"No mooring - private"

[RichLech]

I recall we moored outside Uri Gellers house last summer and fee was £10.00 in the box.

[Nightwatch]

A friend kept his boat at Yuri Gellers mooring for a couple of years

 

Yuri donates the mooring fees to a local Ferret Charity

 

CT

Is that the same as trousering the dosh?

[cereal tiller]

Is that the same as trousering the dosh?

No really ,the money went to a Ferret rescue outfit.

 

You are maybe thinking mister Geller was "Squirreling the Fees",that is a Henley Pagan ceremony,possibly?

 

CT

[MtB]

Do ferrets

 

No really ,the money went to a Ferret rescue outfit.

 

 

Why can't the ferrets call the fire brigade, like everyone else?

 

 

MtB

[cereal tiller]

Do ferrets

 

 

Why can't the ferrets call the fire brigade, like everyone else?

 

 

MtB

Maybe Yuri bent their 'phones?

 

CT

[FadeToScarlet]

Do ferrets

 

 

 

Why can't the ferrets call the fire brigade, like everyone else?

 

 

MtB

"Help, I'm stuck in someone's trousers!" Edited March 15, 2014 by FadeToScarlet

[Grace and Favour]

"Help, I'm stuck in someone's trousers!

Nick Park's autobiography maybe?

[NigelMoore]

But rivers are different from canals. There is no general right to moor on a river bank, as I understand it.

 

That is correct. There is no public right to access the river bank even momentarily to load or offload cargo or passengers, let alone moor. It is one of the key areas in which English Common Law departs from the Roman Law.

 

Under the Justinian Code, as still holding sway, for example, in some American states [such as Louisiana] as a survivor of the Spanish rule [as a consequence of which Alphonso's law of Las Siete Partidas remains entrenched], the public right of navigation included the use of the banks of public navigable rivers.

 

The English departed from that quite some time ago, as the idea that ‘quality’ folk with houses on the Thames in central London could have their privacy violated, was not to be countenanced.

 

The earliest case law of which I am aware is that of Ball v Herbert (1789) 3 T.R. 253. All English case law on the subject refers back to this as the ultimate source of the principle of pre-eminent private right to the riverbank. The public right of navigation was therefore specifically restricted to use of the water not the banks.

 

Even on the canals, where rights were conferred by statute rather than common law, the common law principle of a right to exclusivity of access to the private bank was invariably upheld. The only exception under the enabling Acts had reference to the canal companies themselves.

 

Whereas private riparian owners on canals could say who could or could not use their bankside facilities, the canal companies [where they had purchased the offside land for wharves etc] invariably had to allow all members of the public access to those premises, subject only, of course, to the payment of the relevant charges.

[mark99]

Another legal curiosity - on the Thames from the Thames/London Stone at Staines downwards, angling is/has always been free from public banks.

 

This used to be the tidal limit before locks.

Edited March 15, 2014 by mark99

[NigelMoore]

Another legal curiosity - on the Thames from the Thames/London Stone at Staines downwards, angling is/has always been free from public banks.

 

This used to be the tidal limit before locks.

 

I think you might need to double-check your facts on that. A right of fishing on the Thames is no legal anomaly, it is common to all navigable rivers. H.W. Woolrych, A Treatise on the Law of waters and of Sewers, 1830 –

 

“As a general doctrine, fisheries in the sea and in public navigable rivers are open to all;”

 

and yet this right of fishing does not extend to any concomittent right of access to private banks in order to exercise the right, any more than the right of navigation includes such a right.

 

I know that you have referred to "public banks" of course, and am curious to know what you mean by that; which stretches of the Thames would that apply to, given that the public right of navigation extends even beyond Staines despite the land being almost universally privately owned?

[mark99]

 

I think you might need to double-check your facts on that. A right of fishing on the Thames is no legal anomaly, it is common to all navigable rivers. H.W. Woolrych, A Treatise on the Law of waters and of Sewers, 1830 –

 

“As a general doctrine, fisheries in the sea and in public navigable rivers are open to all;”

 

and yet this right of fishing does not extend to any concomittent right of access to private banks in order to exercise the right, any more than the right of navigation includes such a right.

 

I know that you have referred to "public banks" of course, and am curious to know what you mean by that; which stretches of the Thames would that apply to, given that the public right of navigation extends even beyond Staines despite the land being almost universally privately owned?

 

 

I think you are incorrect in that your quoted source bears no resemblance to the interpretation/practice perpetuated in England.

 

I believe the Magna Carta confered rights to free fishing in the sea - the "sea" extending up to the tidal influence of rivers which was taken, on the Thames, to be Staines - (marked with a London stone). Since then, weirs and locks have restricted the tidal influence/boundary on the Thames to Teddington - miles and miles downstream. So you will find even on public accessible banks between Staines and Teddington the fishing rights are enjoyed with no fee (apart from general licence).

 

Upstream of Staines you are lucky to find any Thames bank, even if publically accessible, free - the angling rights typically being leased to an angling club who charge a fee (and you still need the general angling licence).

 

By public banks I mean where the public has right of access - typically one bank on the Thames is accessible (Thames Path).

 

Now if you swap your definition "navigable" with "tidal" I would agree.

 

My other local river - the Wey navigable but the angling is not free. Ditto Kennet/Avon.

 

At the risk of overstating a point, if I dust off my angling gear, I can fish free of charge from the sea to Staines on the Thames. As soon as I pass Staines, ironically next stop is Runnymead - an irony indeed! I have to pay the National Trust £10 per day to fish - moving upstream further I think Windsor Angling Club then controls (charges) for the next bit and so it goes on. NB you even need a weir permit from the EA to dangle your line into weirs. But this permit is I assume is to give you rights of access across EA land and to control numbers.

Edited March 16, 2014 by mark99

[NigelMoore]

 

 

I think you are incorrect in that your quoted source bears no resemblance to the interpretation/practice perpetuated in England.

 

I believe the Magna Carta confered rights to free fishing in the sea - the "sea" extending up to the tidal influence of rivers which was taken, on the Thames, to be Staines . . .

 

Now if you swap your definition "navigable" with "tidal" I would agree.

 

 

I don’t believe we actually are in any disagreement, because the term ‘public navigable river’ distinguishes between rivers that are merely navigable, and rivers that are subject to the public right of navigation under common law – that PRN being essentially based, as you have described, on the premise that tidal rivers are considered an ‘arm of the sea’, so far as the tide ebbs and flows. I was perhaps careless in initially using 'navigable' on its own, despite relying on the quote which used the full phrase.

 

Woolrych himself clearly makes this distinction –Dr Caffyn’s thesis to the contrary [that all actually navigable rivers are public navigable rivers] is predicated on Woolrych being mistaken.

 

There are rivers subject to PRN despite not being tidal, usually by prescription or statute, both applying to the upper Thames.

 

Nothing in Magna Carta conferred public rights of free fishing, the Runnymede charter actually served to protect the ability to navigate against fishing interests, in that it called for the obstructive fish weirs [‘kydells’] in the rivers to be removed –

 

Clause 33: “All kydells for the future shall be removed altogether from Thames and Medway, and throughout all England, except upon the seashore.”

 

Although, as with all but 3 of the original clauses, this has been repealed, the public right of navigation became entrenched in the common law on the doctrine already described.

 

I forget the details now, but the still current clause regarding the liberties of the City of London [Clause 13: “And the city of London shall have all it ancient liberties and free customs, as well by land as by water; furthermore, we decree and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall have all their liberties and free customs.”] actually involves both navigational and fishing interests as established from well before Magna Carta, the City of London having purchased their own charters on numerous occasions prior to King John.

 

I had a fascinating book of the early 18thC that dealt with the history of these City of London rights, and fully half the book concerned itself with fishing.

[mark99]

Magna Carta tried to address the King was selling off what were regarded as free common resources which incl fishing and navigation. So yes I perhaps have focussed on fishing when it was a general principle.

Edited March 16, 2014 by mark99

[Joelsanders]

Wonder if anyone has moored outside Uri Geller's house and woken up with a bent prop .

[NigelMoore]

Magna Carta tried to address the King was selling off what were regarded as free common resources which incl fishing and navigation. So yes I perhaps have focussed on fishing when it was a general principle.

 

I sometimes wonder how far we impose on Magna Carta the same overlay of modern thinking as we do to the ancient Greek theory of democracy. It was certainly a huge step forward for the time, and definitely laid the groundwork for equitable dealings with people by the authority - but it was, for all that, predominantly looking out for the interests of a formidable ruling class, protective of their own positions, piously clad in terms of the public good.

 

As I said before, the public benefits of navigation and fishing were promoted by the City of London, but only because they were key to her own corporate financial success.

 

You are right about the fishing rights on the Thames to Staines nonetheless; I was only really observing that the Thames was not unique in this respect.

 

The same rights apply to all [phrasing it more carefully this time] public navigable waters, and are only legally modified or abolished by way of prescription or statute, as has sometimes occurred.

 

Additionally, there are always those cases, of course, where they have been usurped illegally, whether by individuals or corporations, and nobody now thinks to question it.

[Laurie Booth]

 

I sometimes wonder how far we impose on Magna Carta the same overlay of modern thinking as we do to the ancient Greek theory of democracy. It was certainly a huge step forward for the time, and definitely laid the groundwork for equitable dealings with people by the authority - but it was, for all that, predominantly looking out for the interests of a formidable ruling class, protective of their own positions, piously clad in terms of the public good.

 

 

 

 

No change there then.

[NigelMoore]

No change there then.

 

Indeed not!

[Laurie Booth]

 

Indeed not!

[Skye]

So when I hire later this year from the good people of Anglo Welsh from a base, lets say, Bradford upon Avon, and gracefully cruise towards heart attack hill.

 

Half way up when I clutch my chest and keel over, the lad will get out the fishing tackle, as tanagers would., can he quote the Magna Carta for not having a licence, or do I need to take precautions 1, get the lad a licence 2. get the idle little B to help with the locks!

[mark99]

To fish Kennet and Avon, King Johns bailiff (now called the EA) state you need:

 

1) EA general rod licence (if you get caught without one it can be a big fine, a crim record and possible tackle conviscated

 

2) If it's controlled by an angling club (almost certainly) - one of their club tickets too

[alan_fincher]

Has it been rebranded CRT yet or is it still BW? If still BW it is likely a non authorised sign since I think all waterways have been ordered to finish rebranding by end of January 2013 iirc.

I doubt it is an order.

We have been told on the South East partnership that there was an "aspiration" to complete rebranding of signs, (but only by about now, I think).

Certainly some official signs still say BW.

[David Schweizer]

To fish Kennet and Avon, King Johns bailiff (now called the EA) state you need:

 

1) EA general rod licence (if you get caught without one it can be a big fine, a crim record and possible tackle conviscated

 

2) If it's controlled by an angling club (almost certainly) - one of their club tickets too

 

I think you will find that abgling on most of the K&A from Bradford to Foxhangers is controlled by clubs, and at least one club is only open to present and past empolyees of a manufacturing comany in Trowbridge. The public (rod licence only) fishing is on the Avon.

Edited March 17, 2014 by David Schweizer

[jelunga]

I doubt it is an order.

We have been told on the South East partnership that there was an "aspiration" to complete rebranding of signs, (but only by about now, I think).

Certainly some official signs still say BW.

Official "Heritage" signs are exempt. Ok, maybe ordered is a bit strong. But adherance to the aspiration is measured in the waterways stats and affects manager's bonus payments. Edited March 17, 2014 by jelunga

[alan_fincher]

Official "Heritage" signs are exempt. Ok, maybe ordered is a bit strong. But adherance to the aspiration is measured in the waterways stats and affects manager's bonus payments.

If correct, no doubt then why our local area manager was keen that people start to report ones still saying BW! Edited March 17, 2014 by alan_fincher

[furnessvale]

Official "Heritage" signs are exempt. Ok, maybe ordered is a bit strong. But adherance to the aspiration is measured in the waterways stats and affects manager's bonus payments.

I am probably wrong, but something at the back of my mind is saying that when CRT was first set up, they said one of the things they wouldn't do was waste money by unnecessarily changing signs from BW to CRT.

 

George ex nb Alton retired