|
Post by thebfg on Sept 2, 2017 19:10:10 GMT
I've just had a interesting debate. it started of as someone asked of a canoe needs a licence, there were some really interesting answers.
however one bloke has said there was a judicial review and the outcome was that public rights of navigation do not exist in England.
I was somewhat shocked. however is it true or cam I call him a really bad name.
he's a riparian owner and says that cannoeist are trespassing on his land.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Sept 2, 2017 19:11:52 GMT
I spell it "kanoo" which seems more logical to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2017 19:12:15 GMT
I'd say its bullshit.
What river/navigation is it?
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Sept 2, 2017 19:43:17 GMT
I'd say its bullshit. What river/navigation is it? he does not say. it's been a general conversation, some have explained Cart waters and some try to explain normal rivers. I suspect he is o some small stream I the middle of nothing however his point is that there are no prn anywhere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2017 19:49:27 GMT
I spell it "kanoo" which seems more logical to me. Kanoo is the name of a large ships' agency in Saudi Arabia.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Sept 2, 2017 19:54:23 GMT
he is on a salmon river that is not navigable.
I agreed that canoeists shoulder be on it but disagrees with his sweeping statement.
I asked for transcripts his reply was he will tell me the qc name and I can Google it
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Sept 2, 2017 20:09:28 GMT
it's ok, he was a cunt. not that I said that.
I asked for clarification he the went on that this judicial review went on about non prn and prn waters.
I mentioned he said that it said there are no prn.
in which he has back tracked.
And is talking about non navigable rivers. he stared an argument after I agreed cannoeist shouldn't be on those rivers.
bell end.
but thanks anyway there are prns after all.
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Sept 2, 2017 21:04:36 GMT
I've just had a interesting debate. it started of as someone asked of a canoe needs a licence, there were some really interesting answers. however one bloke has said there was a judicial review and the outcome was that public rights of navigation do not exist in England. I was somewhat shocked. however is it true or cam I call him a really bad name. he's a riparian owner and says that cannoeist are trespassing on his land. He was probably referring to the advice given by David Hart QC in response to Douglas Caffyn's extensive research (for canoeists) that sought to prove that all inland waters had a PRN unless removed by Statute. You can read it here, if you really want to. David Hart QC - PRN Advice
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Sept 2, 2017 21:14:04 GMT
Riparian owners alongside smaller rivers, and canoeists, have been at loggerheads for many years over this.
English law asserts a public right of navigation on all the ‘great’ rivers of England since confirmation in Magna Carta, whereas even centuries before that, Roman law [which used to exert a greater influence] accepted a PRN from Justinian’s time, even more extensive than that developed by the common law system here.
In current law, any tidal waterway is automatically a PRN, and beyond the ebb and flow of the tides, a PRN is established where long and uninterrupted custom has given rise to what is known as ‘prescriptive’ rights of navigation. Lists exist of all such greater and lesser public navigable rivers, the chief of which [such as the Thames, Trent, Severn and Ouse] were championed by Royal decree as far back as the 13thC.
On smaller rivers and watercourses where neither tide reaches, nor custom recognises historic use, it is generally taken that no PRN exists, and riparian owners may claim trespass against vessels traversing the water flowing over their land.
Your acquaintance will doubtless be aware of the views of the BCU former chairman, Dr Caffyn, who proposes that a PRN exists wherever water may be navigated, whether historically demonstrable or not. He has published his views widely, and makes a good case. It has not, however, been accepted by the judiciary.
edit to add: sort of pipped at the post by erivers!
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Sept 3, 2017 8:46:59 GMT
thank you both. that is brilliant and Nigel. you all ways write in a way that is easy to understand and vets the point across.
I wish i could do the same.
I did shut him up but I'll pass that on.
thank you adi
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Sept 3, 2017 8:48:41 GMT
thank you both. that is brilliant and Nigel. you all ways write in a way that is easy to understand and vets the point across. I wish i could do the same. I did shut him up but I'll pass that on. thank you adi eta. it's very useful to tell the cannoeist who think they can go anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Sept 3, 2017 16:20:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Sept 3, 2017 17:18:01 GMT
Just don't get excited over the possibility of applying that argument to man-made watercourses!
edit to add: mind you, the Appeal Court in EA v Barrass have gone some way towards approving the sentiment that man-made watercourses partake of adjacent PRN's to which they connect. I disagree with their Judgment, but it exists.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Oct 13, 2017 13:12:10 GMT
I know this is a different subject but it's good old idiots on Facebook who think they are experts. I'm having quite a polite debate with a bloke who seems to think that if you are going up hill and have to overtake a parked car you have right of way over oncoming traffic.
he won't even contemplate that that advice on the highway code is for single track roads.
just gets my goat right up.
steam, let off
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2017 13:33:05 GMT
Surely it would be the vehicle traveling downhill which would have the right of way. Gravity and all that sort of thing.
Eta it sounds like a fascinating facebook group !
With boats on rivers it is the vessel traveling against the flow (similar to going up hill) which must give way. It's the obvious way to arrange it as a vessel traveling with the flow has far less ability to stop while maintaining control.
I had it recently as I was traveling up the Thames at Richmond with the tide and I saw a gin palace the other side of the bridge. I used my usual prejudice to mutter to myself that he would just charge through before me as I could see his bow wave building up an he probably had a pair of large engines and a testosterone issue but then he slowed and stood by while I glided through the bridge barely above tickover.
Which was nice.
I think that's the general rule but there will be exceptions I suppose.
(I was on a steel barge and he was on a splitter)
|
|