cobra wrote:Whatever, hadn't picked up my spelling mistakes.
By status quo I meant ' We paddle, they don't like it'
I didn't see your spelling mistake either.
cobra wrote:Having had a chat with some of the local fishers in Brecon, I did have a sort of plan to make an approach regarding some form of access agreement. However, having spoken to my fellow water users and indeed to a few landowners we have come to the conclusion that the fishers have little to offer. whilst we remain approachable and the local fishers now know at least who I am, our present position is to go along with the status quo.
Kayak 1 is right that the fishers are only interested in money and have stated ' not to bother coming to the table unless we intend to pay'. We are prepared to participate in any discussions which have no preconditions.
AlexHolt wrote:So, has anyone actually paddled the Tawe recently? is the situation sufficiently bad we'd need to leave someone with the cars to prevent vandalism?
chriscw wrote:I wonder if fitting roof racks to anglers cars or leaving paddling gear in them might be effective, anglers might then crack down on the lunatics if they themselves were victims (disengage tongue in cheek mode)
cobra wrote:Tawe Angling see paddlers as a source of revenue. The WCA had an agreement with them and from what I understand the sum involved was between £2000- 2500 per annum. (this may not be accurate).
Heddlu Dyfed-Powys Police
Yn diogelu ein cymuned ~ Safeguarding our community
Gorsaf yr Heddlu, Pencader Sir Caerfyrddin, SA39 9HA
• Ffon/Tel.: 0845 330 2000 -
Pencader . Ffacs/Fax : 01559 384589
Pencader Police Station, Pencader, http://www.dyfed-powys.police.uk Carmarthenshire SA39 9HA
£ic/ic)././Yourref:N/A Go/ynntvch am:/Please ask tor: PC 561JONES
Ein cyf. /Our ref: TEIFI TROUT ASSOCIATION / LLANDYSUL PADDLERS.
04™ March 2009
BUDDSODDWYR MEWN POBL
INVESTORS IN PEOPLE
Dear Mr Bryant,
I write in an effort to clarify the Police position in relation to a dispute between the Teifi Trout Association and the Llandysul Paddlers. This dispute appears to Surround the usage of the river Teifi and adjoining land. Due to the complexity of this case I have sought advice and guidance from our Legal Services Department.
I will firstly comment on the usage of the river itself. The facts of this matter appear to be that the Teifi Trout Association own land alongside certain parts of the River Teifi and in addition they also appear to enjoy certain fishing rights that have been granted. The Llandysul Paddlers organise various events which involve passing through these sections of the river. In the past, the Llandysul Paddlers have sought consent from the Trout Association to pass through these sections of the river and it now appears as though they wish to introduce charge(s) for the continued use of the river by the Paddlers in this way. It is on this basis that the Teifi Trout Association maintains that should such an event take place in the future when no payment has been made by the Paddlers then they would consider that a criminal offence has taken place contrary to Section 11 of the Fraud Act 2006. This section provides as follows: -
Obtaining services dishonestly
(1) A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he obtains services for himself or another—
(a) by a dishonest act, and
(b) in breach of subsection (2).
(2) A person obtains services in breach of this subsection if—
(a) they are made available on the basis that payment has been, is being or will be made for or in respect of
(b) he obtains them without any payment having been made for or in respect of them or without payment
having been made in full, and
(c) when he obtains them, he knows—
(I) that they are being made available on the basis described in paragraph (a), or (ii) that they might be, but intends mat payment will not be made, or will not be made in full.
' 1 «M*iiiMnM**MMbii»»ia«
Mr. Ian Arundale.- Prif Gwnstabl / Chief Constable
Mae Heddlu Dyfed-Powys yn croesawu gohebiaelh yny Gymraeg neu > Saesneg. Dyfed-Powys Police welcomes correspondence in either Welsh or English. 1
My first observation would be to question what service, if any, is being provided in a situation where the Paddlers are merely passing along the water course without more. They are not, for instance, looking to obtain fish from the river in the way that anglers would through the paying of a permit fee. I also doubt very much whether such action would be regarded as dishonest in the circumstances that are anticipated.
In any event, I cannot see that the Teifi Trout Association can make passage along the relevant sections of the river subject to a requirement that a fee is to be paid. I have caused some research to be carried out in relation to interests in water and rights in flowing water at common law. The position is that although certain rights as regards flowing water are incident to the ownership of riparian property (that is, land abutting the water) the water itself, whether flowing in a known and defined channel or percolating through the soil, is not, at common law, the subject of property or capable of being granted to anybody. Flowing or running water is therefore considered as public or common.
The Teifi Trout Association advises that they own certain parts of the river bed. By presumption of law and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the ownership of the bed of a non tidal river or stream belongs in equal halves to the owners of the riparian land. This presumption that the riparian owners, own the bed of the river as far as the centre line of the stream applies whether the land is freehold or leasehold and whether the river is navigable or non navigable. Ownership of the whole bed of the river will be presumed from ownership of the land on both sides unless it is a tidal river. Whilst, therefore, the Teifi Trout Association can own complete sections of the river bed, this is separate and distinct from the water that passes above it and any use that is made of it.'
It would appear that the Teifi Trout Association are trying to allege that criminal conduct exists within the context of a dispute which on a closer analysis is really a civil matter between the Trout Association and the Llandysul Paddlers. Obviously, if such dispute were to give rise to situations of public disorder and breach of the peace, as they appear to have done in the past, then we would look to attend and police this in the usual way through adopting our powers within this field.
Secondly 1 will comment on the use of Teifi Trout Association owned or controlled land for entry and egress onto the river Teifi.
I would agree that should members of the Llandysul Paddlers pass along land owned by the Teifi Trout Association, in order to gain access/egress from the river and in the clear knowledge that a fee should be paid and has not been paid, then potentially an offence could be made out contrary to Section 11 of the Fraud Act 2006. In stating this, I am assuming that there are no public rights of way on the land and no rights of recreation pursuant to established custom in favour of the Paddlers.
Section 11 of the Fraud Act states that this section would also cover a situation where a person climbs over a wall and watches a football match without paying the entrance fee. Such a person is obtaining a service which is provided on the basis that people will pay for it. This scenario is not too dissimilar to that with which we are dealing in this case.
Notwithstanding the above the Crown Prosecution Service will have to consider the evidence presented before them ^ and also satisfy themselves that it is in the public interest to prosecute any offence(s) disclosed in these
circumstances. However, that is a decision for the CPS to take following investigation and placement of an evidence file before them by the Police.
To summarise, the Police will not be investigating any allegations of fraud relating to the usage of the river by canoeists but will investigate complaints relating to crossing land owned or controlled by Teifi Trout Association. This will not necessarily mean that a prosecution will follow as that decision will rest initially with supervisors and then if there is sufficient evidence with the CPS.
I will also be conferring with Mr Gareth Bryant at the Llandysul Paddlers to clarify the Police position within this dispute and advising him accordingly.
I hope this clarifies our position and provides you with the necessary information as to what to expect from the Police if called to deal with a reported incident relating to the use of the river Teifi and adjoining land..
Rhydian Jones PC 561, Neighbourhood Officer, North Teifi Ward.
I have caused some research to be carried out in relation to interests in water and rights in flowing water at common law. The position is that although certain rights as regards flowing water are incident to the ownership of riparian property (that is, land abutting the water) the water itself, whether flowing in a known and defined channel or percolating through the soil, is not, at common law, the subject of property or capable of being granted to anybody. Flowing or running water is therefore considered as public or common.
wezzzy wrote:tawe boy wrote:It appears that the tide is turning in the favour of law abiding angling clubs
Intimidation and criminal damage isn't what I'd call law abiding.
tawe boy wrote: However open access on small spate rivers such as the tawe is simply not viable.
tawe boy wrote:TTAA previously had with the WCA allowed for canoeing during the close season- this was workable.
tawe boy wrote:In response to Wezzy`s post there is not a shred of proof which could suggest that TTAA is responsable for any vandalism.
Strad wrote:Are you also willing to say that as a representative of TTAA that such acts of vandalism are to be condemned and any member of TTAA shown to be involved would have their TTAA membership permanently revoked?
tawe boy wrote:It has been stated in numerous meetings and has been minuited that members are not to commit such acts and to report these acts if they know the perpetraters. Mebers are also encouraged not to verbally abuse kyakers. They have been directed by the local police to simply inform them that they are tresspassing and take names, car rega=istration numbers etc.
TTAA are a long established organisation which does a lot of work for the community in these parts, it is run by volunteers and have inititives in place to promote angling in the community, we have recently run both disabled and junior competions in conjunction with various community organisations.
tawe boy wrote:The notion that an organisation of this stature would condone acts of vandalism and intimidation is simply ludicrous. However TTAA are an organisation of approximatley 300 members and permit holders and when such disregard for our property is shown a small, mindless minority will always feel compelled to engage in such acts.
tawe boy wrote: Mebers are also encouraged not to verbally abuse kyakers. They have been directed by the local police to simply inform them that they are tresspassing and take names, car rega=istration numbers etc.
tawe boy wrote:Hi Chris, If you look back at some of my earlier postings you will see that I do not think that anglers should have exclusive rights to our rivers. However open access on small spate rivers such as the tawe is simply not viable.TTAA previously had with the WCA allowed for canoeing during the close season- this was workable. I think it is time that the WCA and any other canoeing bodies for that matter need to realise that to have any kind of access to rivers for their members they will have to sit down with the anglers- the welsh assembly have said this yet they still refuse to do this. As I said in my earlier post they are on a sticky wicket when you consider that they are so heavily relaiant on assembly hand outs.I dont think I am incorrect when I say that over 50% of the managing director of canoe Wales` salary comes from handouts from the assembly. Relating to the title of this thread (Tawe Hassle) paddlers will continue to be hassled on the tawe until they stop tresspassing and make some kind of attempt to get an access ageement in place.
In response to Wezzy`s post there is not a shred of proof which could suggest that TTAA is responsable for any vandalism.
tawe boy wrote:wezzzy wrote:The person who VERBALLY ABUSED my pregnant girlfriend identified himself as a TTAA member, she wasn't even in a car used by paddlers she was stood on the bridge.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests