Tawe Hassle.

South of Severn/ Rheidol catchment
User avatar
Kayak-Bloke
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:56 pm
Location: (Ever Wet) South Wales

Re: TAWE HASSLE.

Post by Kayak-Bloke » Wed Nov 24, 2010 12:32 pm

You know I actually look forward to presenting a reasoned and thought out debate on this issue with members of the fishing community. It's a shame it's ended in the guy brave enough to come on here and put his point forward just getting all upset and then threatening us and our property.

So let's try and get it back to a debate again shall we: Taweboy:

Firstly let's face it you don't REALLY care about the river. What Really rubs you up is you (anglers) pay all this cash and you see us wanting to use the river for free. That's your issue.
Let's say for arguement all us paddlers won the lottery and decided that, for a quiet life, we were going to pay. Who would we pay the money to? YOU? The TAA? Every riperian owner all the way down the river? The EA? Now let's say we decided not to paddle the Tawe one day but we fancied a run down the Mellte. Would we pay again becasue the rights are owned by a different set of people?
It's just totally unworkable.Think about the needs of our sport. No-one runs the same river everytime. This is before you even think about what exactly are you ask us to pay for?
People walk the banks of the Tawe all the time. You may 'own' large sections of the river bank but you can not stop them. Have you tried charging them too? If you believe you have absolute exclusivity to the river why not erect a wall and see what happens...
Moving onto the fish thing: It has been scientifically PROVEN by a totally independent body that paddling rivers does NOT affect fishing stocks.
How do you explain that England and Wales are the only two countries IN THE WORLD where fishing being runied by kayaking appears to happen? I recently paddled in France and the anglers waved at us, happy to see fellow outdoors types enjoying the same river.
Now let's get onto the law:
Your "intent to prosecute." How many people have you actually prosecuted then?
At best the only thing you could possibly take anyone to court over is trespass. The police do not want to get invovled with trespass it is a civil matter.
Agrivated trespass? Well you could claim that a paddler was not only somewehre they shouldn't be but that they also damaged something belonging to you or caused you to lose money or incur costs by them being there.
I'd love to see THAT go to court:

As for the criminal damage bit or even the threats you've made here. Now THAT does break the law so if you would really like the police to get involved wht not hang about next time you're bored out of fishing season and go looking for paddler's cars.
You KNOW you don't have any legal claim to the river which is why you are impotent in terms of actually prosecuting anyone. Half of you don't even know why you don't want kayakers on the river you think we're trying to take something away from you and that simply isn't the case.


Moresy: Ref your last post: Funniest thing I've read in ages.

Nige'

SPL
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 9:23 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: TAWE HASSLE.

Post by SPL » Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:14 pm

Why do you want to stop us
Could an angler just answer the simple question I posted ealier please.

User avatar
Kayak-Bloke
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:56 pm
Location: (Ever Wet) South Wales

Re: TAWE HASSLE.

Post by Kayak-Bloke » Thu Nov 25, 2010 10:55 am

Twice in 2010 I've had an angler or member of a fishing club tell me the police have been called. They have did not turn up.
Previously when our car was left with a note saying we had been reported to the police guess what.... they never got involved.
Whilst dropping cars off once we were confronted by a club baliff that claimed to be a serving member of the police. We asked him to show his warrant card or arrest us... he did neither.

All bark.... No bite.
yap yap yap.

Out of season hassle is a sign of boredom. Go and buy some paddling gear and join a real sport where you still enjoy the river and work up a sweat.

chriscw
Posts: 905
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:35 am
Location: Basingstoke
Contact:

Re: TAWE HASSLE.

Post by chriscw » Thu Nov 25, 2010 1:17 pm

tawe boy wrote:Mr Clarke Williams,
You obviously have some kind of difficulty understanding some of the simple wording in my previous post where I stated "this is in no way meant as a threat, more for the purpose of debate". You really are challenging the stereotype that people with double barreled names are educated!
I have said in my previous posts that I do not condone any form of bullying, violence or vandalism.
As I have said previously I have no objection with canoeists using the river and previous access agreements allowed both parties to co exist in relative harmony, however the WCA pulled out of this agreement as they were pinning their hopes on a simular law to the one which is in place in scotland being passed in wales, it went to the assembly and things did not go the way the canoeists would have hoped so I think it is time for the WCA to come back to the table. Some form of agreement is better for both sides as im sure many canoeists are staying away as they simply cant be bothered for the hassle.
Out of curiousity, are most canoeists affiliated to different clubs or bodies around the country or are most of them just gangs of mates who get together? This is not a loaded question of any kind, more to satisfy my own curiousity.
Tawe Boy. I am glad to see that you have edited your original post to state that it was not a threat. Still though rather an unwise thing to put on a public forum, even with your edit.

As far as access agreements are concerned the paddling community have in the past rather unwisely entered into such arrangements. Since Roman times all navigable rivers have been public rights of way and this was enshrined in the Magna Carta too. Entering into access agreements implies that we do not have a right to paddle all navigable rivers when we wish to, this is not the case we do have the right to paddle when we wish to so there never was any need for such agreements. If a groups of users on a particular river wish to enter into an informal arrangement to share said river in some way then that's fine but access agreements as such were never needed and are not needed now. Access across private land to a river is of course another matter as are parking arrangements.
Chris Clarke-Williams
Location Basingstoke

Paddling Interests:
Touring, Coaching Beginners (I am an L2K), Surf White water trips, Weir Play (I'm not good enough to put freestyle!)

Steve B
Posts: 5699
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 2:36 pm
Location: Taunton, Somerset
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: TAWE HASSLE.

Post by Steve B » Thu Nov 25, 2010 1:37 pm

Kayak-Bloke wrote:Whilst dropping cars off once we were confronted by a club baliff that claimed to be a serving member of the police. We asked him to show his warrant card or arrest us... he did neither.
Police Act 1996:
90. — (1) Any person who with intent to deceive impersonates a member of a police force or special constable, or makes any statement or does any act calculated falsely to suggest that he is such a member or constable, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.as ... esize=4199
Steve Balcombe

nokiamutt
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 6:19 pm

Re: TAWE HASSLE.

Post by nokiamutt » Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:02 pm

Tawe boy
There are no points on the tawe where a public footpath takes you directly into the river. There are many points where footpaths run close to the river. To get from the path to the river you have to cross land of some description which is where the act of tresspass is taking place- this is a statement of fact. So im afraid "nokiamutt" that unless any of you guys are dive bombing off bridges in your kyaks you are tresspassing at some point.
You obviously have not done your homework as there are more legal acess points to the tawe than you can immagine .

dj42
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: TAWE HASSLE.

Post by dj42 » Thu Nov 25, 2010 7:14 pm

nokiamutt wrote:Tawe boy
There are no points on the tawe where a public footpath takes you directly into the river. There are many points where footpaths run close to the river. To get from the path to the river you have to cross land of some description which is where the act of tresspass is taking place- this is a statement of fact. So im afraid "nokiamutt" that unless any of you guys are dive bombing off bridges in your kyaks you are tresspassing at some point.
You obviously have not done your homework as there are more legal acess points to the tawe than you can immagine .

And the get on for the upper stretch is in public accsess land.... so if i get on there and get off at the sea what tresspass have i done.

tawe boy
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: TAWE HASSLE.

Post by tawe boy » Thu Nov 25, 2010 9:12 pm

SPL wrote:
Why do you want to stop us
Could an angler just answer the simple question I posted ealier please.
Our club puts a great deal of time, effort and expense into maintaining the river, its banks and many accesses. We have forged relations with the many landowners along the river paying out substantial sums of money to simply provide members with a right of way. This is totally separate to the whole expense of stocking the river. I HAVE NO DESIRE TO STOP PEOPLE KYAKING ON THE TAWE but simply feel that you should have to pay for the pleasure. I dont think you should have to pay as much as anglers as you dont as you say "take anything out of the river". As I have stated in my previous posts the whole reality of this situation is that if you guys want to kyak on the tawe hassle free somebdy is going to have to pay.

Memo to Lord Chris Clark Williams of Baisingstoke: AT NO POINT DID I EDIT THAT POST YOU ARE REFERRING TO. OPEN YOUR EYES!!!!!!!!

User avatar
Kayak-Bloke
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:56 pm
Location: (Ever Wet) South Wales

Re: TAWE HASSLE.

Post by Kayak-Bloke » Thu Nov 25, 2010 9:35 pm

For goodness sake. Get over yourself.
You make it sound as if the TAA do river clearance, clear access routes and pay the landowners for your love of the river. You do it so you can use the river for your own ends it is not at all altruistic. But worse of all you infer that without you it will all fall apart...
Rewind time.... a thousand years. The river was still there. The banks were still there. People still managed to get to the river.
These things do not exisit because of the TAA. Your (all beit veiled) suggestion they do is ridiculous.

We will continue to paddle the river. As people will continue to walk its banks.
The fact that local anglers have decided to break the law (threatening behaviour and crminal damage) to intimitate us from doing so just underlines that the reality of it is you are powerless to stop us and you know it..


And to address an earlier question of yours. If a person was in your garden but plainly just walking through and you set your dog on them that would NOT be reasonable force in the eyes of the law.

SPL
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 9:23 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: TAWE HASSLE.

Post by SPL » Fri Nov 26, 2010 11:53 am

I HAVE NO DESIRE TO STOP PEOPLE KYAKING ON THE TAWE but simply feel that you should have to pay for the pleasure.I dont think you should have to pay as much as anglers as you dont as you say "take anything out of the river"
If a kayaker gets on a public access point and leaves from the same point would you still feel we should pay?

User avatar
Mike Mayberry
Posts: 807
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:13 pm
Location: Pembrokeshire
Contact:

Re: TAWE HASSLE.

Post by Mike Mayberry » Fri Nov 26, 2010 7:40 pm

SPL wrote:If a kayaker gets on a public access point and leaves from the same point

This is what most of us are doing.

tawe boy
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: TAWE HASSLE.

Post by tawe boy » Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:12 pm

The fact that you are entering and leaving the Tawe via public footpaths is irrelevant,the reality of the law in England and Wales is a public right of way only provides a legal right to “pass and re-pass along the way” and does not allow a person to go off the path, additionally Schedule 2 of the Countryside Rights Of Way Act 2000 specifies an extensive list of things that cannot be done from such a public right of way and the list includes the following: “The Act does not entitle a person to be on any land if, in or on that land, he or she uses a vessel or sailboard on any non-tidal water."

User avatar
wezzzy
Posts: 1047
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 3:40 am
Location: Blairgowrie, Perth.

Re: TAWE HASSLE.

Post by wezzzy » Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:33 pm

tawe boy wrote:The fact that you are entering and leaving the Tawe via public footpaths is irrelevant,the reality of the law in England and Wales is a public right of way only provides a legal right to “pass and re-pass along the way” and does not allow a person to go off the path."
SO, if you see me on the land BETWEEN the footpath and river please ask me to leave the private land (You cannot use any kind of force if I am attempting to move off the so called private land), which I will do, either onto the footpath or the river, say anything to me while I am on the river or on the footpath and I will ask you to leave me alone.

tawe boy wrote:Schedule 2 of the Countryside Rights Of Way Act 2000 specifies an extensive list of things that cannot be done from such a public right of way and the list includes the following: “The Act does not entitle a person to be on any land if, in or on that land, he or she uses a vessel or sailboard on any non-tidal water."
I think this is covered with us using the public footpath as this legislation covers the "right to roam" and is not applied to public rights of way. I am permitted to carry anything (except the usual illegal things like firearms etc) I want to on a footpath.

(edited to mention firearms etc)

User avatar
dry suit tester
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 1:04 pm
Location: Coventry

Re: TAWE HASSLE.

Post by dry suit tester » Thu Dec 02, 2010 8:42 am

tawe boy wrote:The fact that you are entering and leaving the Tawe via public footpaths is irrelevant,the reality of the law in England and Wales is a public right of way only provides a legal right to “pass and re-pass along the way” and does not allow a person to go off the path, additionally Schedule 2 of the Countryside Rights Of Way Act 2000 specifies an extensive list of things that cannot be done from such a public right of way and the list includes the following: “The Act does not entitle a person to be on any land if, in or on that land, he or she uses a vessel or sailboard on any non-tidal water."

All information here, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 000133.htm

A public footpath does not fall under the Countryside Rights Of Way Act 2000

Steve B
Posts: 5699
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 2:36 pm
Location: Taunton, Somerset
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: TAWE HASSLE.

Post by Steve B » Thu Dec 02, 2010 10:30 am

tawe boy wrote:... the Countryside Rights Of Way Act 2000 specifies an extensive list of things that cannot be done from such a public right of way...
No, it specifies a list of things which the Act doesn't grant the right to do. It doesn't prohibit them, that is completely different. Also it doesn't define "vessel" - and most people would take it to mean something a lot larger than a kayak which can be carried on the shoulder. The Oxford dictionary, which is generally recognised as the premier authority on the English language, defines a vessel as a "ship or large boat." http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entr ... _gb0925890
Steve Balcombe

tawe boy
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: TAWE HASSLE.

Post by tawe boy » Thu Dec 02, 2010 7:03 pm

Think there was enough said in my last post. Time to get the WCA to come to the table I think, dont you? Then you can come on the river between October and March and not have any bother off anyone. You could even help us with our river and access clearance. Simular agreements exist on the river Usk and have been a resounding success. Swallow your pride gents this militant attitude is getting you nowhere, you pinned everything on your big day in the Assembly and lost, time to look at viable and workable alternatives. An interesting point for you all, there has been strong talk in fishing circles about a blanket boycott in Wales of the EA rod licence, they say they no longer have the manpower to police our rivers properly. A lot of discontent is also due to the fact that we pay a fee to use the rivers and you do not. These concerns have been voiced to the EA recently by the Welsh Salmon and Trout Association (WSTA). They have responded by saying that a full review of the situation is going to take place. Who knows you may end up forking out on two fronts!!!

User avatar
morsey
Posts: 6275
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2003 12:36 pm
Location: West Country :-)
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: TAWE HASSLE.

Post by morsey » Thu Dec 02, 2010 7:13 pm

Tawe boy I think you missed the subtlety of my post earlier. I'll translate it for you:

Jog on.

tawe boy
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: TAWE HASSLE.

Post by tawe boy » Thu Dec 02, 2010 7:46 pm

Morsey, Think your talents are wasted as a Kyaker!

User avatar
morsey
Posts: 6275
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2003 12:36 pm
Location: West Country :-)
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: TAWE HASSLE.

Post by morsey » Thu Dec 02, 2010 8:49 pm

You claim to know everything about the law and then threaten dogs as if you have never heard of the dangerous dogs act. Quite simply I think you are a fool. You do not even command enough respect from myself as for me to enter into a discussion with you.

End of the day you have no authority and we shall continue to paddle.

User avatar
wezzzy
Posts: 1047
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 3:40 am
Location: Blairgowrie, Perth.

Re: TAWE HASSLE.

Post by wezzzy » Thu Dec 02, 2010 9:46 pm

tawe boy wrote: Then you can come on the river between October and March and not have any bother off anyone.
I used to stick to the so called agreement and only paddle in the closed season but now things have changed.
Your organisation (He identified himself as a Tawe Angling member so I take it he was representing all of you) threatened and abused my girlfriend so in my case the gloves are off, I will paddle the Tawe whenever I want no matter what the time of year.
You can run to your committee or the WCA as I am a member of neither and won't do as they ask, you can run to the police and I will see you in court (If you ever think you will get it that far) or you can run to me and take your chances with whatever law you think I am breaking but be perfectly clear that I am NOT a small pregnant woman and I will NOT back down from intimidation.

See you on the river.

tawe boy
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: TAWE HASSLE.

Post by tawe boy » Fri Dec 03, 2010 7:37 pm

This is great, its obvious your backs are against the wall as its just the idiots amongst you that are talking now!!Nice 1 Wezzzzzzzy, had a bowl of courage for your tea by the looks of it!! Look forwad to catching up with you;-)

boom
Posts: 308
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 6:12 pm

Re: TAWE HASSLE.

Post by boom » Fri Dec 03, 2010 8:45 pm

tawe boy wrote:This is great, its obvious your backs are against the wall as its just the idiots amongst you that are talking now!!Nice 1 Wezzzzzzzy, had a bowl of courage for your tea by the looks of it!! Look forwad to catching up with you;-)
No, just waiting for rain!

dj42
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: TAWE HASSLE.

Post by dj42 » Fri Dec 03, 2010 10:51 pm

Tawe Boy i think everyones got board of your wining. You still havnt commented on what laws are broken if i get on in open accsess land.You may own the river banks for most of the river but the water is owned by the state. you cannot say who can use the water. I think at the end of the day you can make threats all you like but we will still paddle the river if and when we please.

User avatar
wezzzy
Posts: 1047
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 3:40 am
Location: Blairgowrie, Perth.

Re: TAWE HASSLE.

Post by wezzzy » Sat Dec 04, 2010 12:31 am

tawe boy wrote:This is great, its obvious your backs are against the wall as its just the idiots amongst you that are talking now!!Nice 1 Wezzzzzzzy, had a bowl of courage for your tea by the looks of it!! Look forwad to catching up with you;-)
No extra courage needed here, I used to try to get on but not now.
If you want to make threats, make them to me and find out how much I know about the law and what I will do about it.

chud
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:28 pm
Location: Reading

Re: TAWE HASSLE.

Post by chud » Sun Dec 05, 2010 8:07 pm

tawe boy wrote:This is great, its obvious your backs are against the wall as its just the idiots amongst you that are talking now!!
Self-awareness fail.
Rich S

Jay Oram
Posts: 252
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 11:03 am
Location: South east London/South Wales Hay-on-Wye
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: TAWE HASSLE.

Post by Jay Oram » Sun Dec 05, 2010 11:31 pm

Dear Tawe boy,

England and Wales are the only two countries in the world with this problem, why can't fisherman and landowners realise this?

The reasons that have been presented to not have access to a river (by fisherman) have all been found to be false.

1- scaring away fish/disturbing fishermans bait; do floating objects such as trees cause fish to swim away and hide? I think most fisherman would agree a stir up of their bait would help in catching fish.

2 - Kayakers affect fish stocks; the EA and many others have carried out studies on all types of river and have found this to be false.

3 - You pay to use the river but paddlers dont; correct me if I am wrong but as a fisherman you pay for the EA or your angling association to keep fish well stocked, you pay for the condition of the banks to be sustained and looked after, and for the water to be of a good condition to allow fish to live and to allow the biodiversity to stay rich. Kayakers do not need any of these facilities, if anything a place to get on a river and off may be nice to be contained and many paddlers would be happy to contribute a small fee to uphold this (Access to the Wye at the Holybush inn for example 50p a boat).

The money tax payers contribute to the upkeep of the rivers of England and Wales should be considered when arguing as kayakers we dont contribute to the river. As others have mentioned before paddlers contribute to the local community as well, often travelling to an area to paddle (accomodation, food, petrol stations) however fisherman are often locals who will take a pack lunch and not visit local services or facilities, this cant be beneficial to your argument.

As for the agreement, if as a club you meet with the WCA then only members will loosely 'have' to follow this agreement and as many of the paddlers on this forum have suggested they are not a member. To create a local agreement that all paddlers will agree, you with would have to create 365 days a year access, as long as the river is paddleable, this should be a sensible minimum level, not a 'spate' agreement. Would you agree to this??

With regard to legal president, no case has ever been presented to court that deals with access to a river from a public footpath, while paddling a river, causing an incident in which emergency services are needed (insurance coverage reasons) or any other piece of legislation you have chosen to try and twist to your own gain. However the threats you have presented in your arguments have insinuated that many laws have been broken, and proven in court.

As a paddler I will paddle any river i believe is at a runnable level, with or without permission, as will many others. Rational non-paddlers dont understand the predicament, I have heard "cant you just share the river" so many times. Maybe it's down to money and sharing, not fishing.

Next time the river is flowing, follow the guidebooks instructions, go to the get in of the river and when you see paddlers call the police, once a case has gone through court an answer will be found, until you or anyone from the fishing association do this, empty threats, vandalism or anything else will not work. I'll be one of the paddlers next time the rivers up, ask for me, I'm happy to see what happens.

Jay

tawe boy
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:49 pm

Re: TAWE HASSLE.

Post by tawe boy » Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:59 pm

Not that it is going to stop any of you from paddling on the Tawe but read below:
The legal position in England and Wales was spelt out in the report of the recent Welsh Assembly Inquiry on access to inland waters where Item 15 on page 12 is pretty unambiguous when it states: “The position in relation to non-tidal waters is different. The public right of navigation that exists on tidal waters does not apply to non-tidal waters, and consequently there is no general common law right of public navigation either in non-tidal rivers, or on inland lakes”. This Welsh Assembly opinion was also supported by the evidence given to the inquiry by the Environment Agency and Sports Wales.




The Lawyers in these public and government bodies will almost certainly have taken note of the judicial decision of Lord Denning in the case of Rawson v Peters (1972), when he ruled that the mere passage of a canoe was an actionable interference even though no fishing was being carried on at the time. Common law is founded on the principle of modification through precedent established by the most recent law court judgement of a disputed issue and, once made, the judicial decision remains the legal position until such time as it is next overturned or modified by a senior law court ruling. The Lord Denning ruling has not been overturned since the time it was made and therefore, where no public right of navigation can be demonstrated, the action of canoeing on inland waters continues to be an “actionable interference” (i.e. a trespass) against the owner or persons leasing a fishery. At the time of the judgment, Lord Denning was Master of the Rolls; that is, the presiding officer of the then Civil Division of the Court of Appeal and the second most senior judge in England and Wales; and even now, some years after his death, he remains one of the most respected law lords in living memory. It is also worth noting that his decision was supported at the time by both Lord Justice Megaw and Sir Gordon Willmer.



Thus the professional advice given to Welsh Assembly, the Environment Agency, Sports Wales and the Justices of the Appeals Court is at odds with the misguided hopes and wishes of many canoeists and their mistaken mantra, fuelled by the scribbling of a retired vicar, that there is a public right to navigate on all inland waters.



So Wezzzzzzzzly or any of you other wanabe leagle eagles clearly have no understanding of how the law works and choose to ignore the opinion of professional Lawyers and the Justices of the Supreme Court of Appeal because you think you know better! When you canoe the upper Tawe you are breaking a Civil Law and committing a common law trespass; where Wezzzzly keeps implying he is prepared to use violence to prevent his being ejected from private property then that, should it occur, would constitute aggravated trespass which is a Criminal matter for the police. Where he is using something which he knows should be paid for he is committing a criminal offence under the Section 11 of the Fraud Act (Obtaining services dishonestly). Where as members and officials of TTA are allowed to use reasonable force to remove/prevent paddlers from tresspassing on our property!

The police have also agreed to attend call outs after a recent meeting. I think it is also worth mentioning that TTA have written to the WCA requesting a meeting and recieved no reply as yet.

User avatar
RichA
Posts: 2836
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:51 am

Re: TAWE HASSLE.

Post by RichA » Wed Dec 08, 2010 10:40 am

tawe boy wrote:Not that it is going to stop any of you from paddling on the Tawe...
That's the first sensible thing you've said so far, well done. I hope you manage to keep it up, it's entertaining, but more than that, it shows how depserate you are to keep people from enjoying their rivers. Clutching at straws and all that. Like you said earlier though, backs up against the wall is a suitable expression. If you actually had case law that prevents paddlers from using rivers, like the Tawe, then you would have used it by now. Why haven't you? Or perhaps if you could reference a particular law, just the one would do, then that might give some weight to your scared ramblings. I guess that's too much to ask for... I really do feel sorry for you.

User avatar
Jim Pullen
Posts: 2237
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:21 am
Location: Darlington
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: TAWE HASSLE.

Post by Jim Pullen » Wed Dec 08, 2010 12:57 pm

The 1972 Rawson vs Peters Denning case resulted in damages of 50p being brought against the canoeist and has more recently been described as a bit of an odd ruling by a senior judge. Lord Denning was an angler and failed to make an unbiased decision. 38 years on and the judiciary's interpretation of the law is likely to reflect modern attitudes, so relying on that one bit of case law would be very shaky ground. As well as the rev's more recent research, in the last year the land registry has clarified that if both banks of a river have ever been in different ownership then it is far from certain that the current owner(s) even own the bed of the river, let alone control what floats over it!

For you, at best a prosecution would result in very minor damages against the canoeist, at worst a change in case law reflecting modern attitudes to land ownership and control over our natural heritage. Are you willing to risk that, or would you like to make the first amicable offer to CW of a 365 day arrangement based on sensible minimum water levels together with a code of conduct for users and defined access and egress points?
Done any NE/NW rivers not on the site? PM me!

User avatar
wezzzy
Posts: 1047
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 3:40 am
Location: Blairgowrie, Perth.

Re: TAWE HASSLE.

Post by wezzzy » Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:39 pm

tawe boy wrote: where Wezzzzly keeps implying he is prepared to use violence to prevent his being ejected from private property then that, should it occur, would constitute aggravated trespass which is a Criminal matter for the police. Where he is using something which he knows should be paid for he is committing a criminal offence under the Section 11 of the Fraud Act (Obtaining services dishonestly). Where as members and officials of TTA are allowed to use reasonable force to remove/prevent paddlers from tresspassing on our property!

The police have also agreed to attend call outs after a recent meeting. I think it is also worth mentioning that TTA have written to the WCA requesting a meeting and recieved no reply as yet.
I am assuming you mean me on this.
I have not implied the use of violence at all, I have said I will use legal force if needed.
As stated before I will leave PRIVATE LAND if asked, this will be either onto public land or the river, if you touch me while doing this you will be commiting ASSAULT which is an arrestable offence and I will use REASONABLE and APPROPRIATE FORCE to arrest you and detain you until the police arrive. Check with your lawyers if I am right or wrong.


As for this policeman who said they will attend, I'm sure you would pass this policemans name to me so I can get confirmation on this. A name, number or just the police station he works will do.
I suppose you have minutes of this meeting, a copy would be appreciated; you can email me via UKRGB or I can ask a member of TTA for them, who do you suggest, Ceri Griffiths, Kerry Jones or Gareth Williams?

Post Reply