Access to walking areas - Page 2

"Peter Browning" <peter@worcester-networks.com> wrote in message
news:5da3666f.0403181201.415f92a2@posting.google.com...

<snip>
> > This whole move to ban recreational 4x4s is being driven
> > by the CLBA
(i.e.
> > the GOMLs) and their bedfellows GLEAM, Friends of The
> > Ridgeway,
Yorkshire
> > Dales Green Lanes Alliance and similar. I find it
> > frankly amazing that
the
> > Ramblers Association should form an unholy alliance with
> > the GOMLs of
this
> > world by effectively sharing the same campaign platform.
> >
> > You cannot blame walkes as a whole for this - just their
unrepresentative
> > representatives.
>
> Then why does the RA website contain loads of inflammatory
> material on the
subject??

The RA website isn't maintained by "walkers as a whole".

Cheers Andrew Kay

Martin Richardson <martin@thequiff.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<Zc+ldUEvygWAFwJc@thequiff.demon.co.uk>...
> In message
> <6e9j50tlmj0kmuq0a8k3f9pmgugdnb3lt6@4ax.com>, Phil Cook
> <urwalk@p-t-cook.RfErMeOeVsEeCrAvPeS.co.uk> writes
> >On 18 Mar 2004 03:32:34 -0800, Peter Browning wrote:
> >
> >>A question for all who travel to walk and who wish to
> >>ban MPV's from byways.
> >>
> >>How many of you drive to the start of your walk? If it's
> >>in a national park do you leave your vehicle outside the
> >>park boundary and walk in?
> >>
> >>No - well there's a surprise!
> >

> >authority. Now piss of back under your bridge.
>
> Temper, temper. Leave the little troll alone.

It's funny how every time someone tries to present logical
arguments that you don't agree with you just call them a
troll and refuse to come up with a logical refutation!

Pete

On 18 Mar 2004 12:09:35 -0800, peter@worcester-networks.com (Peter
Browning) wrote:

>Well, a Rambler

That's below the belt!

--

Paul

My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003):

http://paulrooney.netfirms.com

"Peter Browning" <peter@worcester-networks.com> wrote in message
news:5da3666f.0403181209.7fdc9b31@posting.google.com...
> Phil Cook <urwalk@p-t-cook.RfErMeOeVsEeCrAvPeS.co.uk>
> wrote in message
news:<6e9j50tlmj0kmuq0a8k3f9pmgugdnb3lt6@4ax.com>...
> > On 18 Mar 2004 03:32:34 -0800, Peter Browning wrote:
> >
> > >A question for all who travel to walk and who wish to
> > >ban MPV's from byways.
> > >
> > >How many of you drive to the start of your walk? If
> > >it's in a national park do you leave your vehicle
> > >outside the park boundary and walk in?
> > >
> > >No - well there's a surprise!
> >

> > authority. Now piss of back under your bridge.
>
> Well, a Rambler having to plumb the depths of bad language
> in order to try and make a point! Whatever next - a
> logical argument?
>
> The fact that the road is tarmac makes not a jot of
> difference to the argument; both the tarmac you speak of
> and unsealed byways are Highways with exactly the same
> legal standing. The mere fact that one type of road has
> been polluted with smelly, carcinogenic and polluting
> fossil fuel extracts in order to protect wussy cars and
> the other has a natural stone surface has no bearing on
> their legality to be driven.
>
> If you seek to ban cars from one then you also should not
> drive on the other.
>
> Alternatively perhaps we should press for all byways to be
> tarmaced??
>
> Pete

I agree with Phil, you're a troll. If you don't know the
difference between a road (A831/B78/M6 etc) and an unsealed
byway then you're not fit to own a motor vehicle of any
kind. BTW there's not many "Ramblers" on here.

KRO

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 13:34:38 +0000, Michael Farthing
<mf@cyclades.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <436j50tt4dhjo7t8ol860c2mqtutkvodq9@4ax.com>,
>Paul Rooney <paulrooney@aol.com> writes
>>On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:27:24 +0000, Michael Farthing
>><mf@cyclades.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Moral right is something determined by each individual
>>>for himself. It has no existence outside the
>>>individual's mind.
>>
>>Ah, subjectivism! It's serious tosh. Just because you
>>determine for yourself that something is right, it doesn't
>>make it so.
>>
>
>There is no absolute measure of right and wrong. It is
>neither right nor wrong except in the context of the
>individual's belief. Outside the individual's belief the
>concept has no realistic meaning.
>
>For example, is murder right or wrong? I believe it to be
>wrong. It is certainly wrong for me. But there are many in
>the world, including the august Prime Minister of the
>United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, who
>believe otherwise. What absolute authority can anyone bring
>to this question? OK, so murder is a bad example - why
>don't you pick a moral principle that is less controversial
>and more susceptible to a unanimous view?

Unanimity is irrelevant. Your reference to the PM gives your
position away. Tosh, Sir. Whether murder is right or wrong
is not for *you* to decide. You might *think* it is 'right
for you', but you would be guilty of woolly thinking.

--

Paul

My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003):

http://paulrooney.netfirms.com

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:25:36 +0000 (UTC), "KRO" <KRO@anon.com> wrote:

>
>"Peter Browning" <peter@worcester-networks.com> wrote in
>message
>news:5da3666f.0403181209.7fdc9b31@posting.google.com...
>> Phil Cook <urwalk@p-t-cook.RfErMeOeVsEeCrAvPeS.co.uk>
>> wrote in message
>news:<6e9j50tlmj0kmuq0a8k3f9pmgugdnb3lt6@4ax.com>...
>> > On 18 Mar 2004 03:32:34 -0800, Peter Browning wrote:
>> >
>> > >A question for all who travel to walk and who wish to
>> > >ban MPV's from byways.
>> > >
>> > >How many of you drive to the start of your walk? If
>> > >it's in a national park do you leave your vehicle
>> > >outside the park boundary and walk in?
>> > >
>> > >No - well there's a surprise!
>> >

>> > authority. Now piss of back under your bridge.
>>
>> Well, a Rambler having to plumb the depths of bad
>> language in order to try and make a point! Whatever next
>> - a logical argument?
>>
>> The fact that the road is tarmac makes not a jot of
>> difference to the argument; both the tarmac you speak of
>> and unsealed byways are Highways with exactly the same
>> legal standing. The mere fact that one type of road has
>> been polluted with smelly, carcinogenic and polluting
>> fossil fuel extracts in order to protect wussy cars and
>> the other has a natural stone surface has no bearing on
>> their legality to be driven.
>>
>> If you seek to ban cars from one then you also should not
>> drive on the other.
>>
>> Alternatively perhaps we should press for all byways to
>> be tarmaced??
>>
>> Pete
>
>I agree with Phil, you're a troll. If you don't know the
>difference between a road (A831/B78/M6 etc) and an unsealed
>byway then you're not fit to own a motor vehicle of any
>kind. BTW there's not many "Ramblers" on here.
>

A byway *is* a road. The difference is not between an
unsealed byway and a road, but between an unsealed road and
a tarmaced one. The only difference is its surface.

--

Paul

My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003):

http://paulrooney.netfirms.com

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:17:03 +0000, Michael Farthing
<mf@cyclades.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <e8aj5010vubpnqigst23hqhdnbpkpffevo@4ax.com>,
>Paul Rooney <paulrooney@aol.com> writes
>>On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 13:34:38 +0000, Michael Farthing
>><mf@cyclades.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <436j50tt4dhjo7t8ol860c2mqtutkvodq9@4ax.com>,
>>>Paul Rooney <paulrooney@aol.com> writes
>>>>On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:27:24 +0000, Michael Farthing
>>>><mf@cyclades.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Moral right is something determined by each individual
>>>>>for himself. It has no existence outside the
>>>>>individual's mind.
>>>>
>>>>Ah, subjectivism! It's serious tosh. Just because you
>>>>determine for yourself that something is right, it
>>>>doesn't make it so.
>>>>
>>>
>>>There is no absolute measure of right and wrong. It is
>>>neither right nor wrong except in the context of the
>>>individual's belief. Outside the individual's belief the
>>>concept has no realistic meaning.
>>>
>>>For example, is murder right or wrong? I believe it to be
>>>wrong. It is certainly wrong for me. But there are many
>>>in the world, including the august Prime Minister of the
>>>United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, who
>>>believe otherwise. What absolute authority can anyone
>>>bring to this question? OK, so murder is a bad example -
>>>why don't you pick a moral principle that is less
>>>controversial and more susceptible to a unanimous view?
>>
>>Unanimity is irrelevant. Your reference to the PM gives
>>your position away.
>
>It may give away something of my (internal) moral
>thinking and political beliefs. Quite what it gives away
>about what we are discussing perplexes me! There does
>seem to be a suggestion that I might be trying to hide
>something if I have given it away, but again, I'm at a
>loss to know quite what.

It gives away the fact that you are unable/unwilling to
distinguish between believing an act to be murder while
simultaneously believing it to be right, and believing that
act to be right but not to be murder. A very important
distinction.

>>Tosh, Sir. Whether murder is right or wrong is not for
>>*you* to decide. You might *think* it is 'right for you',
>>but you would be guilty of woolly thinking.
>>
>
>If unanimity be irrelevant and it be not for me to decide,
>then tell me do, who or what does decide?

Decides? If, as I say, it's not subjective, then there's no
reason to suppose any decision comes into it. The world's
roundness doesn't depend on anyone's decision; nor does it
require unanimity. Objective facts are like that!

You appear to have swallowed the woolly mid-20th century
fashionable and dangerous 'argument' that values and facts
must be separate entities. It's a silly position that
doesn't stand up to rigorous scrutiny. It also entails that
you have no grounds for complaint if someone beats the ****
out of you for fun, as it's 'right for him'.

--

Paul

My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003):

http://paulrooney.netfirms.com

"Andrew Kay" <andrew@NOSPAMkay5juniper.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<c3df2p$a3k$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> "Peter Browning" <peter@worcester-networks.com> wrote in
> message
> news:5da3666f.0403181201.415f92a2@posting.google.com...
>
> <snip>
> > > This whole move to ban recreational 4x4s is being
> > > driven by the CLBA
> (i.e.
> > > the GOMLs) and their bedfellows GLEAM, Friends of The
> > > Ridgeway,
> Yorkshire
> > > Dales Green Lanes Alliance and similar. I find it
> > > frankly amazing that
> the
> > > Ramblers Association should form an unholy alliance
> > > with the GOMLs of
> this
> > > world by effectively sharing the same campaign
> > > platform.
> > >
> > > You cannot blame walkes as a whole for this - just
> > > their
> unrepresentative
> > > representatives.
> >
> > Then why does the RA website contain loads of
> > inflammatory material on the
> subject??
>
> The RA website isn't maintained by "walkers as a whole".

Nor is any 'user group' website maintained by 'users as a
whole' - but, rightly or wrongly it is seen to (and
therefore does) represent the views of all members (or at
least the majority of members) of that group. It is the
public face of that user group and will be pointed at (quite
rightly) by outsiders who will say 'look, these are the
policies of the RA and it's membership'.

If ramblers as a whole objected to this stance then it would
not be on the website - ergo most walkers approve of the
inflammatory, innacurate and bigoted anti-vehicle stance.

Or am I missing some logic somewhere?

Pete

In article <c3df2p$a3k$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, Andrew Kay
<andrew@NOSPA Mkay5juniper.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>"Peter Browning" <peter@worcester-networks.com> wrote in
>message
>news:5da3666f.0403181201.415f92a2@posting.google.com...
>
><snip>
>> > This whole move to ban recreational 4x4s is being
>> > driven by the CLBA
>(i.e.
>> > the GOMLs) and their bedfellows GLEAM, Friends of The
>> > Ridgeway,
>Yorkshire
>> > Dales Green Lanes Alliance and similar. I find it
>> > frankly amazing that
>the
>> > Ramblers Association should form an unholy alliance
>> > with the GOMLs of
>this
>> > world by effectively sharing the same campaign
>> > platform.
>> >
>> > You cannot blame walkes as a whole for this - just
>> > their
>unrepresentative
>> > representatives.
>>
>> Then why does the RA website contain loads of
>> inflammatory material on the
>subject??
>
>The RA website isn't maintained by "walkers as a whole".
>
>Cheers Andrew Kay
>
>

In fact I would guess that not many of the contributors here
even describe themselves as "ramblers". We are "walkers".
Much more macho <g>

Bernard Hill Selkirk, Scotland

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:05:05 +0000, Bernard Hill
<Bernard@braeburn.co.uk> wrote:

>In fact I would guess that not many of the contributors
>here even describe themselves as "ramblers". We are
>"walkers". Much more macho <g>

Some of the regs are old enough to be ramblers though!

--

Paul

My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003):

http://paulrooney.netfirms.com

>4. Pressure on LA's to provide visitor centres, cafe's and
> lots of parking spaces close to popular walking routes
> resulting in a certain amount of defilement to the
> natural beauty of the area (NOT true of byway drivers
> who are self sufficient and demand no facilities other
> than the lanes themselves)

We dont need these things, they are foist upon us. NAsty
little eyesores. They are popular because they extract money
-not a bad thing..

Most hill areas seem to manage quite well without them. If
there is no parking available then tough! More walking!

Of course those of us travelling lightoften have to rely on
local businesses and services, thus providing a means where
folk can live off their scenery, (Gawd I am begining to
sound like a certain ruddy duck obsessed troll :-) ) Unlike
those environmentally pure ;-) self sufficient types.

Other points.. You chugg out more crap bashing ruts
than on a smooth surface, and we stop polluting once at
the car park.

Long term parking is great, because the longer a car is
parked the less harm it does. Recognised by the North Yorks
Moor Park, where they tried charging short term parking
more, in a bid to get the cars offthe roads

Also a lot of trips are done by public transport, an option
your mode does not have. Especially long trips. Not all of
us go out for the day. Not much car use on a multiday walk.

Richard Webb

>Some of the regs are old enough to be ramblers though!

I reject the way of the red sock.

Richard Webb

In a recent message <me+gkcBRXsWAFwuB@braeburn.demon.co.uk>,
Bernard Hill <Bernard@braeburn.co.uk> wrote.

[...]
>In fact I would guess that not many of the contributors
>here even describe themselves as "ramblers". We are
>"walkers". Much more macho <g>
[...]

Well, I'm a member of the Ramblers' Association, so I
suppose that makes me a <gulp> rambler. Of course, I belong
to the secret Provisional Wing of the RA that exists solely
to terrorise 4WD enthusiasts with the threat of banishment
from green lanes.

What am I doing here writing this tosh? I had a thirty-odd
km ramble around Nettlebed, Stonor and Turville planned for
today but the weather forecast put me off. Now the sun's
just come out.

Regards, Nick.

--
Nick Hopton and Anne Hopton Caversham, Reading, England
<hopton@dsl.pipex.com

Paul Rooney <paulrooney@aol.com> wrote in message news:<6ldl509o9fknj8koa820250kktkdti8fnm@4ax.com>...
> On 18 Mar 2004 12:09:35 -0800, peter@worcester-
> networks.com (Peter Browning) wrote:
>
>
> >Well, a Rambler
>
>
> That's below the belt!

Sorry! ;-)

Pete

"Peter Browning" <peter@worcester-networks.com> wrote in message
news:5da3666f.0403190157.7c069f79@posting.google.com...
> "Andrew Kay" <andrew@NOSPAMkay5juniper.fsnet.co.uk> wrote
> in message

> If ramblers as a whole objected to this stance then it
> would not be on the website - ergo most walkers approve
> of the inflammatory, innacurate and bigoted anti-
> vehicle stance.

There are 56 million people in England & Wales. All of them
are walkers but only 130,000 are members of the RA. I'd bet
that 99.9% plus of walkers do not know about the RA's
campaign to ban motor vehicles from byways.

Most of the 56 million are motorists too. I'd care to bet
that 99.9% or more of motorists have never heard of LARA,
AWDC or GLASS and do not know that their rights to drive on
unsurfaced roads are under threat. Most of them probably
aren't even aware they have that right anyway.

This is an arguement between the 0.1% or less of the
population who want to drive on byways - and the 0.1% or
less who want to stop them. Unfortunately, the outcome will
affect the rights of 100% of the 56 million population and
their decendents in perpetuity - without their knowledge!!!
This just cannot be right.

Cheers Andrew Kay