JJs - legal action allegedly continues

[Mark R]

We are working hard at improving the situation for paddlers every day, and want to take a positive approach to the current issues, not stir up further discord.

I have been hearing through the grapevine that ...

- JJs are still actively pursuing legal action against a paddler.
- They are threatening legal action for libel against a young paddler over comments apparently made on this forum about an alleged assault, that they consider to be libellous and untrue.
- They have requested an extremely large sum of money from the paddler in return for not pursuing this action.

Biased, loaded and untrue comments are received with the indifference they deserve, and ignored where possible but where they generate negativity must be refuted.

I agree with and support this perfectly reasonable and understandable standpoint. Hence, I am sure that JJs will post here right away to correct me if any of what I have heard through the grapevine is untrue, inaccurate or misinformed in any way. Indeed, I positively encourage them to do so, to remove the possibility of any unwelcome misinformation or misunderstandings.

[chucky-matty]

I like you!

[Wildswimmer Pete]

- They are threatening legal action for libel against a young paddler over comments apparently made on this forum about an alleged assault, that they consider to be libellous and untrue.

Strikes me they are desperate for money and will stop at nothing to obtain it - even stooping to bullying a youngster exercising his right to free speech.

JJ - Note: This is an OPINION and therefore cannot be deemed libellous.

Pete

[Kayak-Girl83]

To quote Vic Reeves "They wouldn't let it lie!"

[Adrian Cooper]

I've gone off them. It may be entirely without foundation but I am currently actively discouraging anybody I meet from visiting Mile End Mill.

[buck197]

This is an addendum to their recently quoted business plan then???

[moose]

At last the truth is starting to reveal itself.

[John Saunders]

To quote Vic Reeves "They wouldn't let it lie!"

or, "When you're in a hole. stop digging" (this is not obviously not general paddling advice)

Ditto chucky-matty's sentiments.

[callwild]

Earlier in the year I recieved a PM warning me to be careful about what I should post on UKRG because the Jayes were watching and actively persueing comments they thought may be libelous. It seems many with more local knowledge of the issues have kept quiet because of this.
Stuart Miller

[chucky-matty]

Ditto chucky-matty's sentiments.

Please call me Chucky

[John Saunders]

Ditto chucky-matty's sentiments.

Please call me Chucky

Will do!

[Poke]

It seems as though this is a last gasp effort to make some cash out of the paddling community before they have to throw in the towel completely.

[cswalker]

I could be wrong, but I heard several years ago that indeed money was an issue and various steps were taken and now the company resides in Sally Jayes name.

[kendomat]

Just say it is not you if ifs something written on here, as I woulld think although it may appear to be you saying it, this is the internet and it could really be any one acting as you..

And I presume they would need a court order of some kind to obtain IPs of posters from Mark R to find out who people really are..

[morsey]

Just say it is not you

Just say nothing, unless you know what you say to be true, in which case you are at liberty to say it freely.



For what it is worth I personally view that taking paddlers to court because of them canoeing on a river is an act against all paddlers. The circumstances may have been complicated but the fact remains that JJ's know fully well the state of access on UK rivers and having been very vocal and present during the Llangollen access rally they know full well what the general feeling is amongst paddlers. The signs need to go, all and any actions against paddlers need to stop, public declaration of an understanding and acceptance of open access through the River Dee (Mile End Mill) river course needs to be made. This guy is a talented and respected coach making a living out of canoeing and rafting. I have friends with similar business set ups and as I would hate for any of them to go out of business I would also be unhappy for others to not be able to continue working, but if the stance against open access to rivers continues then I have limited sympathy.

[George Mcmillan]

I'm a Scottish paddler and probably won't ever paddle this section of River in question. As all rivers in Scotland are [u]free[/u].

Whats the feeling of the paddling community in regards to this situation?

How are we as a paddling community responding to this?

Is every paddler boycotting the areas and shops in question?

Has there been any backlash from the paddling community?

[kevinf]

- They have requested an extremely large sum of money from the paddler in return for not pursuing this action.

Trying to extort money out of someone with threats, unless you are are genuinely owed the money for a service provided, is blackmail - which is most definately illegal and a criminal offence.....

[kendomat]

Chasing large amounts of money - Does this person have any money worth chasing..

Well worth paying court costs only to be told the person in question can pay back £2 a week for the rest of his life...

[Randy Fandango]

Just say nothing, unless you know what you say to be true, in which case you are at liberty to say it freely.

Sadly this isn't exactly correct though is it.
If -- totally hypothetically speaking of course -- a person involved in paddling (lets call him Giles) were to, say, thump another paddler (lets call him Si) with a lump of 2by4 and, although witnesses were willing to come forward and attest that the foul deed had indeed taken place, the police and CPS decided for their own reasons that there wasn't enough evidence to link "Giles" with the crime, "Si" appearing on an internet forum stating that "Giles" had indeed assaulted him could indeed end up in libelous trouble for attempting to blemish "Giles'" otherwise good name.
I'm pretty sure that's sad but so.
Giles

[Crumble]

Their latest filed accounts in April 2007 show them to be making more money...more incomnigs and less outgoings.

Wonder what happened in the last year!?

And, in 2005, when Sally Ann was a Director of their previous company...Activities Direct, her surname was Jackson. Have they only recently been married? Has she not been around for all that long hence the problems only starting to occur recently?

[morsey]

Indeed, there are exceptions. I was suggesting that in general term those who do not know the facts should not wade in and then pretend they did not say it!

However, just because the Police/CPS do not take action does not mean an incident did not take place.

[Randy Fandango]

However, just because the Police/CPS do not take action does not mean an incident did not take place.

You and I totally agree on that but bizarrely the law doesn't always.
Giles

[husky]

However, just because the Police/CPS do not take action does not mean an incident did not take place.

You and I totally agree on that but bizarrely the law doesn't always.
Giles

So do I
Steve

[David Fairweather]

I've gone off them. It may be entirely without foundation but I am currently actively discouraging anybody I meet from visiting Mile End Mill.

This seems unfair on the poor folk at the Paddleworks shop at the same site. Since all this nonsense, I have been completely disinclined to give the Jayes any of my money, but almost more inclined to spend cash at Paddleworks.

[Tom_Laws]

I am now making a point of popping into PW whenever I am around. If PW had a coffee machine I would use it.

As far as I am aware the legal action against this certain young paddler is carrying on, but I'm not going to speculate about the whys and wherefores on here.

[callwild]

As far as I am aware the legal action against this certain young paddler is carrying on, but I'm not going to speculate about the whys and wherefores on here.

Maybe someone should though. I'm not an expert on law but pointing out a thread on this board which has instigated supposed action would be be helpful to other board users and I dont see how it could affect the case, or maybe its not a case yet if an out of court settlement is being claimed. what are people scared of saying exactly?

[GoldTopo]

Theft Act 1968:
S 21. Blackmail. — (1) A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief—
(a)that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and
(b)that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
(2) The nature of the act or omission demanded is immaterial, and it is also immaterial whether the menaces relate to action to be taken by the person making the demand.
(3) A person guilty of blackmail shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

[John Kennedy]

Ah lads, it's betting a bit boring reading all these excerpts from various acts online. We're all arm chair solicitors, but there's no point in us trying to argue the case.
I'm sure we've all come to the conclusion that Jays are pure scoundrels no matter what they do now, but I doubt us posting up tracts of criminal law is of any benefit to those involved. If it's needed, I'm sure they're seeking professional legal advice.

[kendomat]

Ignorance of the law is no defence, so the more you are aware of it, the better you stand.

having some one post an excert of the law, demonstrates clearer what the legal statue is on the matter rather than someones say so.
However, our laws allows for that much diversity thqat even what is written is not alway what is ruled.

[chriscw]

I think in this case the plaintiff would need to either prove that the assault accusation was untrue beyond reasonable doubt or that it was true but in some way defamatory. To be defamatory I think an accusation must have implications beyond the fact that the act took place.

For example if I had a mistress and promoted her in the organisation where I worked and someone published both true facts together it could imply that I had promoted my mistress to get inside her underwear. Thus being defamatory to both my honesty and my hypothetical mistress meriting her promotion.

I use this as an example because I'm not in a position to promote anyone and fortunately not likely to be attractive to any potential mistresses!