text:
I wrote to my MP Jake Berry on 22nd October and got the standard reply. "the DfE prefers to leave such matters for local landowners to make arrangements". In other words, this government does not want to upset the landed gentry.
I wrote to my MP Jake Berry on 22nd October and got the standard reply. "the DfE prefers to leave such matters for local landowners to make arrangements". In other words, this government does not want to upset the landed gentry.
You need to change the context of your letter to them and try again. I'm banging my head against a brick wall with Richard Benyon at the moment, but I won't give up!I wrote to my MP Jake Berry on 22nd October and got the standard reply. "the DfE prefers to leave such matters for local landowners to make arrangements". In other words, this government does not want to upset the landed gentry.
You need to put it to them that there is a direct correlation between our situation and that of walkers in the earlier part of last century where access agreements were also pushed as the way forward. Ask them if they would be happy for walkers and hikers to have to do this now? And if they don't, then why do they think that this is an acceptable policy to take for taking a canoe or kayak down a river or for wild swimming?
I wrote to Richard Benyon to ask him to confirm that there is still an unrepealed Navigation Act for the River Avon in Hampshire. I got a reply from an aid suggesting if I needed legal advice I should ask a solicitor! I have now written to my MP clarifying that I don't need legal advice, I need information on legislation on the subject that Richard Benyon is responsible for and asking him to intervene on my behalf. Next is a freedom of information request if necessary!
We don't need to know what Defras views or attitudes are - they have already made these very clear. But we are entitled to know how they justify these views in the face of evidence that they are unfair, ineffective and arguably contrary to English Common Law and in the case of the River Avon and others contrary to statutes). The objective of writing to your MP should be to get him to realise just how wrong Defra's stance is so that, when the time comes, he can approach any vote from a better informed position. Does he know that Red Card to Red Tape (commissioned by the Ministry for Culture, Sport and the Media) came to the opposite conclusion as have many other non Defra reports over the years?
Has anyone got any new councillors. Why not write and congratulate them but also ask for a meeting to talk to them about the access to rivers situation.
One year ago a few of us met with Dwr Cymru re access on Llyn Brianne. It started well but now it is impossible to get replies to emails and a phone call. I have now written to John Griffiths AM (Env Minister) using this as an example of the argument for having an access as they have in Scotland as it is impossible to make progress with vol. agreements.
I await a typical politicians reply!
Bob Andrew"Man plans, God laughs
"The public right of navigation on all rivers affirmed by the 1472 Act for Wears & Fishgarths has not been extinguished by legislation or the exercise of statutory powers [Rowland v EA] and the public have no powers to rescind their rights. Therefore, neither the public nor any organisation has the power to make any agreement that places any restriction on a public right of navigation. Any VAA which places any restriction on navigation would appear to be unlawful. Just as on a highway the right of passage on a public right of navigation is without let or hindrance. Any agreement or arrangement that could be construed as a let is also unlawful. Could you please ask Defra to comment on these matters."
Let's see what they can say to this !
Add Kevin Barron - Labour - Rother Valley to the list of MPs written to.
I will update you with the reply.
You have to kiss a lot of frogs to find a prince! (I was going to say "You can't catch a fish with every cast" but thought better of it.) They will not all respond positively at first but some will and some will at the second or third attempt.
The one thing that is absolutely certain is that if we don't try we will get nowhere! One of the keys to a successful campaign is persistence.
Keep kissing the frogs. We have found some princes already but we need more.
Wooohooo. My MP, Geoffrey Cox QC Member of Parliament for Torridge and East Devon, Has answered my letter from last October. He's had plenty of reminders but he's a busy man and we got there in the end. The first letter sent last year was replied with the DEFRA default.... The only way forward etc...... This was followed in October with another letter........
.Dear Geoffrey Cox,I have not yet had a reply from the letter sent to you last October, so I'm emailing the letter again with an ammendement to reflect recent changes in thinking from DEFRA I hope you are able to answer the question raised this time.
Dear Mr Cox,
Further to our correspondence last year regarding public access to our rivers for activities including swimming and canoeing.
Thank you for your reply and apologies for the time elapsed before getting back to you.
The suggestion in your letter that 'Access agreements are the way forward' which is, of course, the default reply from DEFRA, is of little help. Access agreements have never worked. They will never work. It implies that we as canoeists have to ask 'cap in hand' for permission to paddle a stretch of water, adding weight to the misconception that riparian owners have the rights to control navigation on rivers. The law implies that all physically navigable rivers have had a public right of navigation since
1472 yet we still have to suffer threats and intimidation from anglers and landowners (harassment and threatening behaviour is a criminal
offence) as we pursue our healthy, peaceful, no impact on the environment pass time. We do not kill or injure fish or even disturb them whilst enjoying our hobby. England, Wales and, as I understand, Iraq are the only countries in the world where the public doesn't have free access to rivers by right. Why does the government and its agencies continue to support landowners whilst they flout the law and make up their own rules? It is a case of public nuisance and an act against civil liberties to prevent free passage along a public highway.
A river is a public highway. The generally understood (amongst riparian
owners) principal that a riparian owner can control navigation on a river is based on old and dubious case law. Statute law states that all rivers have a public right of navigation and this status may only be extinguished by legislation or exercise of statutory powers.
In your reply you said I should contact you if any local access issues occurred. The current river access situation is a countrywide (England and Wales) problem so it affects anyone who wishes to enjoy the beautiful rivers of the Southwest. I'm sure you're aware that the situation is totally different in Scotland since the right to roam was extended (land reform act of 2003) to include rivers. The legal situation in Scotland has been clarified, rules have been set so everyone (with responsibilities as would be expected) can enjoy their environment. It works in Scotland, it can work in England and Wales.
Waters were included in the Countryside & Rights of Way Act but were removed following lobbying from estates, fisheries and riparian owners with only their own financial interests in mind. Again the government backed down, effectively siding with riparian owners rather than follow what is set down in law.
The standard DEFRA response of 'Access agreements are the way forward' is now inconsistent to their newly stated views. The Angling Trust say the law is clear - there is no public right of navigation on unregulated rivers.
· DEFRA have told River Access For All that the law is unclear and said they have neither sought nor received any legal opinion, or formed their own opinion on Revd. Dr Caffyns claim that there is a public right of navigation on all rivers physically capable of navigation.
· River Access for All says the evidence is clear (none has ever been identified by either DEFRA or the Angling Trust to challenge Douglas Caffyns work) but DEFRA and the AT can't be expected to appreciate that, until they engage with the evidence which they have steadfastly refused to do.
We now have the situation where canoeists are being asked to obtain permission from riperian landowners for access to rivers where it is by no means certain that riperian landowners have any right to deny them access. Will you please ask DEFRA to clarify their position in the light of this inconsistency?
Thank you for your time and if you wish to join us on a canoe trip on the River Taw or Torridge in the coming months you're more than welcome. Please feel free to contact me by email xxxxxxxxxxxxx or at the address above.
Yours Sincerely,
Paul Smith
and this is the reply to that one.
Dear Mr Smith, once again I apologise for the delay in replying.
I am sorry that you were not satisfied with the previous letter from DEFRA and I will once press them again on this.
As you rightly point out, the legal situation must be clarified, and the concerns of landowners, anglers and canoeists balanced.
I do understand that this is an emotive issue for all concerned and I have received representations from others with opposing views to your own. The inconsistency in the application of the law cannot persist.
I will of course be in touch again when I have had a response from DEFRA.
Once again apologies for the extreme delay in responding to you.
Well at least Mr Cox accepts that there is a problem, but he is sitting firmly on the fence at this stage. I guess he has more connections with rural landowners than paddlers so has little choice. So we're now waiting for something from DEFRA. One step at a time eh.
Just goin with the flow
Thanks for your perseverance Paul.
Your MP doesn't even look at the letters, 99 times out of 100 it will be a civil servant policy officer who reads and replies in your MPs name.
My wife was a policy officer for an MP... It is fact that they have not a clue what letters are written to them! She would answer questions aimed at her boss, then sign them as if from the boss -MP....
Remember this??
6-10 million people protested against something they did not agree with! Did it make any difference? No......
Just paddle
I also got a copy of a reply from Owen Paterson to my MP today. I'm also unimpressed with the response ...
Department for Environment
To Rt Hon Kevin Barron MP
From The Rt Hon Owen Paterson MP
From the Secretary of State
Thank you for your letter of 20 February enclosing a copy of one from your constituent, Mr
Keith Naylor of xxxxxxxxxx Dinnington, Sheffield, about access to rivers.
The report Mr Naylor refers to, Red Card to Red Tape How sports clubs want to break
free from bureaucracy, was published by the Sport and Recreation Alliance. Although the
report was commissioned by the Government the views expressed in it are those of the
Sport and Recreation Alliance and not the Government. Accordingly, we have no plans to
introduce Scottish-style access provision in England. The intensive use of land in England
for multiple economic and leisure activities means that increasing access for one group of
people usually constrains the access or rights of others.
I believe that a balance needs to be struck between the different uses which our non-tidal
waters serve. As Mr Naylor identifies, there can be sources of tension between those
exercising fishing rights and canoeists and rowers using the same waters. l am sorry to hear
of the problems he has experienced from other river users.
Our policy remains that those wishing to use privately-owned, unregulated watenrvays '
should work with the relevant landowner to agree access. These decisions are best made
between local people, according to their areas own recreational, business and conservation
needs, rather than by central government. During the Department's study of pilot
agreements, we were able to demonstrate the successful conclusion of agreements which
managed the site specific issues and tensions which arose. Moreover, 99% of 400
landowners contacted said they were willing to consider voluntary agreements. Many,
however, are put off from pursuing agreements because the governing bodies of canoeing
in England and Wales do not support the use of agreements.
He probably never even saw or heard of your letter.. It was some civil servant responding in his name!
That last paragraph, spells it out!Our policy remains that those wishing to use privately-owned, unregulated watenrvays '
should work with the relevant landowner to agree access. These decisions are best made
between local people, according to their area's own recreational, business and conservation
needs, rather than by central government. During the Department's study of pilot
agreements, we were able to demonstrate the successful conclusion of agreements which
managed the site specific issues and tensions which arose. Moreover, 99% of 400
landowners contacted said they were willing to consider voluntary agreements. Many,
however, are put off from pursuing agreements because the governing bodies of canoeing
in England and Wales do not support the use of agreements.
Paddle, paddle, paddle.....
Here's the agreement from my point of view.
Land owner "Hey you, you're trespassing on my land"
Me "Sue Me then"
The land owner wants an easy life. Will he really want to spend thousands taking civil action against a geeza floating off down stream?
Last edited by wavecloud; 20th-March-2013 at 09:47 PM.
All Party Group for the Waterways to take an impartial look at the evidence of a public right of navigation and make recommendations to Parliament.
If you are looking for any change or clarification to the law by the government, rest assured that their starting point is likely to read something like:
If that is ever enshrined in law we will have a real headache.Our policy remains that those wishing to use privately-owned, unregulated watenrvays '
should work with the relevant landowner to agree access.
Exactly, but I'm assuming they have no intention of enshrining it in law, because that would require them to admit what the current law is, , and to get the assent of parliament for any change is very debateable.
So why are we all writing to our MPs?
To help change the "consensus" of opinion, and because MP's might realise there are votes in it.
I thought we wanted them to admit there is already a right of access, which I understand was our position.
So we want our MP's to support our position with DEFRA, don't we? I do anyway.
Having read the Goerge Monbiot article I e-mailed my MP using the River acces for all template with a few changes to make it less formulaic. This is his reply
Dear Mr Couchman,
Thank you for your e-mail on Tuesday about some of the problems faced by canoeists and other river users, I was very concerned to hear about these and about the ongoing battles that have taken place over public rights of navigation. I must admit that I was largely unaware of these so I am grateful to you for bringing them to my attention.
I think that the first step will be for me to write to Defra about this matter urging them to change their position and help river users secure the rights of navigation that are legally theirs. Once I have received a response from them I will forward it on to you and at that point (depending on their response of course) it might be worth me asking some questions in Parliament and forcing them to answer these publicly. I think that that would be a good way of challenging any comments made in their response with which you disagree. I hope that this sounds amenable to you, I will write to Defra immediately and be in touch as soon as I hear back.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.
Yours sincerely,
Justin Tomlinson MP
Sounds pretty posative to me. I suspect he's new and hasn't been told not to rock the boat. I await with interest his response to DEFRAs standard reply.
Despite being a cynic, I think it is never a waste of time writing to MPs.
Even if you do not get the response you wanted, it does sow seeds in their minds. Many winning campaigns started with just a few simple letters.
As I said it was just the river access for all letter. Here it is anyway. The hard part is making sure the formatting keeps the links to the various references.
Dear Mr Tomlinson,
I am a constituent of yours living at (my address). I am a canoeist concerned at the conflict & intimidation that many experience as a result of the different interpretations of the law regarding public rights of navigation on our rivers in England and Wales.
This article by George Monbiot of the Guardian (together with the responses from the Angling Trust, Canoe England and River Access For All) illustrates the problems eloquently. Let me summarise the key points I would like you to take note of.
·there is compelling evidence of a historic right of navigation which a court has ruled can only be extinguished by legislation or exercise of statutory power. DEFRA will not engage with the evidence.
·DEFRA advocate resolution of the issues by local agreement but many landowners and angling groups interpret this as giving them an absolute veto over the nature of any agreement or even the discussions themselves. The Angling Trusts insistence that they will not even meet with Canoe England unless they concede the existence of such a veto illustrates perfectly why DEFRA policy just cannot work.
·As an illustration of the problems, the Englefield Estate office confirms there is a public right of navigation on all the sections of the River Kennet where they lease the fishing fights to the Reading and District Angling Association yet an official of the RDAA vocally denies this on the RDAA forum and, as a result, other forum members openly advocate violence and intimidation against canoeists.
·While DEFRA say "There is no clear case law on whether a 'common law right of navigation' exists on unregulated rivers. This is widely accepted to be an unclear and unresolved issue." The Angling Trust say "The law has been repeatedly confirmed by the courts and is absolutely clear: there is no universal right for people to canoe on non-tidal waters."
This situation has remained unresolved for far too long. In 1973 (40 years ago!), the Select Committee of the House of Lords on Sport and Leisure said
"The legal question of rights of way over water must be settled. A number of different legal interpretations of this right of way have been referred to in evidence and it is time for these to be resolved."
DEFRA have shown they are unwilling to resolve it. They say that this can only be resolved in the courts, knowing that no member of the public can take such action in the defence of a public right of navigation. This right is reserved to the Attorney General.
So the resolution lies with you and your colleagues in Parliament. Assuming that you don't just do nothing, you can either prevail on DEFRA to change their stance and order a comprehensive review of all the evidence for and against the existence of a public right of navigation, or, if they remain resolute in their refusal, call upon an appropriate select committee of Parliament to undertake such a review.
I am not looking for canoeists, swimmers and others to be given new rights or for any rights enjoyed by others to be extinguished. But it is time for an independent and authoritative review of the claim that there is and always has been a public right of navigation on all rivers subject only to the physical constraints of the river and the size/nature of the craft using them. I can see no reason why anybody seeking no more than the exercise of legitimate rights should fail to want to see this resolved in this way.
I hope I can count on your support in calling for such a review so that all parties can move ahead on the basis of clearly established rights and responsibilities.
Yours sincerely
I've now had a reply from Richard Benyon. The crux of the reply is that they still think that voluntary agreements will work, and 99% of the 400 landowners contacted were willing to discuss voluntary agreements, but the canoeists do not support this approach, so nothing happens. He also mentioned that they have correspondence from Angling organisations, frustrated at the canoeists approach.
He confirmed that they aren't going to bother doing anything about it, because it's not a priority and not in the coalition agreement, but the real outcome can only be validated in the courts.
So make of that what you will, but the status quo isn't going to change, is it!
If you want to get any positive action from Richard Benyon on anything other than killing wildlife in many varied ways, sadly you're wasting your time.
See Here
If that's too political feel free to remove
Just goin with the flow
I didn't expect anything from him, but trying to put a positive slant on it, at least he's confirmed he's not doing anything, which is better than working against us.
Maybe I'm grasping at straws, so keep paddling as considerately as possible until someone, sometime, somewhere finishes up in court where it will be resolved.
The status quo can change by simply asserting the PRN as I have done in Dovedale. The initial response was fight them on the beaches but slowly everyone is getting used to the idea.
As to the fishermen, they have no say at all in navigation until they can show us in black and white the legislation or case law to back it up.
Come on Mark Lloyd, put up or shut up.
It is no use crying to Richard Benyon. If you didn't want your bubble burst you should not have blown in the first place.
I wrote to my MP using the template letter with a couple of alterations and received a reply from Robert Goodwill my MP. Summarised it said;
'He's aware of this issue and that one of the problems of unrestricted access is that access could be exteneded to larger vessels which would in some instances destroy the enjoyment of those who have fishing rights or bank side property.
He is aware that some lndowners would be happy to permit canoeists to use their river or streams without granting a general right to navigation but on the other hand others may not, especially where fishing provides valuable income. He then goes on to suggest, and offers to, make representations on behalf of local canoesits for access agreements. He also mentioned the well known case regarding the closure of the PRN on the River Derwent here in North Yorkshire.
My reply was:-
Dear Mr Goodwill
Thank you for your reply by mail:-
There are just a couple of points I'd like to respond to:-
a) The River Derwent was the subject of a dispute several years ago, to which it was confirmed there is no legal right of navigation. That said I've never had any problem paddling that river because the dispute arose over plans to build a marina and re-instate locks and so on for larger craft, to which various environmental groups/trusts objected.
b) I appreciate that river access to canoeists which also extended to motor boats or larger vessels could/would cause problems to others. However, many rivers which canoeists would like to enjoy are often too small to be physically used by larger boats.
c) As you say some some landowners are happy to enter into formal access agreements - and these are often in high value salmon/trout fishing rivers where the agreement allows access outside the salmon/trout fishing season which suits both sides. The main problem with most access agreements is they are normally only for short unconnected sections and thus the ability to paddle long distances is denied.
I also appreciate that on many rivers, canoeists, such as myself, simply turn up discretely and quietly paddle off without causing any problems and consequently without any objection by the riparian owners - I have had no problems on the River Esk. However there are rivers where canoeing & fishing interests are the cause of much dispute.
d) The current legal situation regarding river access at the moment appears a little muddled. No legal offence of trespassing on rivers exists and only one case of prosecution of a canoeist exists, to my knowledge, and it was not for trespass. Yet there is no clear 'right to navigation' unless you take into account legal texts from the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries which were obviously written before modern recreational canoeing became widespread. Obviously , many riparian owners strenuously object to canoeists using rivers for which they have paid for the right to fish, despite some canoeists asserting that the riparian owners do not control the navigation (only the fishing). This has led to numerous disputes, disagreements and access to some rivers being so contentious they are only used by canoeists who are prepared to put up with trouble.
e) This state of affairs only exists in England & Wales.
Canoeists have access to all rivers in Scotland. There is public access to all rivers in every country in Europe to my knowledge and I have failed to find one other country in the world where you do not have legal access to waterways.
I appreciate you reading this far. Unless you want to counter any point I have made there is absolutely no need at all to reply to this e-mail.
To which I received the immediate response by e-mail
"Dear Mr Perry
I can't really argue with any of the points you've made.
Best wishes.
This was a much better response as far as I'm concerned as he didn't really restate his original position.
A couple of points to note.
1) A public right of navigation established or existing prior to the invention of mechanically powered craft does not extend to such craft because that was a future technology. Wills Trustee v Cairngorm Canoe and Sailing School Lltd
2) Devalueation of property due a PRN is not a legitimate consideration since such loss of property is lawful and in a good cause, the preservation of a PRN. Rowland v EA
It changed when Defra concededIf there is no case law there is no "precedent" to guide courts on future cases which would have to be decided on the basis of evidence. The evidence of the historic public right of navigation is plentiful and compelling (see http://www.riveraccessforall.co.uk/w...e_evidence.php). No one has presented any credible evidence that there never was a PRN or that (except via the provisions of specific Navigation Acts) it has in anyway been amended, modified or extinguished. The existence of riparian rights do not in anyway preclude the existence of public rights of navigation.There is no clear case law on whether a 'common law right of navigation' exists on unregulated rivers. This is widely accepted to be an unclear and unresolved issue.
If you accept the view that disagreements and conflicts are best resolved locally you will need to remember that the right to navigate can only be amended by legislation or exercise of statutory authority - not by agreement. Whether there is any form of agreement or not your rights remain unchanged. You can of course decide not to exercise your rights if you are presented with a compelling reason to do so but that is for for each individual member of the public to decide. You can be guided (but not bound) by agreements reached by others. The notion that landowners or others have a veto of any kind is entirely without foundation. Whilst past Defra actions have implied the existence of such a veto they are careful not to say so now because there is not a shred of evidence to justify it.
I think when writing to influence someone such as an MP it is not helpful to start by splitting hairs. Which is why my second letter stuck to what he and others would be expected to know or understand. Splitting hairs may well come into it later.
That said:-
1) I have no doubt you are right, regarding motorised craft although I struggled to find a reference in the Wills Trustee case as the summaries I found were rather lengthy. This as I understand it is relevant only if you accept the argument that a general PRN has existed for many hundreds of years in our rivers. Whether MPs or indeed anyone else we wish to influence holds the believe that a SRN actually exists in law for the majority of England and Wales is another matter. If it is ever established that no PRN exists then the issue of access to motorised craft may well become an issue on the back of canoeists attempting to gain free access to all rivers.
2) The issue of devaluation wasn't something I nor the MP raised. It was simply a comment made by him that householders on the banks of rivers may well legitimately object to unrestricted opening of waterways from a nuisance point of view. Take away the fact of whether you have or don't have a PRN, then householders may also raise their objections to 'people-in-boats' cruising by their previously peaceful waterside houses.
I'd be rather interested to know from someone with knowledge of the access laws now current on Scottish rivers as to whether the right to access rivers extends to all craft??
Sometimes one wonders why you even try to help, so I'll not bother. I'm sure you can argue among yourselves without my help.
Last edited by Tykey; 10th-May-2013 at 08:19 PM.
I don't know whether you're referring to what I've posted. But if it is I think your comment is a little misguided. You can't expect every canoeist to agree with every dot and crossed 'T'. Splitting hairs weakens positions. Keeping things general, moves things on. Most of us want access to rivers with no or little impediments. Whether that right exists or not, thats what I want my MP to know and accept. Which he may well do now.
Thank you, thats useful to know.
Two years ago I was in the same position that most people and CE are in today, uncertainty about our rights and begging the authorities to give us a moiety of what we have already. After two years of study and struggle I now realise that this was the result of tyranny controlling my will (DeToqueville) The situation is clear.
We already have everything we want. The PRN exists on all unregulated watercourses. It did in Roman times. It was affirmed in 1215, 1297 and 1472. It was judged to exist by the House of Lords in Wills Trustees v Cairngorm Canoe and Sailing School Ltd. Everyone should look at this. It can be found in " The Case for the Claimant" ANNEX A16 page 3 which is posted on my website http://www.andybiddulph.co.uk , starting half way down the first column "I have referred to these cases drawn from different systems of law, ...." The phrase "not confined any to one place or time" clearly negates the argument that this only applies in Scottish Law.
Every argument that can be brought against us has already been decided in our favour by the High Court or House of Lords.
"Established riparian rights" -- rejected out of hand by the House of Lords with the comment "Riparian owners are given to saying such things." AG v Brotherton.
Loss of property value -- "lawful and in a good cause, the preservation of a PRN" Rowland v EA
Opens the way to motor boats -- No Wills Trustees v Cairngorm Canoe and Sailing School Ltd.
I repeat WE HAVE ALREADY GOT IT ALL. The only thing we have to do is assert it. I have proved this in Dovedale. I asserted our PRN and even CE can not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The only thing being discussed is how everyone is going to cope with our PRN and how we can minimise our impact on other users and the environment. Influencing MPs is a useful bit of PR but can we please stop arguing round in circles and expressing doubts about our rights,
I repeat WE HAVE ALREADY GOT IT ALL AND THE ONLY THING TO DO IS ASSERT IT.
As to fishing interests, until they can show us in black and white where it says they have powers to control navigation, they need not be consulted, although they may wish to discuss practical considerations with us on a friendly basis.
WE HAVE ALREADY GOT IT ALL AND THE ONLY THING TO DO IS ASSERT IT. There is no lawful way to stop us and we have the criminal justice system to deal with anyone who acts unlawfully.
There is a weath of resources for asserting our rights on my website http://andybiddulph.co.uk and help and advice avaible by e-mailing email@example.com
WE HAVE ALREADY GOT IT ALL AND THE ONLY THING TO DO IS ASSERT IT. let's get stuck in and get the job done.
Thankyou! I;ll look at those references.
I have just received a reply from my MP Justin Tomlinson. As expected it is the same old DEFRA piffle that voluntary agreements are the way to go. I have responded by asking him to enquire whether Mr Benyon recuses himself from votes in which he has a vested interest and a couple of other things. I don't expect much as my MP is a young tory and Mr Benyon is a minster and landed gentry. Still if all I do is wind up Mr Benyon for a few seconds I will count as a useful e-mail.
And since my post 158 in which I included a letter and reply from my MP I today received another letter from him, totally unasked for:-
"Thank you very much indeed for your e-mail of 8th of may regarding access to rivers.I have to say I have difficulty in disagreeing with anything you say and certainly, so long as vessels are powered by muscle power rather than engines, I am sure that the conflict between riparian owners and those using the rivers is likely to be minimal.
I do from time to time have meetings with the british Marine Federation who represent the manufactuers of vessels and indeed their CEO Howard Pridding, is particularly keen to encourage recreation involving craft and people who will purchase the products produced by his members. He can be e-mailed on firstname.lastname@example.com and his telephone number is available on the website. I have taken the liberty of forwarding your e-mail to him to suggest that more could be done to encourage owners of waterways to allow more access."
Etc, yours.....etc.,
And enclosed was the letter from my MP to the said Howard Pridding:_
"....I am sure your organisation have already been pro-active in encouraging riparian owners to allow access, but thought it would be useful for you to see the points he makes and maybe liaise with me to see if more can be done to establish rights of way over rivers for vessels. At this stage Mr Perry is only interested in boats powered by muscle power, rather than some of the more advanced vessels produced by your members but it does seem this is an area where maybe Government could take a lead in establishing what rights people may have over these waterways. Perhaps if you had time you could respond to some of the points made by Mr. Perry.
Look forward ..........etc.,
Robert Goodwill MP
Scarborough & Whitby.
Now I know there are those who have a genuine belief we already have the right to paddle but the MPs/ministers don't know this, and they will want convincing, or at least have a summary of the main points of which bits of legislation we believe gives us this right, it does allow me to respond in that manner to Mr Pridding. So we may well have a powerful representative of british industry pushing for similar rights as ourselves.
As far as I'm concerned this is just another step forward and does demonstrate that some MPs WILL go that little bit further than you ask. And Mr Goodwill is a large landowner here too, although I'm not sure he has any rivers/streams running through his neck of the woods.
Well I thought it was a nice reply given some of the other responses other SOTPers got.
Obviously writing to your MP is so yesterday, i wish i hadn't bothered.
We are slowly changing attitudes among MPs and every MP that engages with the issues, particularly those that then engage with others, contributes to changes in the long held assumptions. It may seem a small thing but Defra's standard responses that continue to say that local issues are best resolved by local agreement, no longer talk about "permission".
getting our message across, at least the MP did not ask for a response from DEFRA, since as we know,that
agency appear reluctant to get involved except to say access agreements are the best option,in a format letter
form, so thanks for posting.
You could offer to go for a paddle with your MP, on a river,in his own constituency,if he has the time, I am sure
he would enjoy it.
Thank you.
As you'll notice the MP initially felt access agreements were the way forward - the same response as other replies from other MPs. I assume they go for some advise somewhere or other which explains why they've heard of 'access agreements'.
Will I offer to take him canoeing on his nearest river - which happens to be the Yorkshire Derwent - and which has had it's PRN removed in 1935?? Maybe. But it just might end up on his expenses account!
I bumped into my MP in a pub a couple of weeks ago. After introducing myself and a little bit of chit chat, I told him that I'd written to him in the past about river access. When he asked me if I was happy with the reply that I got, I said I wasn't, but I got what I expected. When he asked what that was, I said "fobbed off". He did have the decency to look a little crestfallen.
Still, I can't think of anyone who ever received a knighthood by putting his constituents interests above his own....
Last edited by The Cumbrian.; 10th-June-2013 at 09:35 PM. Reason: I found out how to use the Enter key.
Cheers, Michael.
Brute Force and Ignorance is Vastly Underrated.
"There is magic in the feel of a paddle and the movement of a canoe, a magic compounded of distance, adventure, solitude, and peace."
-Sigurd Olson
Following on from my post 168, where I'd written to my MP, and he in turn forwarded my letter to a Mr Howard Pridding who is the CEO of the Britiish Marine Federation and in turn suggested I contact Mr Pridding myself.
Eventually I did and after a long delay I got this reply from the said CEO of BMF who'd contacted CE with a list of my questions/comments and forwarded their response to me.
Comments/questions are lettered
The replies from CE are in bold underneath each comment.
(my comments/questions are of course based on my understanding of the current situation - and may not reflect everyone elses's)
Dear Mr Perry
I think the best way to tackle your request is to answer each question in turn:
a) The anglers who have riparian rights claim canoeists have no right to be on 'their' rivers.
We need to understand what is meant by riparian rights? If this means they 'own' the bed and the bank of one side that means they own the bed and bank upto half way across the river. If they own both sides then they own the whole of the bed and bank of that section of river. It would therefore be a requirement for anyone passing over private land to the water would require riparian owners permission. However, if the anglers hold the 'fishing rights' only, then that is all they have and permission to access land from the anglers would not be necessary as they do not own the land. As far as permission is concerned on the water, CE fundamentally believes in the principle for access to and along unregulated non-tidal waters and does not subscribe to the present assumption by some for these waters to be deemed private. CE contends that recently published research contests this assumption
b) The canoeists claim that having the riparian rights does not mean you have any right to control the navigation on a river in any case. Simply the right to fish.
The area of access to and along inland water is extremely complex. The current assumption held by some is that common law supports the position that where rights are not explicit navigation may constitute a trespass. As mentioned above, Canoe England does not subscribe to the present assumption. The Magna Carta and the strength of the latest historical research on the law are further grounds for a presumption in favour of access and public rights to inland waters that are physically usable.
To further support our views, I would also like to draw your attention to a recent statement from Defra which states that - There is no clear case law on whether a 'common law right of navigation' exists on unregulated rivers. This is widely accepted to be an unclear and unresolved issue". This is a clear modification of their position and can only mean that there is no compelling evidence to support the notion that navigation can only take place subject to the 'permission' of riparian landowners.
c) The anglers claim that the only places canoeists can travel on rivers are those with Public Rights of Navigation(PRN)
Please refer to the recent statement from Defra above. There are rivers where Navigation Acts remain on statute where a PRN is disputed i.e. Avon (Hampshire), Itchen (Hampshire), Ouse (Sussex), Western Rother (Sussex). The Stour (Dorset) is a recent addition to this list and more may come to light.
d) Canoeists claim that the PRNs were invariably enacted in the industrial revolution to allow the legal construction of navigational improvements to rivers for larger commercial vessels and that the public right of access to rivers has always existed, both before the improvements and of course, after. The canoeists claim this right is based on Roman law and later medieval acts of parliament including the Wear and Fishgarthes Act 1472, which was enacted to force those who obstructed rivers with fish traps and weirs to remove them because they prevented the rivers from being used by water craft. This is also largely the view taken by a Rev douglas Caffyn, a legal researcher who has written a thesis on medieval river transport.
Canoe England considers that Magna Carta and the Act for Wears and Fishgarths 1472 confirmed that there was, and is, a PRN on all navigable rivers and that this is supported by the fact that in every court case in which a PRN has been claimed it has been held that a PRN existed if the river was physically navigable.
e) The anglers and landowners claim canoeists are trespassing on their water.
Many inland waters in this country, especially the unregulated rivers, are considered by some to be privately owned. To canoe on them without permission could be viewed by some to constitute an act of trespass. Where there is no public launching point, or a public footpath to the water's edge it is necessary for the paddler to get permission to cross private land to access the water.
The current assumption held by some is that common law supports the position that where rights are not explicit navigation may constitute a trespass. Canoe England does not subscribe to the present assumption. The Magna Carta and the strength of the latest historical research on the law are further grounds for a presumption in favour of access and public rights to inland waters that are physically usable.
f) The canoeists claim there is no law of trespass on water for the simple fact there is no crime of paddling on rivers because of the position in d)
Agree. We believe that the strength of historical research on the law are further grounds for presumption in favour of access and public rights to inland waters that are physically usable. We wish to ensure our members act responsibly through formal training/coaching. Canoe England does not encourage paddlers to defy the law. In the majority of cases anglers and canoeist are quite capable of sharing the waterways in an amicable and sustainable manner. I would like to add that Canoe England has and will continue to promote canoeing as an environmentally benign activity. CE has demonstrated that they are committed to ensure the natural environment is protected through working with environmental organisations and the promotion of responsible and sustainable paddling.
The view taken by Richard Benyon, Parlamentary Under Secretary of State for Natural Environment, Water and Rural Affairs is that access for canoeists should be achieved by 'access agreements' between owners and canoeists. This is also largely the view taken by Canoe England who mainly represent canoe sports and coaching. As you may appreciate there are difficulties in these agreements in that they are nothing more than 'gentlemen's agreements' and not binding. Many canoeists simply ignore them and they only give access to small portions of a river and only at certain times anyway. So canoeists who wish to paddle the length of a river in the same way you might wish to walk the full length of a public footpath, cannot. (according to the fishermen!)
Faced with an unmet demand for access to water, the British Canoe Union has endeavoured to develop VAAs ( AAs as known to CE) for over 50 years with little success. As you have mentioned, these arrangements exist on a few rivers and typically provide highly restricted and inadequate access. However, the government research for canoe access on the Rivers Mersey and Waveney has produced principles and a benchmark for VAAs; forming the basis of government policy for access to inland waters to be achieved by the voluntary route. CE believes that this should be applied as the national standard for VAAs. The research has demonstrated that it is possible to achieve;
- All year round access supported by an Access Code outlining responsibilities of all water users.
- Environmental protection as appropriate eg setting mutually agreed minimum river levels.
- Respect flora, fauna, and other users
- Identified sites for launching and landing
- Publicity and information dissemination of VAAs
CE takes a pragmatic view of Access Arrangements. The CE revised Position Statement for the Shared Use of inland waters has provisions for entering into AA's and fulfils the criteria of government for AA policy. Namely, they should be developed on a joint local management basis that helps to protect the natural environment and respect the rights of other user interests. It also understands and caters for the need of some individuals, or small organisations to have AAs to ensure they have a greater certainty of access at a particular time and place. Our Position Statement also evidences how Government policy for AA's has failed i.e. Rivers Teme and Wear.
For AAs to work they are dependent on other water users and the riparian owners commitment for secure access managed on a self regulatory management basis. It is unrealistic to expect an organisation such as CE to have powers to enforce canoeists to abide by AA's. Many canoeists are independent of CE and we encourage all to follow the guidelines of such arrangements
The River Greta in Cumbria is an excellent example of how organisations including the Environment Agency, National Trust can work with river users to ensure government standards to Access Arrangements/Agreement are adhered to. Paddling on the Greta takes place throughout the year but takes into account the environmental considerations such as water levels as well as other users including anglers.
VAAs as on the Greta are an instrument that provides a certainty of shared use and access without conflict. Canoe England has asked to work with the Angling Trust on a number of occasions and to identify where they see potential access arrangements working. We have not received a satisfactory response for further discussions on this subject.
I would finally like to draw your attention to the comment 'Canoe England who mainly represent canoe sports and coaching'. This is incorrect as CE Members predominantly consists of recreational paddlers.
Well Adrian that's what I got from CE! And their probably still the line followed by many legal specialists in land management/fishing management and so on. Not that I'm disagreeing or anything but its clear from this whole access point of view, is that depending on where you are coming from its perfectly possible to have two or more totally opposite and established views.
But, following the general point of this whole thread now meant that at least the head of the BMF has taken his time to do something, no matter how little is just another feather in the cap for us, no matter how small the feather actually is. Its good PR for us isn't it?
The law is crystal clear and the House of Lords has already ruled in our favour. The following is an extract from my submission to the Welsh Government.
No one, not even the Queen (as the Duchy of Lancaster) has been able to counter the above exposition of the law. I don't know what CE is messing about at with their AA's. They could just assert the PRN as I am doing. You can just imagine them at their AA meetings, "My name is Richard. I am a serial compromiser. My problem is that I don't even want to break my addiction. It is too comfortable."Inquiry into Access to Inland Water in Wales
Evaluation of the SPLASH Grant Scheme Voluntary Access Agreements 2008-2012 (response attached)
I am writing to you in relation to the above documents to inform you of three simple facts that could have saved a good deal of confusion and public money spent on the wild goose chase over Voluntary Access Agreements which have a 50 year history of failure. Since this may impact on a number of departments I have circulated it to all those I think may be affected. You may wish to ask your Counsel General to check the legal stuff. The facts are:-
- The public right of navigation on any unregulated watercourse may be determined as a matter of fact and current case law gives us two simple tests.
- Fish Legal can produce no legislation or case law to support their assertion that fishing rights give fishermen any say in navigation.
- Navigation rights are superior to fishing rights.
These are the result of two years study and actions to test the results of those studies. I will present my actions in Dovedale as a model for opening watercourses for recreational use.
I am not a lawyer but I am dyslexic, left of centre on the autistic spectrum, and read books on higher categoric logic for the laughs. These things do not make me the life and soul of the party but they do give me the skill set to cut through complexities which neurotypical persons find baffling.
Public right of navigation
We know as a matter of fact that there was a public right of navigation on all rivers between 1297 and 1472 because king Edward IV and his Parliament told us so in the 1472 Act for Wears & Fishgarths, attached.
Mr Justice Lightman [Rowland v EA] ruled that as long as the watercourse flowed this PRN could only be extinguished by legislation or exercise of statutory powers. He also gave us a method. Examine the public record and ask two questions.
- Did anyone have statutory powers and were they exercised?
- Has there been any legislation?
The current case law is given by Lord Wilberforce [Wills' Trustees v Cairngorm Canoeing and Sailing School Ltd, 1976] who sets out some general principles of law relating to public rights of navigation.
"I have referred to these cases drawn from different systems of law, to support the existence of a rule, which is really one of the common law of nations, resting ultimately upon facts and needs, not confined to any one place or time, that the use of a river, according to its natural quality and capacity, for downstream floating is recognised by law, and to support the use of broad and liberal principle for the statement and application of the rule"
"The interaction of natural and visible capacity for use with human exploitation thus produces by inevitable process a segregation between rivers of public use and other rivers or streams which have not the character of public use."
Which in summary states that the public right of navigation is almost a universal human right and that its existence may be determined, as a matter of fact, by visual inspection of the stream's capacity. The generality of the wording prevents the argument that this only applies to Scottish law.
This is fully in accord with the affirmation of the common law public right of navigation on all rivers affirmed by the 1472 Act.
The question to ask is
Does it look like you could float a canoe in it?
If yes, then the PRN exists as a matter of fact
If no, there is no PRN with respect to a canoe. However, there may be a PRN with respect to a rubber duck.
The view put forward by anglers is based on the restatement in commentaries and law text books of the doctrine originally stated by Humphrey Woolrych in 1830. However, the law is not to be found in such places which are only unaccountable persons writing about the law. The law itself is to be found in legislation and case law.
Reliance on the Woolrych doctrine is unsafe for the following reasons:-
- Comments in commentaries and textbook entries are not legislation or the exercise of statutory powers so may not extinguish a PRN.
- The Woolrych doctrine is unsupported by case law. Bourke v Davis which is sometimes cited was rejected as misleading by the House of Lords in AG v Brotherton, 1990.
- It is based on a series of errors highlighted by Rev Dr Caffyn.
- It was contrary to the legislation in force in 1830 , 1472 Act for Wears & Fishgarths.
- It is contrary to current case law.
Given a PRN, no one has control any more than they do in the street. All anyone can do is advise members of the public if they should choose to listen.
Fishermen controlling navigation
Fish Legal can produce no legislation or case law to support their assertion that fishing rights give fishermen any say in navigation. Rawson v Peters was decided on the question of disturbance of fish, for which there is now no objective evidence as a result of research carried out by the NRA and EA. Lord Denning made a clear separation from the question of control of navigation by refusing an injunction but giving leave for application to be made to the County Court. He is also stated as saying that had there been a PRN then the fishermen would just have to put up with the disturbance.
Mark Lloyd, the President of Fish Legal, ran away from the Guardian online blog when challenged to show in black and white where it says that fishing rights give powers to control navigation. http://www.theguardian.com/environme...&commentpage=1 go to the blog pages.
It would be a wise precaution to ask anyone claiming to control navigation to demonstrate that they have the legal authority to do so. That is, show where it says so in black and white in legislation or case law. They will attempt to just cite the names of cases without showing anything of their content.
For example, where did the Wye and Usk Foundation, as an environmental charity, acquire the right to say when and where navigation may take place? Such interference with a PRN is a public nuisance [Tate and Lyle v GLC and PLA] and so incompatible with their charitable status. I have served them with notices asserting the PRN on the Wye and the Usk. When they fail to show that the PRN has been extinguished and continue their unlawful attempts to control navigation I shall take the issue up with Charity Commissioners.
The apparent confusion concerning the law is due to the egregious confabulations generated by Fish Legal. They know that their position has no basis in law because they have failed to answer my arguments. The law is not confused. All the issues have already been decided in the High Court and the House of Lords. The tactic of the fishermen is to shout their egregious confabulations in the hope that they will browbeat everyone into accepting them. Careful and detailed questioning with demands to demonstrate their authority for what they are saying will cause them to withdraw.
Navigation the superior right
Medieval laws, of which the 1472 is an example, clearly established the superiority of navigation by ordering the destruction of fishing installations in favour of navigation. The 1861 Salmon Fisheries Act which repealed many of these laws also recognised the superiority of navigation in the "Saving Clause for Dredging" which exempted dredging and other operations essential to navigation from the provisions of the Act.
Seriously, a lot of these MPs are QCs, ask them why the law is not being enforced.


text:
Scholarships in Perry
McKelvey Foundation Bronze Scholarship
Award: $4,000, Deadline: February 5
Applicant either must have graduated from high school at least one year prior to application date and were unable to go to college because of financial considerations or had to leave college because of financial considerations. Applicant must reside on campus in a double room and must complete 25 hours of community service each year. Applicant must apply for financial aid via FAFSA each year and apply for additional scholarships.
- Allegany, Armstrong, Barbour, Bedford, Boone, Bradford, Braxton, Calhoun, Cambria, Cameron, Carbon, Cattaraugus, Clarion, Clay, Clearfield, Clinton, Columbia, Crawford, Doddridge, Elk, Fayette, Fayette, Forest, Fulton, Gilmer, Grant, Greenbrier, Greene, Huntingdon, Indiana, Jefferson, Juniata, Lawrence, Lewis, Lincoln, Livingston, Logan, Lycoming, Mason, Mcdowell, Mckean, Mercer, Mingo, Monroe, Monroe, Montour, Nicholas, Northumberland, Pendleton, Perry, Pike, Pocahontas, Potter, Preston, Randolph, Ritchie, Roane, Schuyler, Schuylkill, Snyder, Somerset, Steuben, Sullivan, Summers, Susquehanna, Taylor, Tioga, Tucker, Tyler, Union, Venango, Warren, Washington, Wayne, Wayne, Webster, Wetzel, Wirt, Wyoming, Wyoming, Wyoming, Yates
- College Freshman
- All Majors Eligible

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Event Information
Refund Policy
Refunds up to 7 days before event
BNI Success - Adelaide business networking meetings.
Bookings available to visitors who would like to grow their business and work with 25+ different businesses in promoting their business.
To maximise your value, we recommend arriving by 9:00am to network with our team and other guests.
If the date you wish to visit our meeting on is not listed on this site, you can check here to see if we are meeting at our alternate venue, The Duke of Brunswick Hotel.
Visit www.bniadelaide.com.au for more info about BNI
*Please note that BNI Success - Adelaide is not registered for GST and all costs are listed as GST Free
What is the refund policy?
Refunds available for requests lodged up to 7 days before the event.
Sorry, no refunds within 7 days of the event.
Date and Time
Refund Policy
Refunds up to 7 days before event


text:
Mike Phelan: Hull caretaker boss in charge for visit of champions Leicester
- From the section Football
Caretaker boss Mike Phelan will take charge of Hull in their Premier League opener against Leicester on Saturday.
The 53-year-old took temporary charge of the top-flight newcomers after Steve Bruce left the club on 22 July.
Phelan held lengthy talks with Hull vice-chairman Ehab Allam on Monday. Radio Humberside reports the agreement is for one game but could be extended.
A host of names have been linked with the Hull vacancy, including Wales boss Chris Coleman and Gianfranco Zola.
The Welsh Football Association rejected an approach from Hull to speak to Coleman, while former West Ham and Watford boss Zola has been interviewed.
Hull secured their return to the Premier League by beating Sheffield Wednesday 1-0 in last season's Championship play-off final at Wembley.
But Bruce ended his four-year stay after a breakdown in his relationship with vice-chairman Ehab Allam.
Bruce's departure has been just one chapter in a summer of turmoil at the KCOM Stadium.
Owners the Allam family opened talks with an interested party over the sale of the club in May but put takeover talks on hold until September to "ensure stability during the transfer window".
However, Hull have so far been inactive in the transfer window despite the departure of several members of last season's promotion-winning squad and a long injury list.
Long-term injuries to the likes of Allan McGregor, Alex Bruce, Moses Odubajo and Michael Dawson depleted Hull's ranks in the weeks before Bruce's exit, while Harry Maguire, Jake Livermore and Tom Huddlestone have also spent time in the treatment room.
They have since lost Mohamed Diame to Championship side Newcastle despite offering the Senegal midfielder a new, improved contract.
Curtis Davies is Phelan's only fit senior centre-back on the eve of the new season, while the expected return of Shaun Maloney from a groin injury will still leave the club with just 13 fit senior players.
Hull fans are planning to protest against the club's owners this weekend.
"I wouldn't say this has been my worst pre-season because you always take something from it, but it's certainly been a disruptive one," Phelan said in an interview with the Hull Daily Mail.


text:
This collection does not contain any items.
Building Tomorrow's Leaders
This is the official page of the NHS Army JROTC program. This page has been set up in order to provide Cadets of the Mighty Saxon Battalion with general information regarding weekly events and activities and as a way of informing potential new Cadets what JROTC at NHS is all about. This is also a way to keep our overabundant support of parents and alumni informed as well as involved on everything the program is doing


text:
Bike safety tips orthopaedic surgeons say you should always remember
ROSEMONT, Ill. - More than 80 million Americans enjoy cycling because it is an environmentally efficient way to travel, a great form of exercise and a fun recreational activity for families to enjoy.
According to 2013 statistics from the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), more than 1.3 million people were treated in hospitals, emergency rooms and doctors' offices for bicycle-related injuries.
"A helmet is your friend while cycling, so always wear one," said Alex Jahangir, MD, an orthopaedic trauma surgeon from Nashville, Tenn. and American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) spokesperson. "The other important factor is getting professionally sized for a bike. This is especially essential for growing kids who may have outgrown their bikes. Having an appropriately sized bike helps the rider to have better control while riding, thus reducing the risk for falls and other accidents."
In 2012, bruises and minor cuts were the leading types of injuries involving bicycles, followed by fractures, then lacerations and strains and sprains. However, serious injuries, including concussions or death, can occur.
Orthopaedic surgeons treat, but would rather prevent injuries. The AAOS offers this list of cycling safety tips:
Road Safety Rules:
Follow rules of the road. Familiarize yourself with all of the bicycle rules of the road in your city or state. Follow traffic signs and lights. Signal your turns, or your intentions, so that drivers can anticipate your actions.
Ride defensively. Ride in the direction of traffic and be aware of all surroundings. Be careful when riding next to parked cars to avoid hitting an opening door.
Avoid distracted cycling.Do not listen to music with head phones, talk on your phone, text or do anything else that can obstruct your hearing and/or vision while riding.
Never underestimate road conditions.Be cautious of uneven or slippery surfaces.
- Take extra precautions while bicycling at night.Wear bright fluorescent colors; make sure to have rear reflectors. Both a working tail light and headlight should be visible from at least 500 feet away.
Check equipment:
Always wear a helmet approved by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).
- Studies have shown that wearing a bicycle helmet can reduce head injuries.
- Make sure it fits snugly but comfortably and does not obstruct vision.
- It should have a chin strap and buckles that stay securely fastened.
If you are involved in a crash and notice that your helmet is cracked, you take the following actions
- Discard the helmet and obtain a new one
- Be monitored for signs of concussion
Service your bicycle. Check your bicycle's mechanical components on a regular basis (brakes, tires, gears, etc.), just like you would for a car. If your bike is not in good condition, do not ride it.
Use proper gear.Avoid loose clothing and wear appropriate footwear. Never wear flip flops.
Wear padded gloves. Use appropriately padded cycling shorts for longer rides. If you commute
on your bike, carry your belongings in a proper bag with close fitting straps. Wear sunscreen,
when appropriate.
Other Rider Tips:
Pace yourself. Cycling can be vigorous exercise. Make sure you are fit enough to participate before you start pedaling. See your doctor before you begin any exercise program.
Change riding positions.Slight variations in your position can reduce stress on pressure points on your body and avoid overstressing muscles.
Watch your fuel level. Be sure to carry water and food on longer rides. Drink a full water bottle each hour on the bike.
Medical ID Bracelets:Consider wearing a medical ID bracelet. This is useful if the rider is unable to provide basic information to first responders.
Supervise younger riders at all times. It is recommended that younger children ride only in enclosed areas.
- Never operate a bicycle while impaired
Orthopaedic surgeonsrestore mobility and reduce pain; they help people get back to work and to independent, productive lives. Visit ANationInMotion.orgto read successful orthopaedic stories.
Newsroom.aaos.org is your source for bone and joint health news, stats, facts, images and spokesperson interview requests.
Visit us:
About the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons


text:
Standard delivery within the UK is next day Monday - Friday for all orders placed before mid day and is fully insured. All customers within the UK will receive a text with a delivery time slot. The courier company we use is DPD.
Standard delivery within the EU is within 4-5 working days and is fully tracked and insured. This is a tracked service. The courier company we use for EU deliveries is UPS.
Outside UK & EU
Delivery times for bottles outwith the UK & EU vary between 5 - 7 working days. This service is fully tracked and insured. The courier company we use for rest of world deliveries is UPS.
We want you to be absolutely delighted with your purchase however if you are not 100 percent satisfied then we accept returns within 14 days for a full refund.
Our Returns Address is
Old & Rare Whisky
20 Battlefield Rd


text: I have the referenced Sony notebook and when I try to install an additional RAM module, it is not recognized. Someone says you can use something like a folded up post-it note under the module panel to exert extra force on the module. I tried that to no avail. Does anyone have any other ideas? I understand this might be a fairly common Sony problem.


text:
Play Recordings On Windows
From MythTV Official Wiki
Once MythTV has been setup there are a few options to allow playback of TV recordings from the Windows platform. The most obvious is MythTV itself which runs on Windows in addition to linux, FreeBSD and Mac OSX.
- MythTV on Windows - The MythTV frontend can be compiled and run on Windows.
- XBMC Xbox media center is now available on windows, and can play recordings and live tv. Plugin for XBMC is here. Another plugin is here.
- Boxee - Boxee will play MythTV natively, just add it as a source.
- VideoLAN Client 1.1.5 with MythTV VLC plugin - Browse and plays MythTV recordings.
- MythTV player - A video player built for MythTV.
The following require Samba shares setup to view recordings
- Play_Recordings_On_Windows_From_MythWeb using Samba shares, VLC and the Firefox Launchy add-on
- Samba using mythrename.pl to generate human readable filenames using Media Player Classic Homecinema to playback recordings
Samba setup
Note that samba/cifs can be problematic is not recommended, it introduces latency and problems with file attributes. Some libraries used by MythTV cannot even open files on samba shares, e.g. Taglib, tag reading library in mythmusic.
example samba share /etc/samba/smb.conf
[tvrecordings] comment = mythtv tv recordings path = /video/tvrec
ensure world has read access to files
chmod +r /video/tvrec


text:
The Forge Forums Read-only Archives
The live Forge Forums
. Please
October 20, 2019, 10:32:34 PM
1 Hour
1 Day
1 Week
1 Month
Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes:
Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Advanced search
Posts in
Topics by
Members Latest Member:
Jason DAngelo
Most online today:
- most online ever:
(November 03, 2007, 04:35:43 AM)
The Forge Archives
General Forge Forums
POD vs. Distributors
Pages: [
« previous
next »
Topic: POD vs. Distributors (Read 7604 times)
Posts: 196
POD vs. Distributors
March 19, 2006, 03:14:59 AM »
Hey Everybody,
I'm (hopefully) a few months short of publishing my first rpg (a superhero game). The Forge has been an incredible resource and has allowed me to focus my research in regards to publishing a printed book. From what I am reading, it seems that POD is a great way to get your product out to the consumer without having the overhead of warehousing and shipping your merch, but that it may not be the best way to get your book distributed (short of online bookstores) and into gamestore marketplace.
Personally, I spend most of my money online and totally appreciate the internet route of publishing. There are still plenty of people (some of which may be my potential customers) who don',t and only get exposed to new rpgs at their local gamestore or comic shop.
Are there any POD outfits that do work well with distributors (Diamond, Alliance, etc.)?
I have also thought of splitting the difference and printing a short run for order fulfillment purposes as well as having a POD outlet. To do this, it sounds like I would have to buy an ISBN or use a POD service who provides them, just to get a distributor to take my line seriously. Has anyone else had luck going this way? Does one route of publishing overshadow the other enough to make splitting my resources not worth trying?
10-Cent Heroes; check out my blog:
Sync; my techno-horror 2-pager
Posts: 3702
Re: POD vs. Distributors
Reply #1 on:
March 19, 2006, 05:31:59 AM »
Well, POD looks pretty much of a losing proposition to me, relative to running a short print run.� Take a 160 page, perfect bound book, b&w pages, color cover, which you want to sell for $20.�
Lulu makes the original cost of the book somewhere near eight dollars (which I don't
includes postage, but maybe I'm wrong) and then takes 20% of your profits on top of that.� So you get 80% of $12 ... $9.60 per book.�
A rock-solid short-run press will get you that product for under $5 a book, and if you're willing to sacrifice service and certainty you can go more fly-by-night and get that price driven down even further.� I wouldn't, but people do.� Let's say they do $5.� They take
percent of your profit, of course, so you get $15 per book.
The warehousing costs on 100 books are ... well ... you've got a box in your closet.
So what remains is the service Lulu provides of creating a web page, directing customers to it, accepting their money and then shipping a book to the right address.� That's called fulfillment, and it's a job.� Yeah, not everybody wants to do that themselves.� But do you want to do it
if you hear that you get almost $6 of extra profit for each package you drop off at the post office?� Or, alternately, can you find someone else who'd be happy to do it for you for
than $6 a book?� Because if you can then you can close the loop, write Lulu out of the middle, and get the exact same experience for you (i.e. checks come your way) with more profit.
Distribution ... urgh.� That's a bigger subject.� You think
wants a big chunk of your money?� To my eyes the numbers of distribution look a whole lot worse, and the business model a whole lot shakier.� I don't particularly want to pin my business model on the idea that game-store owners world-wide are savvy businessmen generating a huge revenue stream for anyone who gets involved with them.� They seem mostly to be passionate amateurs ranging from "barely staying afloat" to "throwing money down the drain."
But that's me.� Why do
find distribution so attractive?
Just published:
New Project: Misery Bubblegum
Clyde L. Rhoer
Posts: 391
Re: POD vs. Distributors
Reply #2 on:
March 19, 2006, 06:26:52 AM »
Hi Ken,
Tony has made a case for doing it yourself. The advantage of something like Lulu is there is no risk. You design the game layout, the book, and Lulu takes care of everything else. You don't have to fill orders, you don't have to go to the Post Office, and most importantly you don't have to risk any money. Both sides have their merits and you can do both.
If you want to get some perspective on numbers and sales via different methods check out
Clinton Nixon's weblog
. Scroll down to the post titled
Q4 Anvilwerks stats.
Theory from the Closet
, A Netcast/Podcast about RPG theory and design.
, Clyde's personal blog.
Ron Edwards
Global Moderator
Posts: 16490
Re: POD vs. Distributors
Reply #3 on:
March 19, 2006, 10:10:25 AM »
I'm seeing some confusion in this thread which needs to be fixed, fast.
DISTRIBUTION is a highly specific term in RPG publishing. It means selling your book to a middleman ("distributor") for about 40% of cover price, ultimately so the books will be bought by retailers and sold in their stores. A good example of a distributor is Alliance.
Don't mix it up with FULFILLMENT, which refers to the physical process of packing books and shipping them to people, whether customers or distributors or retailers or whoever. Fulfillment comes in two basic forms, if you're not using distribution (above).
- You keep the books, handle internet and other orders, and ship the books yourself.
- You contract with a company which warehouses the books, processes orders, and ships them, periodically sending you the customers' money less shipping and other costs. This is a
fulfillment house
, but it is not a distributor. Good examples of fulfillment houses include Indie Press Revolution and Key 20. (Both of them will also handle orders from retailers - an important point.)
It is widely believed that you cannot see your books in stores unless you are using a distributor, but this is not entirely true. For one thing, a retailer may be willing to deal directly with you as publisher, or your fulfillment house (if you use one). For another, as with my game Sorcerer, my fulfillment house serves distributors as clients as well.
I'm also seeing a terrible confusion that sets up print-on-demand (POD) as some kind of alternative to distribution. In some ways it is, and in some ways it isn't.
- Print-on-demand in its most extreme form means that a book is printed only after a customer orders it. Printing and mailing is in response to the order. This may appear entirely incompatible with using a distributor to get into stores
- However, short runs from POD companies (such as Tony does with Capes, Paul does with My Life with Master, and I do with Elfs) are
called POD, because they use very different technology from traditional printing and print "on demand" from the publisher as client, at significantly lower prices than traditional printing.
In the latter case, especially, one can get one's books into distribution (and hence into stores) just as anyone else does. POD is a means of
a book, and distribution is an institution concerning
stores' access
to the book. Choices about the former don't dictate anything about the latter.
Can I get some confirmation that you guys are understanding this? This thread is an abomination so far, because people aren't using the terms carefully.
Posts: 3702
Re: POD vs. Distributors
Reply #4 on:
March 19, 2006, 12:08:48 PM »
I don't do POD.� I do short-run printing.� If you want to call what I do "print on demand" aren't you pretty much calling
print on demand?� The client demands a print run and the printer produces one, whether they use movable lead type or a digital press.� I see the marketing cachet to printers of using the buzzword (as many do) but I don't see how it can help in our discussion here.
To my mind, Print On Demand is the idea that you print the books when there is ... well ... demand in the marketplace:� i.e. when a customer says "I would like to purchase this book."� That's how I've been using the term.� I hope that helps anyone who was confused about what I was saying.
Just published:
New Project: Misery Bubblegum
Ron Edwards
Global Moderator
Posts: 16490
Re: POD vs. Distributors
Reply #5 on:
March 19, 2006, 02:27:05 PM »
Tony, I can't help it; what I'm saying is how the terms are used. It doesn't mean much to bring up personal, internalized, or "most sensible to me" definitions.
At present, the term "print on demand" is associated with two distinct things: printing on customer demand (the literal definition), and printing using digital technology. Since the two are currently married into the same companies, the term gets used for both. The latter thing makes short-run printing financially possible, which is serious business in the print industry as you know, and thus captures the attention of the people using the term.
To you or me, sure, it seems odd to call my order for 100 more copies of Elfs to be "print on demand" because I'm a publisher rather than an end-use customer, but to the printer-world, it means plenty. It means I can pay $1.02 a copy whether it's an order for 100 or for 1,000 or for 10,000.
The goal of this thread, as I see it, is to help our new member at the Forge. Let's not get wrapped up in beefs about the terms, but isolate the actual variables of interest so he can make the best possible decision.
1. Printing technology: traditional print vs. digital print
2. Customer-order driven printing or "run" printing (i.e. X number of books)
3. Fulfillment house or no fulfillment house
4. Marketing to distribution or not marketing to distribution
That's a whole lotta variables, some independent and some not. And it doesn't even count PDF copies of any kind, or take into account the role of bidding.
Ken, are you getting a clearer idea of the issues at hand? Or is it murkier than ever?
Posts: 196
Re: POD vs. Distributors
Reply #6 on:
March 19, 2006, 06:50:34 PM »
Ron, thanks for the clarification. I'm nottotally lost yet. You definitely filled in a couple of blanks I had about the subject. I've given some thought to my publishing plans, using the four questions from your last post as a guideline, and here is what I've got:
1. Printing Technology: Digital. Ron, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the other form of "print on demand" you were talking about where a printer will use methods other than those used in standard printing to produce a cheaper run of print books for ME. This choice is contingent on how well digital printing handles artwork. My book is pretty art heavy and printing would be a waste if my stuff didn't come out looking right.
2. Customer driven or run printing: Both. Having an online sales presence through Lulu (for example) has little to no overhead, so not using it as an outlet for my game seems like robbing myself of potential profit. It also seems that having a stash of books on hand is a good idea, too. I have about a dozen gaming and comic shops (that carry rpgs) in my immediate area (twice that within a two hour drive) and I will definitely be making the rounds to get my book on everyone's shelves. Also, I'll need stock for distribution...ack, I'm jumping the gun.
3. Fulfillment House, or not: Yes. I hadn't given a lot of thought about this until it was brought up on this thread. They sound like another middle man between me and the distributor (who is a middle man between me and the retailers). While using them shrinks my profit margin, I'm assuming that a fulfillment house will improve my chances of getting picked up by various rpg distributors and increase potential sales overall. Plus warehousing and shipping for me sounds great. I hate mailing stuff.
To reduce cost, I'm assuming that a run of POD (for ME) books (which would be cheaper) would go to the fulfillment house, and they would manage my stock. If this is correct, then it sounds like a good combo.
4. Marketing to distribution, or not: I'm going to admit I don't fully understand what you mean. If you mean pushing my stuff on distributors for them to carry, then yes. I'm guessing that using a fulfillment house will open most distributor doors. If not, then I would definitely do some marketing to get picked up.
Because you brought it up: I don't have immediate plans for selling as a PDF, though I'm not ruling this out. I may use it is as a support tool for supplemental products, but that is definitely a future concern.
Let me know what you think, and if I'm not getting something right.
10-Cent Heroes; check out my blog:
Sync; my techno-horror 2-pager
Posts: 196
Re: POD vs. Distributors
Reply #7 on:
March 19, 2006, 07:41:47 PM »
Hey again,
Tony, you had asked me why I found distribution attractive, and I wanted to give that some time. First of all, you're right: doing printing and mailing merch myself gives me more mony. However, getting my line picked up by a Distributor hopefully opens up doors to shops in parts of the country that I don't even know exist. While I have no problem hitting the streets around here and getting my local shop owners to carry my game, getting too far away from home on my own seems prohibitive. I can keep myself pretty busy around my region (southeastern Virginia) doing demos and support work for my game, but (I think) it stands to reason that the opportunity to sell to more shops, even if I make less per unit, nets me more profit overall.
I could do research and generate a list of rpg and comic shops and then market directly to them, but I wouldn't have the relationship that I enjoy with my local stores, plus that increases my output of time (which is also an important resource). Its worth money to me to not have to worry about certain things like packing up books or running to the post office.
Just like going the POD (to customers) route via Lulu, I'm OK with paying them to do what they do best, which allows me more time to work on more rpg stuff. I'm a one-man band (I'm sure a lot of the creators here are) and if I can outsource stuff that eats up my time (like mailing stuff or tracking sales) then I am totally cool with that.
Now in the interest of staying on topic, my previous reply answers some questions Ron posed, and I hope outlines a decent strategy for getting my game out and keeping the merch flowing to meet demand (hopefully, there will be some of that). PODing directly to customers through online stores and PODing (to myself...digital printing, that is), using fulfillment houses to manage my stock and deal with distributors to push my stuff on to retailers reduces my profit, but I don't have to deal with it (and it also keeps me from screwing it up).
Take care,
10-Cent Heroes; check out my blog:
Sync; my techno-horror 2-pager
Posts: 3702
Re: POD vs. Distributors
Reply #8 on:
March 19, 2006, 08:11:09 PM »
Ken, I'm not seeing a place in your plans for selling the books you have printed (for you) directly to customers, bypassing Lulu, the distributors and indeed the gaming stores.
Is this intentional?� Have you considered that sales model and decided that it's not a market you want to pursue?� Or have you not yet considered it?
Just published:
New Project: Misery Bubblegum
Posts: 196
Re: POD vs. Distributors
Reply #9 on:
March 19, 2006, 08:36:48 PM »
Hey Tony,
I haven't ruled out directly selling to customers, but beyond my local and regional shops (which I'm assuming will be the bulk of sales that I will be directly involved in) I'm not sure what other avenues I follow. I'll be selling off my website, but that will just be a link to my POD (for the customer) partner...probably Lulu. Most of the stock I print for me will go to a fullfillment house for distributors. I'll probably handle the local shops myself, just to keep the relationship going and get feedback on sales, and stuff.
10-Cent Heroes; check out my blog:
Sync; my techno-horror 2-pager
Posts: 297
Re: POD vs. Distributors
Reply #10 on:
March 19, 2006, 11:20:30 PM »
>>but (I think) it stands to reason that the opportunity to sell to more shops, even if I make less per unit, nets me more profit overall.<<
Hi Ken,
Yes, in theory, that is how distribtution is suppose to work. That is how it did work in hobby gaming prior to 1998 too. However, afterwards a transition happened in the marketplace where most distributors became completely risk averse. Meaning they didn't want any product from a small company on their shelves if they could help it.
So what they did is, mostly, forced all small publishers to sell through a fulfillment house. The reasons for this, to reduce their labor in dealing with smaller companies. Well, and the biger reason, so they could order books for a small company through the fulfillment house nearly on demand. What we found was for most products being sold through a fulfillment house would see an initial order of ok size (but far smaller than it had been back in the days when the distributor actually had some monetary risk involved with stocking and selling your title), but its usually just enough units to pass through to the stores that ordered them and to leave one or no copies on their shelves for future sales. Those they try to order from the fulfillment house *after* they have already recieved the order from a retailer.
The result. A whole lot of time a retailers' order get filled right away since its large enough to qualify for the free shipping amount and thats accounts recievables they want to get the time ticker started on. Your order gets lost. If the retailer tries to order several times, the rep might go ahead and put the title on order hoping to tack it onto the retailer's nect order. The problems from this system are twofold. Most retailers get tired of seeing bad fill rates on your products so they pretty much give up trying to order them after a few times. And for a customer who went to his local retailer to try and order your book "special order" to be pulled through this lumbering silly system, that have to wait like 4-8 weeks sometimes to get the book, if the retailer or themselves have ot given up before then, which they often do.
Worse, retailers, believing that a product "in the system" is readily available to order, often skimp on stocking the product on their shelves for sale, instead waiting for a customer to come in with an order in hand, then they try to tack an order for just one copy on their next order with the distributor (which usually results in what I described above).
We ran that game of trying to sell through distributors for about 7 years. When we finally stopped and made our products only available through us on the internet and only through retailers we sold to directly, our sales began to climb. Why? More than anything else, I believe we had instantly removed all the confusion of where and how to buy our products. You see, prior to making that move we were out there marketing our behinds off and generating X amount of interest in our products, but due to all the road blocks to a customer actually laying hands on the product once they had decided they wanted it, we were only seeing maybe 30-40% of X in actual sales. Now we see nearly 100% of that, because customers don't often get confused as to how to buy our products, and we don't run them through a 4 to 8 week twisted maze as a reward for seeking our products out in an attempt to own them.
If you just want to get your game "out there", sure milk distribution for its first wave of orders. Then yank that product out of distribution and sell it direct. Direct to customers and retailers. And make sure everyone knows thats how to get your product. If you leave the confussion out there, it just leads to missed sales.
Ryan S. Johnson
Guild of Blades Publishing Group
Ryan S. Johnson
Guild of Blades Publishing Group
Ron Edwards
Global Moderator
Posts: 16490
Re: POD vs. Distributors
Reply #11 on:
March 20, 2006, 05:48:24 AM »
Ryan is speaking wisdom. I'll add that some publishers like to keep a few books available via distribution so that retailers for whom the game sells, but who are still mentally wedded to distribution, can still get it, if they want. The "one big push" model Ryan describes is valid, I think, not because the demand is one-push, but because of the wacked-out confusions he's outlined.
I'm really posting, though, to focus on something else that seems a little foggy in your posts - the meaning of "direct sales." Taken most literally, that would be me walking over to you and handing you money, and you giving me a book. But as used, it means anything which gets the book from you to me without someone else
it in the middle.
That's the key difference between a distributor and a fulfillment house, for instance. At the moment, a bunch of copies of Elfs sits in the IPR warehouse. I own those, not IPR. Whereas a number of copies of Sorcerer are presumably (although I say this with less confidence) sitting in an Alliance warehouse. I don't own those; Alliance does. The latter are not considered directly sold, but the former are.
So if someone hits the Buy button at my Elfs site or at the IPR site, and Brennan or Ed sends them the copy and processes the money, later to be sent to me less shipping/commission, then it's still "direct." It's no less direct that way than if it were the way I did it a few years ago - took the order myself and shipped it myself.
This might seem kind of odd at first glance, but the distinction between the middleman owning it or not owning it is actually a huge, huge deal, financially and procedurally. For one thing, it means the profit from direct sale of any kind is very large compared to indirect sale of any kind. Therefore the IPR commission bite is extremely easily absorbed, whereas the Alliance bite (the "discount," or difference between what they pay me and the cover price of the booki) is well over half the profit.
Does this help, Ken? Maybe the point is a little too familiar to me, Ryan, and Tony, in that we haven't stated it outright yet. It is: direct sales (of any kind, fulfillment house or not, etc) is the primary route for basic business, in this hobby. Indirect (official term = "three-tier") sales are secondary and work best as an added-on concern.
Michael S. Miller
Posts: 846
Re: POD vs. Distributors
Reply #12 on:
March 20, 2006, 07:20:26 AM »
Hi, Ken.
Just to weigh in, my sales numbers for 2005
are available here.[/ur] I released the game in August, did my own fulfillment until mid-October, then switched to IPR. All those yellow bits are sells to retailers
that I don't know
. You seem to be holding onto this idea that there's this massive pool of retailers that will order your game if you just get it in a distributor's catalog. Well, I can tell you from experience that there's a number of retailers that will gladly order your game from a place like IPR, without the unreliability and horrible profitability of distribution.
Serial Homicide Unit
Hunt down a killer!
Incarnadine Press
--The Redder, the Better!
Posts: 196
Re: POD vs. Distributors
Reply #13 on:
March 20, 2006, 06:49:37 PM »
Hey Everybody,
Wow. Thanks for all of the insight. There are certainly a lot of options out there. Though I was originally drawn to the cheapness of POD (to the customer) alla Lulu, I'm now developing an interest in the fulfillment house route (specifically IPR). Key20 is a good option too, and appears to have a lot of extra printing services for the indie game maker. It looks like I would have the books printed, sent to IPR, and sales (to individuals and retailers) would be handled through their website. Am I getting this right?
If so, digital printing seems affordable. What printers have you guys used, and about how much did your runs cost?
10-Cent Heroes; check out my blog:
Sync; my techno-horror 2-pager
Posts: 3702
Re: POD vs. Distributors
Reply #14 on:
March 20, 2006, 07:48:51 PM »
Quote from: Ken on March 20, 2006, 06:49:37 PM
If so, digital printing seems affordable. What printers have you guys used, and about how much did your runs cost?
seemed pretty helpful.� It is a few (possibly important) months out of date, so if you pick a company in particular you might want to ply the search function to see if there have been any more recent experiences, good or bad.
Just published:
New Project: Misery Bubblegum
Pages: [
« previous
next »
Jump to:
Please select a destination:
Welcome to the Archives
=> Welcome to the Archives
General Forge Forums
=> First Thoughts
=> Playtesting
=> Endeavor
=> Actual Play
=> Publishing
=> Connections
=> Conventions
=> Site Discussion
=> RPG Theory
=> GNS Model Discussion
=> Indie Game Design
Independent Game Forums
=> Adept Press
=> Arkenstone Publishing
=> Beyond the Wire Productions
=> Black and Green Games
=> Bully Pulpit Games
=> Dark Omen Games
=> Dog Eared Designs
=> Eric J. Boyd Designs
=> Errant Knight Games
=> Galileo Games
=> glyphpress
=> Green Fairy Games
=> Half Meme Press
=> Incarnadine Press
=> lumpley games
=> Muse of Fire Games
=> ndp design
=> Night Sky Games
=> one.seven design
=> Robert Bohl Games
=> Stone Baby Games
=> These Are Our Games
=> Twisted Confessions
=> Universalis
=> Wild Hunt Studios
Inactive Forums
=> My Life With Master Playtest
=> Adamant Entertainment
=> Bob Goat Press
=> Burning Wheel
=> Cartoon Action Hour
=> Chimera Creative
=> CRN Games
=> Destroy All Games
=> Evilhat Productions
=> HeroQuest
=> Key 20 Publishing
=> Memento-Mori Theatricks
=> Mystic Ages Online
=> Orbit
=> Scattershot
=> Seraphim Guard
=> Wicked Press
=> Review Discussion
=> XIG Games
=> SimplePhrase Press
=> The Riddle of Steel
=> Random Order Creations
=> Forge Birthday Forum
Powered by SMF 1.1.11
SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
design by


text:
ZeroNet is the home of simple charging.
ZeroNet is the national charging network that delivers what EV drivers need. It neutralises range anxiety through simple, robust and reliable Charging Stations at locations drivers can trust. Drivers can eat, play, work or sleep while topping up their vehicles. Unlike other networks, drivers don't need to register, pay monthly fees or carry smart cards. The essence of ZeroNet is strictly pay-as-you-go. Drivers can simply pull up and plug in, trusting in charging stations that work every time.


text:
HelioClim API - How To
The service provides estimates of solar energy potential for sites in Africa, the region surrounding the Mediterranean Sea, and the central part of the Atlantic Ocean. It refers to a database of solar radiation estimates based on images taken over a 20-year period by the Meteosat satellites. In addition to estimates of solar energy production, the data may provide useful input for climate studies. API methods support submission of location coordinates to retrieve estimated values for solar irradiance there. Each request can specify either a single geographic point or multiple points. Separate services are available for the period 1985-2005 and 2004-2005.


text: The amazing writer and performer Lily Tomlin turns 73 today, and if you're not too busy watching the "Gangnam Style" parody that officially won the Internet, I'd recommend spending a quiet night in with the Tomlin oeuvre. But if you haven't got all evening, here are some often-overlooked little old school fillets for you. Have a nice Saturday night!


text:
GoLeads Inbound Marketing Program.
If you're looking to grow your business in Data Processing Companies – or any industry for that matter – then think about implementing an inbound marketing strategy, and have customers come to you.
First, let's define what we mean by an Inbound Marketing Strategy.
An Inbound Marketing Strategy is when potential customers find you, and contact you because they are interested in your product or service. They find you, as opposed to you finding them. They come to you and start the dialogue about how you can help them. It's a great strategy when executed properly to get new customers. A good inbound strategy ensures you're in the right place at the right time when a qualified prospect is researching your product or service.
The advantage of implementing an inbound strategy is that you are able to reach and connect with those who are deep in the decision-making process and about to purchase. Inbound brings qualified prospects to you and cuts out a lot of the time spent finding them.
That's the difference between an Inbound Marketing Strategy and an Outbound Marketing Strategy. With Inbound, qualified prospects come to you. With Outbound, you find them.
Contact GoLeads today if you are interested in growing your business and learning more about implementing an inbound marketing strategy. We'll work to make your website "front and center" when someone is researching your product or service.
Call us or complete the Contact Order Form and someone will contact you.
Be found by those looking for your product or service.
Get businesses to contact you!
Be present. Be found. Be social. Be contacted.
Get customers to come to you as opposed to you always having to find them. Increase your close rate and get more customers by getting potentially new customers to come to you.
We build Inbound Programs to get people who are searching for your product to find you online. Once they find you, we then work to get them to contact you.
Get more customers with inbound marketing. Complement your outbound efforts with inbound marketing and increase your number of customers.
What does all this mean? The end goal is to Grow Your Business! Complement your outbound efforts with a strong Inbound Campaign to increase your revenue stream.
The post How Much Do You Need to Invest in Marketing Your Small Business? appeared first on . ...Read More
The post Why Putting Marketing on Hold is Always a Mistake appeared first on . ...Read More
The post Why Marketing For Small Business is an Investment appeared first on . ...Read More
The post Putting Artificial Intelligence to Work for Your Small Business appeared first on . ...Read More