Mile End Mill - What is happening?

[John Sturgess]

It is because the Loch Insh/River Spey case went to the House of Lords that in Scotland there is a right to navigate any river where there is a history of navigation (in the case of the Spey, the fact that logs were floated down it in, I think, the 14th century

That was, it is true, a civil case: an action for trespass (which is why anglers in England have never brough trespass cases: Lord Hailsham, who was Lord Chancellor at the time, said that if the case had been brought under English law the finding would have been the same - but obiter dicta are not binding)

Nevertheless binding precedents can be and are set in criminal law as well

[Seedy Paddler]

There is no right of precedent under Scots law. Each case is judged under it's own merits. That of course does not prevent the citing of previous cases to support the case being presented.

The Freshwater Case only actually recognised the right of navigation on the Spey. The precedent was used (very successfully) to promote similar rights on other waters. The basis of the right was through historical rights and traditions and was based on the use of many Scottish rivers to float log rafts from the highlands to river mouth ports for export and construction.

The Freshwater case was contested all the way to the House of Lords as it was a civil case contesting the application of a point of law. Principally that uncontested use of a route over time creates a public right of way. The prinicpal difference being that this was on water rather than land.

The basis of the case involving JJ is a criminal offence and hence would be contested through criminal courts (assuming the CPS perceive a value in continuing) and hence would be unlikely to go to the House of Lords. However it may open a precedent case for land or riparian owners to declare the provision of a chargeable service and failure to pay could be reported to the police as an act of fraud.

[Jerry Tracey]

Comment on the River's Guidebook forum on this subject has started to take a pronounced anti-slalom turn and therfore we should perhaps pause for thought before jumping onto this particular bandwagon. Reading between the lines, it seems that this situation could in fact be an unfortunate business to business dispute involving rival commercial use of JJ's site by Paddleworks (use of demo. boats and/or an associated 'club' of customers, etc. etc.) Nevertheless, a fraud allegation and the attempted use of the criminal law does seem to be highly excessive. However, we should perhaps consider giving Jimmy Jayes the benefit of the doubt until more is known, in view of his contribution to the sport in the past.

[davebrads]

I hadn't noticed any anti-slalom bias on the ukriversguidebook site.

I think that the signs at Mile End Mill are good enough reason to fall out with JJ, never mind any other action he has taken. As paddlers we should be not be supporting any business that seeks to make revenue from the dubious ownership of a stretch of water, and furthermore should be supporting any change in the law.

We do have a small problem with being slalomists, we need to hang gates over the river, and therefore these have to be paid for and maintained somehow. If this is done by a commercial business, you would expect that these would satisfy your requirements, or else you would be justified in demanding your money back. JJs gates were never of particularly good quality, nor were they maintained for long, so we have to ask what we were paying for. I have not used Mile End Mill for slalom training for several years now, despite it being only an hours drive, because there were never enough gates to make it worth going, and those that did exist were pretty much hung over flat water. I have gone there occasionally for a bit of playboating and I must admit that I very rarely paid, but that was only because there was no-one there to take my money. Of course now I will not pay a penny, and nor should anyone else.

[Jerry Tracey]

Re: anti-slalom comments on the River's Guidebook forum:
I am assuming that references to people in 'pointy boats' refer to slalom paddlers. There was also some earlier speculative comment about huge sums of money being spent on Olympic paddlers, possibly to buy access to water.
Good paddling to all!

[davebrads]

Sorry, I meant to say recent bias, in relation to the JJs thread, There have always been a few people knocking slalom on there, but they tend to be the idiot minority. There is nothing "anti-slalom" about calling us pointy boaters, if you think so, you must be a bit sensitive, I hope you've not got ginger hair, or else you've got real problems . (this is not yet another dig at gingers, just an example that some people have to put up with a lot more flak than simply being called pointy boaters)

The comment about buying rivers is quite old, and was made by one of the idiot minority who didn't check his facts first, nor understand the requirements of our sport. Many (most?) non-competitive paddlers are surprised when we say that we don't get a lot of support from the BCU.

[easystreets]

I have no problems paying to use JJ's site. I get a shower, toilets, gates to spin round even though they are a bit shoddy and a FREE cup of coffee when I return my ticket. I also get decent parking and some food if I want it. Forget politics, and there are plenty rumbling in the background, try to see the value for money angle.

[Geebs]

Quote from UKRGB

Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 6:44 pm Post subject: Paddling on the Dee is NOT a Crime

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Firstly a few hellos... Hi Sally....

I was due to go to Wrexham Police station tonight to answer bail... however the Police officer that was dealing with my case rang me at home and informed me that....

The CPS has decided not to bring any charges against me based on the FACT that no one owns the water, therefore I was not committing any crime by getting on the water or passing through the river

Further, since I had conducted myself in a polite and courteous manner when payment was asked of me, I once again didn't commit any crime that would see me get prosecuted now or in the future

As far as the police are concerned there is no longer a case of fraud to be answered by paddlers being on the Dee in these circumstances

Great news I think!! however in part, I am disappointed that I don't get my day in court to raise the whole subject of access and get it thrashed out once and for all that paddling is not a crime

I would like to take this chance to thank everyone in the paddling community that had posted here, that sent me emails, that took time to phone me, with their words of support, advice and good luck, I had paddlers from all over the world from as far as the USA and Australia wishing me all the best, and it meant a lot to me, thank you very much all of you ...

I also need to say a very big thanks to Ash at the WCA who was working in the background throughout and who had asked that I kept his and WCAs involvement quiet until we saw where it was going to go, this was very hard to do when there was a lot of loose talk about why the WCA wasn't getting involved, when they had been working in the background throughout and just didn't wish to have their involvement known at that time so - Thank you very much WCA and Ash in particular

I want to thank Shrewsbury Canoe club once again for all their help and support especially Dave B and Ian for legal advice and fielding media attention plus all of the other members who gave me support

I feel I need to also Thank Chris and Beckie at Paddleworks for all of their support over the last few weeks and even though, Sally you may not believe me, but what I did was off my own back and nothing to do with Chris or Paddleworks, I made my own choices on choosing not to pay to access water which I feel is wrong and and the CPS decision on this matter has confirmed my views and that of other paddlers that charging to use a natural waterway goes against both common sense and the law of the land

I look forward to putting this behind me and getting back on the water

Just a few more TV and news paper interviews to do then I can rest easy

See you all on the water

Nigel


Please please please be careful what you say on this matter I have been very restrained here since it is my personal opinion that Sally is on a vendetta against paddlers and anything they say on an open forum if she can identify who you are and you have said something that upsets her she will unleash her dogs of war on you and you will receive a letter from her solicitor telling you how they are going to make love to your butt

Don't say you haven't been warned!


I am sure that we are all pleased with the outcome and the proof that no one owns the water, perhaps a landmark in paddling in the UK?

[jjayes]

Mile End Mill - Access update

30/07/2008



Following massive publicity about the arrest of a Paddler on the River Dee, JJ Canoeing and Rafting Ltd wish to make the following statement.

The negative publicity we have received over this matter has had a detrimental effect on our canoeing business, our staff and our relationship with our many loyal customers. We hope that this statement of the true facts of the case will go some way to redress the situation.

Mile End Mill, Llangollen and its associated river banks was privately purchased in 1985 to provide a white water slalom course and premises for the manufacture and sale of slalom canoes and kayaks and other associated practices. Jim Jayes, a British Slalom champion paddler, leased part of the Mill from the owners and was granted the sole right to use the site for watersports and to access onto the River from the site. JJ Coaching, later to become JJ Canoeing and Rafting Ltd and now White Water Active (www.whitewateractive.co.uk), was opened in 1985 as a venue for canoeing practice and instruction, and allowed paddlers access to white water throughout the year for a fee. Jim has carried out many improvements to the site over the years, including creating many play features and enhancing the river for canoeists and rafting. He has extended his site over the years by purchase of leases to up to the railway bridge, a total of about 3/4 of a mile. The site brings in 10,000 tourists a year to the area, attracts over £1,500,000 to the local economy through direct income, hotel bookings, restaurants, fuel etc, and brings many paddlers to the town. Mile End Mill has always been a commercial enterprise.


The Rivers Access debate has been ongoing for many years. Jim Jayes has supported this debate, funding and organising a legal and peaceful public protest in favour of it a few years ago. He worked closely with other local businessmen and fishermen to bring the annual Slalom events back to Llangollen, and get the river tours re-instated. He is currently involved in building a new working agreement with fishermen and local landowners to open up more of the river to canoeing legally. However, the WCA stance has become ever more hardline and they actively encourage paddlers to challenge the status quo of sites like ours, through “river guides” and their web-site. This has led to a great increase in confrontation between our business and some militant paddlers. This, while all the time claiming “their river” was a seperate case and charging was acceptable at the Tryweryn. Their venue was set up with and is supported by tax-payers money and therefore you were paying twice over for it. The recent hasty decision to stop charging for access, taken in the media fog surrounding the recent case, is welcomed by many paddlers. The WCA state they will fund the loss of approximately £60000 a year from other means (means not available to their “competition”). However by retaining the right to charge for access to events, and prevent public use of stretches of river at these times they have not really accepted public rights to the river. It is a sop to their members who quite rightly challenged their charging policy which was clearly at odds with their access policy. This decision has clearly not been properly thought through and may open up a can of worms relating to safety and over-use, resulting in damage to the environment of an extemely sensitive site, and incidents between less able paddlers now choosing to use an unsuitable site as its free, with other river users..

The arrest of the paddler on the Dee has stemmed from a growing problem experienced by us as private River Operators. JJ Canoeing and Rafting Ltd approached our local community police officer in April 08, when our staff were reporting being verbally abused and experiencing aggression towards themselves when asking some paddlers for payment of our daily site fees. Discussions between ourselves and some of these paddlers had no effect as they had very entrenched views. We approached the local community police officer to ask for assistance in deciding how best to manage the confrontations and how we could take action within the law to support our staff. It was only then that the suggestion was put to us by the Police legal advisors that, to best protect our site and staff, we may post signs to the effect that the use of the river was a chargeable service and non-payment could result in arrest.

The paddler in question is an employee of the neighboring canoeing shop, which has recently been taken over by an ardent supporter of the WCA access cause. Recent TV and news reports suggested he had been arrested for merely paddling past our site once and had no idea he was committing an offense. In this case the response would quite rightly be seen as over the top and unreasonable. This incorrect version of events has been picked over at length by canoeists who are shocked to hear a canoeing centre would do such a thing. It is important we put the record straight. Unfortunately newspapers and TV are not interested in full follow up reports where reason and commonsense are displayed, so it is down to us to pubish the facts which are a matter of police record.

The paddler had been using our site for a number of weeks, paying fees and signing in when asked, but suddenly changed his attitude earlier this year. It was never our desire to criminalize anyone, but this young man was warned by us several times that if he refused to pay our fees the police would be called and he claimed to welcome it. The paddler repeatedly refused to pay our fees over a period of weeks, whilst working for a canoe club that published those fees on its own web-site. The police were in fact called out because of him several times but were unable to contact him as he had got on the river by the time they arrived. Contrary to some reports in national papers, the paddler was using our Centre facilities, including secure parking and river access points, and had all our other facilities available to him at all times. We were and remain saddened by the arrest of a fellow paddler but feel that the Police were left with no other option. In hindsite perhaps the paddling community welcomed the opportunity to challenge our position in this way.

The whole sorry situation could easily have been avoided had the paddler made us aware of his relationship with the canoe club. Since the beginning of this year all our regular visiting canoe clubs that have approached us have been issued with free passes for instructors who are volunteering their time to assist other youngsters to learn the sport. Had the canoe club intervened at the appropriate time we could have issued their instructor with a pass which would be valid on the club night. We were only told of the situation after the arrest at which time the situation was out of our hands. We could not comment publicly on the case whilst the CPS were deciding their course of action. It is a shame the club is willing to deprive their members of the use of our site by taking sides in this case. We are perfectly happy for them to return to their previous use of the site but encourage them to formalise the arrangement by contacting us directly to arrange for their free passes and inform us of their requirements for site use in advance.

We call on our customers to discuss such matters with us (in an appropriate medium, not on internet chat rooms or in arguments with our staff, but perhaps by writing in to us or arranging a meeting with the directors) before matters get to this point. All cases will be judged on their individual merit.

The paddler, calling himself “voodoo” has posted the following comments on internet sites:

“I was due to go to Wrexham Police station tonight to answer bail... however the Police officer that was dealing with my case rang me at home and informed me that....
the CPS has decided not to bring any charges against me based on the FACT that no one owns the water, therefore I was not committing any crime by getting on the water or passing through the river”.

We checked with the police officer concerned who stated he most certainly did not say that, that the paddler was hearing what he wanted to hear, that paddler believed a lot of things were “Facts” that in reality were just his opinion. It would appear the young man is in ”FACT” under a misconception that he has achieved something by this decision other than not being prosecuted himself. It is a shame he continues to mislead his friends and other paddlers, but perhaps the eventual outcome will help achieve parity for other canoeing sites with the WCA run Tryweryn, and help many other canoeists in the long run.

We have received the full explanation of the decision by the CPS not to proceed with this case. It would appear that the CPS have not decided it is legal to paddle on our site without paying, as has been suggested but that the individual may not have realised that what he was doing was in fact dishonest, (perhaps as a result of reading so many internet posts about the WCA’s position, supposed rights of the shop which do not exist, or other wishful thinking reports?). This does not in any way preclude a civil case from being launched, or prevent any other person (including this paddler if he repeats the offense) from being found guilty in the future. The CPS letter then states that the Crown Prosecution Service does not make any comment in respect of whether or not the defendant would have rights of access over the river. The CPS’s position is that this is a civil matter for our lease and our Landlord to decide. This contradicts claims above that CPS said “no-one owns the water and he is free to paddle on it where ever he chooses”.

As a business with bills to pay, river leases to furnish and staff wages to ensure, we are now looking into all the implications of the CPS decision. We feel that some paddlers remain convinced that trespass, or more serious offenses, are acceptable if it furthers their cause. We do not wish to have to accept continual confrontations just in order to survive. We have several options open to us and will make our decision about our future business model as the full impact of recent events become apparent. One thing no critic of ours seems to have considered is that we are not a charity and as such must be profitable to continue in business. Without an organisation to run our centre, paddlers might still be able to use the river but will do so without the safety backup, without access to showers and toilets with the attendant health risks of not washing river water off, without secure parking, a convenient cafe, without first aid facilities, without existing and future river developments, without the help and support of a team of experienced and enthusiastic instructors, and without the knowledge that they are acting within the law. They will experience confrontation with landowners who are unwilling to take the risk of liability in the event of an accident such as recently occurred just a few miles down river of us at Trevor, when a paddler drowned. They will be challenged by other businesses who currently rely on the river for their income and see paddlers as a threat to it. This may be acceptable to die-hard bandit runners, but many young paddlers, clubs, schools, emergency services and other law-abiding citizens to whom trespass is not a option welcome our site and amenities, and it is selfish of others to try to damage our business in order to further their aims. Unfortunately, even with the efforts of the WCA, legal recognition of free access to our rivers is still a long way off. By providing a venue at Mile End Mill, Llangollen, for the last 23 years, we have been filling the gap in requirements for canoeists. Until the law changes (and we do in principle support change in the law albeit by legal means, taking into consideration the needs of existing businesses) many paddlers need places like ours. We hope that the many satisfied customers we have continue to support us and keep Mile End Mill for Canoeists.

To all paddlers, and customers of ours we would like to say that we will continue to provide the highest standard of service we can, both on the river and off, whilst looking to ensure the continuation of our business, and a canoeing site for many years to come, Thank you to all those customers and supporters of ours who have written in and phoned us to say they know that we have their best interests at heart. It is most reassuring to know you appreciate us. Thank you.

[PaulBolton]

It's good to hear both sides of this (damaging to canoeing in the round) saga. As I commented earlier, we were only getting one side of the debate. I don't want to get into who is right and wrong (I haven't a clue to be honest!) but, I do respect JJ for giving his view of events on this chat site.

[Slow Paddler]

I'm glad we've got both sides of the story, I got sick of the constant slating on the guidebook, when lets be honest people didn't know the whole story.

It's a shame it had to come to the arrest of a paddler & I can imagine how much damage it has done to Jims business knowing how much has been said in our canoe club, with people being worried about going to the site (even paying people feel there would be problems and agro).

JJ's run a buisness and have made alot of improvements to the river, I don't see the harm in charging, you pay at Nottingham, good for the Tryweryn for getting rid of their charges, although I didn't see the need, why should you get everything for free.

JJ's is ideal for newcomers to moving water and if I was running any training sessions I wouldn't hesitate to take people there (to pay).

ps no I don't work there (I raft guided there for 2 summers 4 years ago)

[Geebs]

Mile End Mill - Access update

30/07/2008

Mile End Mill, Llangollen and its associated river banks was privately purchased in 1985 to provide a white water slalom course and premises for the manufacture and sale of slalom canoes and kayaks and other associated practices.

Sorry but I cannot see the word water mentioned here, I agree with the Mile End Mill and river banks and agree that JJ has the right for car parking and access/egress from his property as he is the land owner as stated. I have visited JJ's on a few occasions and have not felt that we have not the best welcome, but there again the staff may have been having a bad day!

There may be some underlying dispute or bad feeling behind this but surely common sense will prevail in the end?

I do hope that this matter is resolved for the interest of all parties.