enforcement of mooring charge

[NigelMoore]

1 hour ago, aracer said:

 

I'm sure you know the context to Richard Benyon and who he is connected with and/or funded by, but I'm not sure everybody here will - I suspect it's sufficient to point out that any such refusal to consider Caffyn's well reasoned arguments has nothing to do with the merits of those arguments. I'll also point out that even without him, those groups have plenty of (far too much) other influence on government.

 

I am familiar with Mr Benyon and his background, yes. I was present in a meeting with him in early 2012, endeavouring to highlight the potential pitfalls of his support for the transference of BW to CaRT. He is one of the largest 'private' river owners in the country, and very jealous of his privileges in that respect. It hardly made for a disinterested role as Waterways Minister at the time of the 2012 Transfer of Undertakings.

 

For those unfamiliar with the relevance to public right of access to rivers -

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2013/apr/04/right-rivers-richard-benyon-interests

 

I briefly corresponded with Dr Caffyn many years ago (having attended a talk he gave to the Parliamentary Waterways Group, of which I was then a member), and his thesis helped me enormously in the initial stages of preparing my arguments against BW. His arguments have in practical terms been endorsed - in application - by other countries such as the US who consider that if a river is navigable by any sort of craft, then the State supports the right of the public to use such craft as of right. Court actions have declared against any finding of trespass even when light vessels such as inflatables briefly touch the riverbed when in transit over shallows.

 

edit to add in case of confusion - the court cases I refer to were American, not British.

Edited March 3, 2019 by NigelMoore

[NigelMoore]

24 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Just to add a spanner in the works - I disagree with NigelMoore's opinion here - I don't think CRT should have a T&Cs document anyway. Yes its useful to consolidate a bunch of pre-existing rules as easy reference, which (say) 80-90% of boaters have no issue with. BUT its also home for a few 'extras' which they don't have the power to enforce, and seem thus far to be shy in properly applying. They are relying on boaters being reasonable, or other boaters pressuring them into adopting a (non-legal, no legislative background) single unified moral framework. Of course, they wanted to have them, because they think they're a company with "customers" and a management course said it was a good idea. But really, as far as boat licensing goes, you satisfy the three things needed and get the licence. Had they not diluted it with extra T&C stuff it might be simpler to properly enforce the issues surrounding some aspects of licensing.

You confuse me there Paul; I don't disagree with any of the above, so struggle to see what opinion of mine you are disagreeing with (presuming you refer to my post #236?).

[aracer]

20 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

I am familiar with Mr Benyon and his background, yes. I was present in a meeting with him in early 2012, endeavouring to highlight the potential pitfalls of his support for the transference of BW to CaRT. He is one of the largest 'private' river owners in the country, and very jealous of his privileges in that respect. It hardly made for a disinterested role as Waterways Minister at the time of the 2012 Transfer of Undertakings.

My apologies - I wasn't remembering correctly exactly what his other interests were (as is probably obvious from my wording) and didn't bother to research. I simply knew that he was far from disinterested.

 

FWIW I was a canoeist/kayaker well before I ever owned a NB and have had some minor involvement with access issues (though minor enough that you won't find me cited anywhere), so it's a subject I know quite a lot about, though clearly nowhere near as much as you do. I'm assuming you agree in general with my (also poorly researched and based solely on memory from a while ago) comments about the merits of Caffyn's case and that of the other side? I note that the anglers have never been brave enough to test their "legal guidance" properly despite having the opportunity and funding to do so...

[Paul C]

29 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

You confuse me there Paul; I don't disagree with any of the above, so struggle to see what opinion of mine you are disagreeing with (presuming you refer to my post #236?).

It was a previous post on a previous thread, but since I was mistaken and we don't disagree, all is okay!

[NigelMoore]

16 minutes ago, aracer said:

My apologies - I wasn't remembering correctly exactly what his other interests were (as is probably obvious from my wording) and didn't bother to research. I simply knew that he was far from disinterested.

 

FWIW I was a canoeist/kayaker well before I ever owned a NB and have had some minor involvement with access issues (though minor enough that you won't find me cited anywhere), so it's a subject I know quite a lot about, though clearly nowhere near as much as you do. I'm assuming you agree in general with my (also poorly researched and based solely on memory from a while ago) comments about the merits of Caffyn's case and that of the other side? I note that the anglers have never been brave enough to test their "legal guidance" properly despite having the opportunity and funding to do so...

No need for apologies; you stated accurately that he was an interested party in guiding government policy, and I simply expanded on his position and previous roles in government where he was specifically in charge of waterways affairs, for the sake of those here you mentioned would not have known anything about him or his relevance to waterways and public rights of navigation.

 

Yes, as could be inferred from my previous comment regarding international approaches to the subject, I broadly agree with your comments as to the merits of Dr Caffyn's case and that of 'the other side'. I have read a legal opinion for government (I think) on the subject some years ago, which dismissed the argument with more learned ammunition, but couldn't comment on it at this remove, as I forget the details and can't easily find it again.