Navigation Rights continued

[Phone]

All,

 

I have never seen recreational canoes (zillions of them) cause anything other than aesthetic damage to the environment or the river inhabitants. That does not mean 25 splashing canoes hooked together in a train won't spoil my days fishing.

 

I think - by and large - anglers are amongst the most arrogant and selfish users of our natural resources (maybe birders). Ohh - before you comment, I'm an angler.

 

Phone

[andy_youngs]

  On 8/19/2013 at 7:31 AM, Newt said:

We didn't really get rid of it. We simply never had it to begin with.

 

If we had your population density, we might have different rules as well.

You did have it all to begin with. You had it right there in the palm of your hand. Your ancestors fought so that you didn't have to be dictated to by a class of ruling landowners in England. Don't deny your heritage Newt.

[Phone]

Andy,

 

Maybe - you could be right. As for me the most important 3 reasons we fought it out was so we could.

 

Floss

Talk to strangers unprompted

Drink milk

 

Far more profound than you suggest.

 

Phone

[andy_youngs]

  On 8/19/2013 at 1:16 PM, Phone said:

it's like apples and ducks.

For goodness sake Phone, it's 'apples and pears'. There's no such comparing apples and ducks. It's like comparing ducks and geese. Apples and pears are completely different.

[andy_youngs]

  On 8/19/2013 at 11:34 PM, Phone said:

Andy,

 

Maybe - you could be right. As for me the most important 3 reasons we fought it out was so we could.

 

Floss

Talk to strangers unprompted

Drink milk

 

Far more profound than you suggest.

 

Phone

 

Phone, the US fought it's war of indepence because it had to. It was nothing to do with dental floss, milk or talking nicely to strangers (although I accept these have been of unanticipated benificial consequence).

[Jim Roper]

  On 8/15/2013 at 1:59 PM, nick said:

Sorry to disappoint you Jim, but even with such a sign you would still owe the same duty of care to trespassers :-)

Read the Act again.

[nick]

  On 8/21/2013 at 9:19 AM, Jim Roper said:

Read the Act again.

 

done so, same opinion. On what do you base your conjecture?

[Phone]

Nick,

 

Does the UK have this kind of law? Something similar is in most states over here.

 

http://atfiles.org/files/pdf/NEstaterecliability.pdf

 

Phone

[andy_youngs]

  On 8/21/2013 at 10:26 AM, Phone said:

Nick,

 

Does the UK have this kind of law? Something similar is in most states over here.

 

http://atfiles.org/files/pdf/NEstaterecliability.pdf

 

Phone

Interesting link Phone. No the UK doesn't have this kind of document on it's statute books. Our laws tend to be specific to either England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland.

[Jim Roper]

  On 8/21/2013 at 9:34 AM, nick said:

done so, same opinion. On what do you base your conjecture?

If you cannot reasonably expect to have trespassers, by putting up signs and/or fences, you cannot be responsible for their stupidity. Putting up a sign 'Trespassers will be prosecuted' implies that you know you may have trespassers and therefore have a duty of care toward them. Have a word the the man on the Clapham omnibus.