Jump to content

Anglers charged under Terrorism Laws


Leon Roskilly

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 218
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Latest news from the case seems the docks have no right to stop any one from recreational use of this area. Iformation supplied by Mark D

As promised i have read some government papers on this and below is an extract from a Government Transport Report from June 1996

 

QUOTE

 

Section 6.2.1

 

The Mersey Docks and Harbour Company are required by a series of Acts of Parliament of 1848,1906,1966 to allow public access to parts of the river wall within the dock area (para 5.9.1) which “may be used as a parade or walk for the recreation of the public” (Local Act 11 Vict. Cap x, Sec XX11, 1848). A deposited plan of the time shows this as the ‘Marine Parade’. The 1906 Act (6,Edw 7 Ch xl Sec 13) extended this right northwards and established that two means of access to the river wall should be provided within the borough of Bootle; one south of a line “in extension of Church Street” and the other between that line and a line “in extension of Grove Street”. The 1966 Act(Ch xxiii,Sec 25) confirmed the earlier Acts, extended the public right of access to the northern end of the Seaforth Docks wall and added an additional access “from the seaward end of Cambridge Road” para 5.9.1).

 

There is more but I think just about sums up what should be a pretty water tight case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

depends...it could be viewed as they are providing access, its just on their terms...just like you can access a motorway in a car, if you have passed your test etc.

 

the subject of how feasible those terms are is one for the lawyers i think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They can't provide access on their terms thats what these acts are about but like you say its down to the layers and judge to sort out. But looks like what as been mentioned on here by others, big business makes its own rules up and we joe public have to fight for our rights which costs us money which we have little of and big business has and they use that fact to bully us. If this case is won it will have taken the brave decision of two individuals to stand up to this pressure as all other avenues had been closed by big business on there terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sanctuary:

 big business makes its own rules up and we joe public have to fight for our rights which costs us money which we have little of and big business has and they use that fact to bully us.  

'Big Business' is NOT allowed to make up its rules in these circumstances Sanctuary. I think we are in danger of losing this case by being far too emotive on what is a simple matter.

 

As mentioned in this topic, and it seems to me, clearly established that a right exists for users to be there for the purpose of recreation.

 

I am not sure if the 'Offenders' were in the location mentioned as a right of way but if they were it seems that they have 'no case to answer'

 

Please remember that in all cases where a Right of Way exists it may only be reclassified by the Local Authority (usually moved and seldom closed) and in extreme cases by The Secretary of State.

 

If you find that your access to an area is unlawfully witheld THE LOCAL AUTHORITY (usually the Highways Department) has a duty of care in law to remove any obstruction and enforce your rights.

 

It does not cost you a penny other than in your Rates but it may as well be wasted there than on other sillyness.

 

Chesters1 quite correctly mentioned the Hoogstrarten case where a RoW was obstructed and the Local Authority said that they 'did not have the finances to enforce the order'

 

How much does it cost to hire a 70 tonne Bulldozer for 3 hours........ I'll drive it.

 

Worth looking at the Map of Difinitive Rights of Way which was made up a year or so ago. Landowners were asked to check on the RoW for their arears and comment on access.

 

More info on RoW can be found 'from' this LINK

"My imaginary friend doesn't like your imaginary friend is no basis for armed conflict...."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jay_con

It appears that big business may have tried to rewrite the rules. It appears that joe public (Two scousers) are having to fight for their rights. Itll be interesting to see what the outcome is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We and our partners use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences, repeat visits and to show you personalised advertisements. By clicking “I Agree”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.