THE USUAL INSIDIOUS MIS-INFORMATION

Inland paddling
Post Reply
Whitey1
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:13 pm
Location: Pyrenees
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time

THE USUAL INSIDIOUS MIS-INFORMATION

Post by Whitey1 » Sun Apr 08, 2012 5:50 pm

SMALL ARTICLE ON PAGE 30 OF YESTERDAY'S CUMBERLAND AND WESTMORLAND HERALD (PENRITH BASED LOCAL PAPER)
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
TAKE NOTICE that the Riparian Owners, being members of the Eamont Owners Association, hereby declare that no right of navigation exists on the stretches of the River Eamont within their control and that such persons seeking to gain access to or to travel upon such stretches of the river without express permission, which may be sought from the Dalemain Estate Office (017684 86450) , will face such legal action as the Eamont Owners' Association deems appropriate. Permission will not be available during the month of November. Graham, King and Mellor, solicitors for the Eamont Owners' Association.
Not the best whitewater I know but it is a good open boat and training river. Dalemain House are actually pretty reasonable but I believe they charge £8 to paddle. Thoughts please paddlers.

John Saunders
Posts: 349
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:51 pm
Location: Hampshire

Re: THE USUAL INSIDIOUS MIS-INFORMATION

Post by John Saunders » Sun Apr 08, 2012 6:38 pm

There's a bit more on their website: http://www.dalemain.com/estate/rivereamont.htm

User avatar
Big Henry
Posts: 1920
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:31 am
Location: North East

Re: THE USUAL INSIDIOUS MIS-INFORMATION

Post by Big Henry » Sun Apr 08, 2012 6:42 pm

Try having something like this put in the same paper...
To Whom It May Concern, (including the Riparian Owners, being members of the Eamont Owners Association, and Graham, King and Mellor, solicitors for the Eamont Owners' Association)

The rights of navigation on inland waters is enshrined in the Magna Carta - the foundation of English law. Rights of navigation on inland waters can only be extinguished by statute and that no such statutes have been passed on the majority on English/Welsh rivers. Since no statute has been passed regarding the Eamont, there is a right to navigate this and other rivers throughout England and Wales. Please stop trying to needlessly intimidate members of the public with wrong interpretations of the law.

Kisses xxx.
Last edited by Big Henry on Sun Apr 08, 2012 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Big Henry
Posts: 1920
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:31 am
Location: North East

Re: THE USUAL INSIDIOUS MIS-INFORMATION

Post by Big Henry » Sun Apr 08, 2012 6:45 pm

The Dalemain Estate wrote:Care should always be taken as the flies and hooks being used can be very dangerous.
Sounds like an underhand threat to me.

SimonMW
Posts: 2194
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:39 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: THE USUAL INSIDIOUS MIS-INFORMATION

Post by SimonMW » Sun Apr 08, 2012 7:23 pm

The only care that should be taken is from the imbecile with the erratic casting style!

User avatar
Big Henry
Posts: 1920
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:31 am
Location: North East

Re: THE USUAL INSIDIOUS MIS-INFORMATION

Post by Big Henry » Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:58 pm

I've just looked at the EA website regarding Riparian Ownership and some of their responsibilities. It has the following comment on the page:
EA wrote:If you own land adjoining a watercourse, you have certain rights and responsibilities. In legal terms you are a 'riparian owner'. (A watercourse is any natural or artificial channel through which water flows, such as a river, brook, beck, or mill stream.)

Some of your responsibilities include:
  • maintaining river beds and banks;
    allowing the flow of water to pass without obstruction;
    controlling invasive alien species such as Japanese knotweed.
Since Giant Hogweed is listed as an invasive alien species, should we as environmentally conscientious paddlers notify the EA of every single sighting we make of Giant Hogweed, Japanese knotweed and other such plants at every point along the rivers that have "contentious" access, and ask what the riparian owners are doing to eradicate it? Is there any along the Eamont sections mentioned in the above article?

furby
Posts: 719
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 8:55 pm
Location: plymouth uni and UPSUCC

Re: THE USUAL INSIDIOUS MIS-INFORMATION

Post by furby » Wed Apr 18, 2012 9:25 am

Big Henry wrote:I've just looked at the EA website regarding Riparian Ownership and some of their responsibilities. It has the following comment on the page:
EA wrote:If you own land adjoining a watercourse, you have certain rights and responsibilities. In legal terms you are a 'riparian owner'. (A watercourse is any natural or artificial channel through which water flows, such as a river, brook, beck, or mill stream.)

Some of your responsibilities include:
  • maintaining river beds and banks;
    allowing the flow of water to pass without obstruction;
    controlling invasive alien species such as Japanese knotweed.
Since Giant Hogweed is listed as an invasive alien species, should we as environmentally conscientious paddlers notify the EA of every single sighting we make of Giant Hogweed, Japanese knotweed and other such plants at every point along the rivers that have "contentious" access, and ask what the riparian owners are doing to eradicate it? Is there any along the Eamont sections mentioned in the above article?
How about Signal Crayfish and alien fish species aswell....

User avatar
Tony Aiuto
Posts: 428
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:41 pm
Location: Glos/Ox/Wilts

Re: THE USUAL INSIDIOUS MIS-INFORMATION

Post by Tony Aiuto » Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:45 am

They have a facebook page, if anyone wishes to contact them on it before they do a CE type thing, and delete what they believe are negative comments.

Big Henry, I couldn't think of a better reply than yours, so I have posted that, I hope you don't mind!
Tony Aiuto

User avatar
Big Henry
Posts: 1920
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:31 am
Location: North East

Re: THE USUAL INSIDIOUS MIS-INFORMATION

Post by Big Henry » Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:02 am

Tony Aiuto wrote:Big Henry, I couldn't think of a better reply than yours, so I have posted that, I hope you don't mind!
Not at all - as long as you included the kisses at the end! I was actually in the middle of writing a letter to the paper that is sourced a bit better, so shall make sure it doesn't look like it's written by the same person.

User avatar
Tony Aiuto
Posts: 428
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:41 pm
Location: Glos/Ox/Wilts

Re: THE USUAL INSIDIOUS MIS-INFORMATION

Post by Tony Aiuto » Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:09 am

Big Henry wrote: Not at all - as long as you included the kisses at the end! I was actually in the middle of writing a letter to the paper that is sourced a bit better, so shall make sure it doesn't look like it's written by the same person.
Sorry, I couldn't quite bring myself to add them xxxxx's!

Maybe, the next time, if they reply ;-)
Tony Aiuto

User avatar
Big Henry
Posts: 1920
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:31 am
Location: North East

Re: THE USUAL INSIDIOUS MIS-INFORMATION

Post by Big Henry » Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:38 pm

Whitey1 will have to keep us up to date on anything the paper publishes.

User avatar
Big Henry
Posts: 1920
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:31 am
Location: North East

Re: THE USUAL INSIDIOUS MIS-INFORMATION

Post by Big Henry » Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:17 pm

I have just emailed my own response to the article, which was apparently first published in the Public Notices section of the paper. Since it is quite long (it is aimed to include those who know nothing of the rights of navigation argument) I'm not sure it will be included, but here it is anyway:
me wrote:I would like to respond to the item published in the Public Notices section of your paper on 7th April from the “Riparian Owners, being members of the Eamont Owners Association, and Graham, King and Mellor, solicitors for the Eamont Owners' Association.”

If you own land adjoining a watercourse, you have certain rights and responsibilities. In legal terms you are a 'Riparian Owner'. These include such things as maintaining river beds and banks and clearing debris, allowing the flow of water to pass without obstruction, controlling invasive alien species and the right to fish from your watercourse (with relevant EA license). You can remove a certain amount of water from it before an abstraction license is required, you must not cause obstruction to the free passage of fish and you can’t pollute the water. There are other various rights and responsibilities, including some relating to flooding. However, what is not, and never has been covered by riparian rights, is the right to control navigation along natural rivers. In fact the owner cannot infringe upon the rights of other riparian owners or the public to make reasonable use of the water. The riparian right is usufructuary, meaning that the landowner does not own the water itself but instead enjoys a right to use the water and its surface. But not at the expense of other members of the public.

The rights of navigation on inland waters is enshrined in the Magna Carta - the foundation of English Law. In fact, from at least 1189 legal usability (the legal right) existed where there was physical usability, and that included small boats and coracles, not just large barges. Since 1830, in legal texts, it was ASSUMED that historic legal usability existed only where there had been prior historic use. Since most journeys along rivers were never recorded, they were not included in the “historic use” as described in 1830. It is from this WRONG assumption that the modern (wrong) “understanding” of laws of navigation along waterways comes from, and is promoted vociferously by those who want to keep “their” water to themselves.

The Law of England and Wales is that Public Rights can only be extinguished by Statute, Statutory Authority, or conditions changing so that the right can not be exercised (eg if the river had silted up completely). Since there are no Acts of Parliament removing rights of navigation along rivers, we still legally have the right to navigate along the Eamont, amongst all the other rivers in England and Wales.

I wonder if the “Riparian Owners, being members of the Eamont Owners Association”, are attempting to spread this misunderstanding and wish to scare members of the public from their legal right to navigate along the waters of the River Eamont. So I ask: Can the “Riparian Owners, (etcetera, etcetera, etcetera)”, or their solicitors, inform us through these pages, exactly which laws (chapter and verse, please) they would consider anyone who does navigate along “their” river without “their” permission would be breaking, when the statutes were passed in Parliament, and exactly what the consequences would be, rather than making vague legal threats?

Finally, I have taken notice that the Riparian Owners (etc) have “declare[d] that no right of navigation exists on the stretches of the River Eamont within their control”. As far as I’m concerned they can also declare that black is white and night is day, and that it is illegal to wear a top hat on the upper floor of a double decker bus on a Thursday in months with a “y” in, but I don’t believe any of those would have any more legal standing than their original declaration. I look forward to exercising my rights at some point in the future, when there is enough water about – maybe in November - without asking for permission that I legally do not need.
My original draft had accused them of "attempting to spread insidious untruths" but I thought this could possibly get me in trouble or result in it not being printed, so I toned it down (as I have no legal basis on which to suggest this, in case any legal types that may represent anyone involved is reading).

Whitey1
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:13 pm
Location: Pyrenees
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: THE USUAL INSIDIOUS MIS-INFORMATION

Post by Whitey1 » Wed Apr 18, 2012 6:13 pm

OK guys, thanks for the responses and the challenges to be forwarded. I am in France at the moment but I'll make sure I keep track in the local paper and see if there are any other responses. Interesting when you speak of controlling alien species. I believe virtually ALL Cumbrian rivers are now over run with Himalayan Balsam. Don't know where the EA stand on doing something about it, or charging Riparian Owners with it's eradication.

User avatar
Neptune
Posts: 720
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 4:13 pm
Location: Doncaster
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: THE USUAL INSIDIOUS MIS-INFORMATION

Post by Neptune » Wed Apr 18, 2012 9:20 pm

Too many words wasted on this post, only one needed;

"BOLLOCKS"

User avatar
callwild
Posts: 896
Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2002 11:01 am
Location: Cumbria

Re: THE USUAL INSIDIOUS MIS-INFORMATION

Post by callwild » Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:18 am

Yep they put this in the paper every year and in the past I have written to them directly threateneing them with recirocal legal action if they try and stop us pursuing our legal right to the water. Even got a reply one year saying my letter would be passed on to the association. so thank you for saving me the bother Henry.
As for paying £8 to paddle, thats a joke to be definitely ignored.

User avatar
Big Henry
Posts: 1920
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:31 am
Location: North East

Re: THE USUAL INSIDIOUS MIS-INFORMATION

Post by Big Henry » Thu Apr 19, 2012 11:22 am

To be honest, my letter is not aimed at the "Riparian owners...etc" but at the general public of the Northern Lakes who may see on a yearly basis that they are not allowed on the river, and believe it. It is to set out our reasons as to why we believe we are not breaking the law, while the riparian owners and (some) anglers think we are. It is aimed at those that think we are behaving like anarchists with scant regard for the law and no respect for "other people's property" and just want to aggravate anglers and landowners. It's to educate those that don't really think about the situation at all. And finally, it's saying to the obnoxious riparian rights owners that we have no intention of believing their bullying tactics anymore, that we have the right to be on the water and intend to exercise that right when there's enough water about.

snuggle_bunny
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:51 pm

Re: THE USUAL INSIDIOUS MIS-INFORMATION

Post by snuggle_bunny » Thu Apr 19, 2012 5:24 pm

Claim a state of 'lawful rebellion' as defined under article 61 of the magna carta:-


http://www.tpuc.org/node/285

snuggle_bunny
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:51 pm

Re: THE USUAL INSIDIOUS MIS-INFORMATION

Post by snuggle_bunny » Thu Apr 19, 2012 5:26 pm

Ignore that comment- why should we have to claim anything

User avatar
Big Henry
Posts: 1920
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:31 am
Location: North East

Re: THE USUAL INSIDIOUS MIS-INFORMATION

Post by Big Henry » Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:46 pm

snuggle_bunny wrote:Claim a state of 'lawful rebellion' as defined under article 61 of the magna carta:-


http://www.tpuc.org/node/285
As far as I can tell, benefits of Lawful Rebellion include not paying taxes, not needing a license to drive, not needing insurance, not needing to adhere to any Statutes, only to Common Laws. Downsides include not being able to receive any benefits or state pension (if there still is any sort soon), no free state education for any kids you may have, not receiving any "free" NHS treatment (although you would probably receive emergency treatment), technically no support from the police or fire & rescue dept, not being able to hold a passport, so no foreign travel, etc.

(I bet the "travellers or Gypsies who were finally evicted from that farm last year claimed that they were in a state of lawful rebellion as a defence against not adhering to planning laws, but they still got kicked out!)

On the whole, I think I'm better off as I am.
snuggle_bunny wrote:Ignore that comment- why should we have to claim anything
We should claim what is rightfully ours, as we are in this instant.

edhunter
Posts: 425
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 2:20 am

Re: THE USUAL INSIDIOUS MIS-INFORMATION

Post by edhunter » Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:22 pm

Does anybody have a link to the facebook page?

snuggle_bunny
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:51 pm

Re: THE USUAL INSIDIOUS MIS-INFORMATION

Post by snuggle_bunny » Thu Apr 19, 2012 10:47 pm

Lawfull rebelion is merely dissagreeing with laws of the land- not refusing to obey them. It can be used in your favour

User avatar
Tony Aiuto
Posts: 428
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:41 pm
Location: Glos/Ox/Wilts

Re: THE USUAL INSIDIOUS MIS-INFORMATION

Post by Tony Aiuto » Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:29 am

edhunter wrote:Does anybody have a link to the facebook page?
Here,

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dalemain- ... 2508698200

Tony
Tony Aiuto

User avatar
Big Henry
Posts: 1920
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:31 am
Location: North East

Re: THE USUAL INSIDIOUS MIS-INFORMATION

Post by Big Henry » Sun Jun 03, 2012 6:21 pm

Does anyone know if any of the replies about this sent to the Cumberland & Westmorland Herald were printed?

Post Reply

Return to “Whitewater and Touring”