Anglers charged under Terrorism Laws

[John E Ashford]

 

No matter what are thoughts on the Mersey 2, Idiots or Martyrs.

 

Our fishing venues can be taken away from us all.

 

Without a stand, together, the powers that be will walk all over us.

 

At least these postings are getting us talking about it. THAT'S A START. :confused:

[kirkby john]

Huge-vitae is quite right. Public rights of way exist, there is one along the river Mersey on the dock wall. Exactly the same scenario, just a different location. And you weren't labelled a terrorist when they tried to stop your access !

Cheers. BY the way hows your brother Lignum

me jest interesting handle.

[chesters1]

you have to be very carefull with "rights of way" ,if its a public footpath,bridle way or B.O.A.T. the "right" only gives you the use to go from one place to another (i.e from joe bloggs land over mr x`s land to joe bloggs juniors land),it doesent give any other rights as i found out using a metal detector ,even stopping is a moot point.

public access on the other hand has different rules

 

[ 14. November 2004, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: chesters1 ]

[Huge_Vitae]

I do not refer to rights of way Chesters1, I refer to a 'Highway'. a footpath is a highway and once used as a highway must remain so unless changed by a particular act of Parliment pertaining to the highway itself.

 

If there is a footpath along a certain piece of land, or a bridleway or whatever then you have a basic right in law to use it and any person stopping you from access to any part commits an offence.

[chesters1]

yes a footpath is a footpath it allows you to go from A to B nothing more ,fishing from the "footpath" unless specifically stated as being permitted is no more than stopping on the footpath and as such not within the "footpath" bounds .

public access as i said is different ,a public park is public access and does have byelaws to stop or permit certain functions ,a footpath only allows passage along it to another place it doesent imply that once your on the footpath you can do as you please only that you can use it for going elsewhere .

yes to stop people using a footpath is illegal but youl find few councils will have enough money to fight a case (as in the Hoogstraten case) and it is only a footpath if its on the definitive map ,councils will shy away from fights over footpaths as it is a lenghty affair to sort out.

 

maybe one of our tame AN solicitors can find out the actual rights concerning footpaths and or highways

theres been a fight going on between 2 land owners and the council for 10 years just up the road over where a footpath crosses a (mostly) dry stream bed the definitive map was drawn before the 2 land owners bought parcels of land to build houses and on the map its not precisely clear where it crosses (the path goes along one bank but ends up on the other bank) both owners ofcourse say it crosses on the others land (the houses are on opposite banks) and the council is wasting big money trying to sort it out

 

[ 15. November 2004, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: chesters1 ]

[Huge_Vitae]

But this is the twixt of the matter..

 

the entitlement to 'free passage along a higway' backed up by the Magna Carta whcih allows persons to fish from tidal areas.

 

If I were in the area, and I could prove the relevant points were irrebuttable I would ask for the area concerned to be designated a 'Village Green' that is that unresticted access has been allowed for x years and therefore should be enjoyed continually.

 

Once one has proved the right of access to land it is an easy step (in the case of tidal reaches) to continue to fish therefrom without hinderance by any person.

 

Don't go off half cocked, get yourselves some decent legal advice from a wig who is prepared to put HIS money where YOUR mouth is

[chesters1]

the magna carta was recinded within months of its "signing" mate ,the pope needed to be placated so he made it null and void and was welcomed back into the english royalty circles and then the church got 1/3rd of english land back as a thankyou.

england doesent have a written constitution ,the magna carter is a written constitution so therefore cannot exist legaly ,not a lawyer a historian will know that.

the queen is supposed to "own" the range between high and low tides but if you have to stand on a public footpath you are standing on private property and subject to their rules over and above the right of passage which in its self is a clue to its use "right of passage" I.E. you can walk along it nothing more

 

[ 15. November 2004, 07:21 PM: Message edited by: chesters1 ]

[Huge_Vitae]

It may have been recinded in certain terms but in Law it is still effective and once stated can never be recinded as it was signed my our 'monarch' even though false at that time.

 

The right for an Englishman to fish in tidal areas is still valid and one reason why the Govt. has a problem with sea fishing permits.

 

Establish any area as a 'village green' and the public will have free and unhindered use of the area.

[chesters1]

quote:

---

Establish any area as a 'village green' and the public will have free and unhindered use of the area.

---

your forgetting "rights" and England dont exist ,if its ok for joe bloggs to have "unhindered use" then its also ok for gypsies (public) to camp there

ALL land is owned by someone and ALL land is subject to byelaws even PUBLIC land comes under the local council and their byelaws ,you seem to think england really is the land of the free ,unfortunatly saddly mistaken

you appear to think i`m against the anglers but read my posts i an against the very thing that in reality binds us i.e. the law and "public" access ,as i said we have VERY limited rights and less every year

in my metal detecting years i have battled many times with local councils and "rights" to curb metal detectorists using their machines on "public" land, Surrey council brought in a Turf byelaw which forbids cutting of turf so in effect stops metal detecting on any grassy places ,if you fish and someone doesent like it new "laws" will suddenly curtail it i`m afraid ,the Terrorist ploy is just a cheap way of forbidding something otherwise difficult to stop and probably expensive to set up.

 

[ 15. November 2004, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: chesters1 ]

[Huge_Vitae]

I do not think you are anything other than I see you to be Chesters.

 

The status of Village Green can be imposed on any land irrespective of who owns it........

 

If it is owned by the Queen, MOD or Hoogstraten (sp) it is irrespective.

 

If (and it is proveable) and a irrebutable presumption that the 'public' have had free and unhindered access to land for (I don't recall) years then it must be decalred a 'village green' (much the same as you were declared a vagabond!) it is an old law that cannot and has not been repealed.

 

Once you establish right of access you can establish rights to fish in tidal areas under the Magna Carta.

 

I know that I fool around a lot and take the **** but believe me here, I am not joking and it is worth those persons affected to look into this matter.

 

Irrespective of the outcome, once an applicatiuon is made, by ANY person for land to be designated a @Village Green' it MUST go to a public inquiry and every person given opportunity to speak on the matter.

 

I think you might find that the Docks may wish to negotiate rather than discuss the matter at a public enquiry...... ££££££££££££