely to create any precedent.

    The insurance is there to protect the member against costs in a Trespass case. It is not there as a mechanism to fight the legal difference of opinion. Nor should it make members forget the need to always be friendly and cooperative on the river side. Members are protect against the civil offence of Trespass. People should be wary of any action that could see alternative criminal charges as they would not be covered for these.

    Chris

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    546

    Default

    I agree. We are about to release an update to our Shared Use Position Statement that I hope will start to work towards this goal. It will lay out our views on the law - which is basically the same position as in the current document. However, in our submission to Welsh Government's consultation last year we suggested some criteria for partnerships on our rivers that we believe represent a way forward that is fair and respectful to all. Our new position will elaborate on these points. We do include that any partnerships on our rivers are voluntary, and should be aside from any person or organisation's view of the law - and we recognise very much that there are a very diverse range f views on this issue. I hope when it is released people will be happy with the suggestions we make - and of course feedback will be very welcome.

    Good to know that this is in the pipeline. I'll look forward to seeing it and thanks for the update Chris.

    Mike

  30. Default

    This statement (https://www.britishcanoeing.org.uk/n...avigation-prn/) was released yesterday. I'd draw your attention particularly to the two documents links at the bottom of the statement - showing an updated Position Statement on Shared Use and updated briefing note on Trespass.

    Chris Page, W&E Officer, chris.page@britishcanoeing.org.uk

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    546

    Default

    Thanks for posting Chris.

    Mike

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Robin Hood's Bay,Yorkshire
    Posts
    2,592

    Default

    Re the trespass.

    I'm sure some of you will be aware already, but as far as i know there has only been one or two successful prosecutions of a paddler for trespass.

    One, Ranson v Peters 1972 a paddler/s on the Wharfe? (certainly a yorkshire river in that sort of area) was summoned for trespass on a stretch of the river for "disturbing a fishery", even though no one was fishing. He didn't bother turn up at court and in his absence the judge thought the crime nominal damages of 50p were awarded and the fishery owner was permitted to return to court to seek an injunction if need be to restrain any future canoeing.

    from (Angling & The Law, Carty & Payne 1998)
    http://www.davidwperry.blogspot.co.uk/

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    1,546

    Default

    This is an extract from the "Caffyn on Rivers" website. http://www.caffynonrivers.co.uk/_res...after_1830.pdf

    My understanding is that there was some history between the two parties and it looks like Mr Peters was making a point by repeatedly paddling up and down the same section of river and stopping for a picnic.

    In this case Peters and his family had canoed up and down the river more than once and had had a picnic on an island. The Court held that this amounted to substantial interference. Lord Denning also said, ‘No one can doubt that the passing of canoes up and down the river must disturb the fish for a considerable time, and this interferes with the right of fishing.’

    It would seem that the simple passage of a canoe down a river would not normally create a substantial interference with the fish. The National Rivers Authority in its Guidance Notes for Bailiffs wrote, ‘In respect of disturbance or hindrance to fish near obstructions, there is little direct evidence that canoes will cause any problems, though their presence in a relatively confined channel through which the fish must pass may act as a deterrent to their passage.’36 If there is little evidence that canoes cause disturbance near an obstruction it would seem that there is even less evidence that they cause disturbance in an open river.

    In Halsbury’s Laws of England it is stated that, ‘Lord Denning MR added (although he was not reported on this point) that there are many cases in which a canoeist has a right to navigate; the right may be acquired by long user or by grant or reservation, and if the canoeist has the right, the owners of the fishing rights must allow the navigation and put up with the disturbance of the fishing.’37

    The House of Lords Select Committee on Sport and Leisure referred to Rawson v Peters as, ‘one notorious case which has led to litigation.’38 The case strengthened the anglers in their opinion that they had an exclusive right to most rivers in the country. For many canoeists the fact that a judge who was a keen fisherman gave the judgement of the Court of Appeal strengthened their opinion that the establishment was biased in favour of anglers.
    "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"
    Grp Cpt Sir Douglas Bader CBE,DSO,DFC,FRAeS.

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Robin Hood's Bay,Yorkshire
    Posts
    2,592

    Default

    The judge may have been a fisherman but 50p? Given the fact that Peters didn't turn up and as you say he repeatedly paddled up and down the judge only gave 50 p as damages? You can judge what he thought of the 'crime'.
    http://www.davidwperry.blogspot.co.uk/

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southport, really in Lancashire, UK
    Posts
    1,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davidh View Post

    I hope anglers are not stupid enough to buy into the FishLegal rhetoric, because if they do expect I much more riverside abuse towards paddlers.
    Sadly, too many are taken in by Anglers Trust and Fish Legal shouting about how right they are.

    False news shouted loudly wins too many minds.

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


  36. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    West Country UK (and Quebec Province sometimes)
    Posts
    300

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dougoutcanoe View Post
    Sadly, too many are taken in by Anglers Trust and Fish Legal shouting about how right they are.

    False news shouted loudly wins too many minds.

    Doug
    https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article...uleId=10007392

    I wrote a closely argued support of Doug's view, but it's late, I pressed the wrong button and 'tis all lost.


    But Niemoller's poem, and the sentence in the article beginning "Nonetheless........" will serve in part.
    Last edited by Grizzle; 9th-February-2017 at 12:52 AM. Reason: Typo
    G

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

  37. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southport, really in Lancashire, UK
    Posts
    1,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grizzle View Post
    https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article...uleId=10007392

    I wrote a closely argued support of Doug's view, but it's late, I pressed the wrong button and 'tis all lost.


    But Niemoller's poem, and the sentence in the article beginning "Nonetheless........" will serve in part.
    I've done that too many times and lost all that I wrote!

    I had a look at Niemoller's poem and agree, it is too near the mark and highlights my thoughts about our fellow paddlers and the organisations that supposed to support us.

    AT and FL are coming for us and not finding any resistance. Sad and

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


  38. #38
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mid-Wales (River Wye)
    Posts
    1,102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dougoutcanoe View Post
    I've done that too many times and lost all that I wrote!

    I had a look at Niemoller's poem and agree, it is too near the mark and highlights my thoughts about our fellow paddlers and the organisations that supposed to support us.

    AT and FL are coming for us and not finding any resistance. Sad and

    Doug
    I think the recent, crowing press release by AT smacks of desperation myself.

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davidh View Post
    I think the recent, crowing press release by AT smacks of desperation myself.
    I think they are trying to maintain the upper hand in the face of having to be seen to be doing something. They were very worried at the height of this dispute. I called them a couple of times, using a friends membership details and spoke to their 'man on the case' and he continued to quote a previous QC who was backing their case. I also spoke to a QC friend who came down very much on the side of landowners and denied a PRN exists on all rivers. This is never going to court, at least not to a higher court. Like I've said many times before, don't canoe on the posh trout beats in their mayfly times as it always ends in tears. Outside of this four week period, the river can be deserted, especially before 9am. You have got to have excellent bio-security though. Should you be responsible for spreading some of these horrific ponto-caspian inverts around, the only answer will be having a Wembley service revolver passed across the desk and you being left alone to do the right thing...

Posting Permissions

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