Sponging Ramblers

In message <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Well I wouldn't want to pay that, but if I were ever to buy a farm with a
ROW running through it, I'd simply create and signpost an alternative route
around it and place a sign requesting walkers to follow the detour rather
than the ROW. Even if it's not official, wouldn't most walkers welcome an
alternative route? I don't like walking through farms.

It probably only costs a few quid to mark out an alternative route. Most of
the expense is all the official paperwork!

Unfortunately I don't think it is that easy even though what you suggest
to the layman does make sense.
--
Bill Grey

Quoted message said:

His condemnation of those who seek security for their country
properties takes no account of the fact that the law only considers
"responsible behaviour" of those it allows to access the countryside
and provides no solution for irresponsible behaviour or criminal
intent which is rife and out of control.

You obviously wouldn't know this, but ramblers are not criminals and
criminals don't ramble.

I realise this is probably a stretch of logic too far for you to comprehend,
but criminals don't obey laws. So from a criminal point of view, it doesn't
matter what the law is, since they'll ignore it anyway. So how will making a
new law protect landowners from criminals?

Clue: it won't. Laws only affect people who abide by them. And they're not
the kind of people you need to worry about.

I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears so I guess I'm making this comment for
the benefit of everyone else reading this, not you. It's not possible to use
logical argument to change the point of view of someone who's opinion wasn't
reached by logic in the first place.

Quoted message said:

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.

And in your illogical mind you like to quote this, thinking that the reverse
is true, i.e. that anything which is ridiculed is therefore true.

Unfortunately you have a sad grasp of logic. Let's look at this in a
different way:

Most of what is ridiculed is ridiculous, only a small percentage of it is
true.
Most of what is violently oppposed is justifiably opposed, only a small
percentage isn't.
Most of which is self-evident has always been self-evident, because
self-evident things tend to be obvious.
Only a small percentage of ridiculed truths eventually become self evident,
and only with the benefit of hindsight.

Now here's the kicker: most ridiculed truths are ridiculed because of blind
predudice, naive preconceptions or the triumph of biased personal opinion
over logic.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/

"Bill Grey" <[email hidden]> wrote in

Quoted message said:

I'm not fully up to speed on the law of Rights of Way, but it is not an
easy matter to move or close a ROW.

I have heard that if a funereal procession used a route, i.e. a coffin was
carried over a route then it could be deemed a ROW (?)

One of the more famous 'funeral routes' the Lyke Wake Walk isn't a RoW
though...
I got a coffin badge for doing it twice as a kid. I nearly needed one after
finishing on the second occasion.

Graham

Paul Saunders said:

Tim Jackson said:

Quoted message said:

I'm not fully up to speed on the law of Rights of Way, but it is not
an easy matter to move or close a ROW.

True, but it can be done. I'm aware of some in the Brecon Beacons
which now go round farmyards instead of through them. As Paul says,
that does make sense.

I think the main problem is that farmers don't provide an alternative route.
I can quite understand them not wanting people walking past their front
windows, and even though it's illegal I can understand their desire to block
the foopaths and putting up "Private: No Entry" signs. The problem is that
many don't offer an alternative route.

I've been in situations where the farmer has blocked the footpath illegally,
but I've had no alternative route available to me. So what should I do?
Follow the ROW regardless and risk a confrontation with an irate farmer? Or
take a respectful detour that requires me to trespass? Or walk many miles
out of my way?

Paul

Walking's what you want, isn't it?

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Paul Saunders said:

Quoted message said:

His condemnation of those who seek security for their country
properties takes no account of the fact that the law only considers
"responsible behaviour" of those it allows to access the countryside
and provides no solution for irresponsible behaviour or criminal
intent which is rife and out of control.

You obviously wouldn't know this, but ramblers are not criminals and
criminals don't ramble.

Rubbish! Who knows who a Ramblers is?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I realise this is probably a stretch of logic too far for you to comprehend,
but criminals don't obey laws. So from a criminal point of view, it doesn't
matter what the law is, since they'll ignore it anyway. So how will making a
new law protect landowners from criminals?

A new law excluding people from private property would make a
significant difference. Security fences could be erected to keep
wrongdoers out.

Quoted message said:

Clue: it won't. Laws only affect people who abide by them. And they're not
the kind of people you need to worry about.

So you know who's going to mug you before it happens?

Clever fellow you are :-))

Quoted message said:

I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears so I guess I'm making this comment for
the benefit of everyone else reading this, not you. It's not possible to use
logical argument to change the point of view of someone who's opinion wasn't
reached by logic in the first place.

Your argument is not logical in the slightest.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.

And in your illogical mind you like to quote this, thinking that the reverse
is true, i.e. that anything which is ridiculed is therefore true.

Not at all.

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately you have a sad grasp of logic. Let's look at this in a
different way:

Sure.

Quoted message said:

Most of what is ridiculed is ridiculous, only a small percentage of it is
true.

How do you come to that conclusion?

Quoted message said:

Most of what is violently oppposed is justifiably opposed, only a small
percentage isn't.

Rubbish! Insurgency in Iraq is an example.

Quoted message said:

Most of which is self-evident has always been self-evident, because
self-evident things tend to be obvious.

True.

Quoted message said:

Only a small percentage of ridiculed truths eventually become self evident,
and only with the benefit of hindsight.

Perhaps for people like you:-))

Quoted message said:

Now here's the kicker: most ridiculed truths are ridiculed because of blind
predudice, naive preconceptions or the triumph of biased personal opinion
over logic.

Absolutely right! And that's why the Land Reform Act is flawed.

It's a law of envy and disgruntled opinion that takes no account of
the logical consequences.

Quoted message said:

Paul

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the wonderful
person Bill Grey <[email hidden]> said

Quoted message said:

In message <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Well I wouldn't want to pay that, but if I were ever to buy a farm with a
ROW running through it, I'd simply create and signpost an alternative route
around it and place a sign requesting walkers to follow the detour rather
than the ROW. Even if it's not official, wouldn't most walkers welcome an
alternative route? I don't like walking through farms.

It probably only costs a few quid to mark out an alternative route. Most of
the expense is all the official paperwork!

Unfortunately I don't think it is that easy even though what you
suggest to the layman does make sense.

Oh it =is= that easy, but that doesn't officially move the ROW, so the
old route will still show on all the maps .. and worst case you'll just
create a new ROW, and wind up with two of them.

Even the council have been known to do it (presumably on purpose)
sometimes, where the ROW as waymarked, from stile to stile takes a more
sensible route than the official ROW. I must have noted and reported
several dozen of them on my survey of Shropshire ROWs.

A diversion does require that the landowner can provide an alternate
route though. With some farm cottages there just isn't any land owned by
the cottage owner, and the local farmer (who USED TO own the cottage(s))
is too bloody minded to sell a 6' wide strip to resolve the problem.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
8,630 Km walked. 1,677Km PROWs surveyed. 30.5% complete.

Paul Saunders said:

It probably only costs a few quid to mark out an alternative route. Most of
the expense is all the official paperwork!

The alleged cost of the paperwork is a sick joke. I've asked about
diverting onto a straighter more direct route that avoids our working
farmyard in the past. I'm willing to provide the alternative route
and put in two gates at my own cost. The council still want over £2k
to shuffle a few bits of paper, I refuse to subsidise the wages of
overpaid desk jockeys so the path remains where it is ;(

"Bill Grey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In message <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Broadback said:

Most footpaths were originally short cuts to
church often,

I thought most footpaths were originally routes to work, since most people
worked in the countryside. That's why most footpaths lead to farms.

Now that's no longer the reason for them, it would make more sense for
them
to bypass the farms.

Paul

I'm not fully up to speed on the law of Rights of Way, but it is not an
easy matter to move or close a ROW.

Quite the reverse actually, an application to the local county council is
quite sufficient. And if feasable the ROW can and will be diverted unless
there are any upheld objections to the proposals;-) Also a farmer if privacy
was required he could quite easily establish a permissive ROW around his
farm.

With regards to bridlewasys that's a different issue.

Quoted message said:

I have heard that if a funereal procession used a route, i.e. a coffin was
carried over a route then it could be deemed a ROW (?)

Maybe a old "coffin" route in law is defined as a bridleway!

--
Craven and Pendle Birds:
Bird watching in and around Craven & Pendle.
North Yorkshire and East Lancashire.
http://craven-and-pendle-birding.org/

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Duncan Gray said:

http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/letters/display.var.1428505.0.snobbery_not_security_is_main_motivation.php
is a better letter

Cameron McNeish fails to identify himself as President of the Scottish
Ramblers Association

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

Is that similar to there being no mention of all these organisations you
claim to represent with your letter in the same paper today?

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/letters.cfm?id=810832007#new

See letter and comment.

One word describes you;-)

--
Craven and Pendle Birds:
Bird watching in and around Craven & Pendle.
North Yorkshire and East Lancashire.
http://craven-and-pendle-birding.org/

"Bill Grey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In message <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Well I wouldn't want to pay that, but if I were ever to buy a farm with a
ROW running through it, I'd simply create and signpost an alternative
route
around it and place a sign requesting walkers to follow the detour rather
than the ROW. Even if it's not official, wouldn't most walkers welcome an
alternative route? I don't like walking through farms.

It probably only costs a few quid to mark out an alternative route. Most
of
the expense is all the official paperwork!

Unfortunately I don't think it is that easy even though what you suggest
to the layman does make sense.

No problems! A permissive path can be erected by a landowner without a
problem. Although by law anyone could still ignore it and use the official
ROW;-)
--
Craven and Pendle Birds:
Bird watching in and around Craven & Pendle.
North Yorkshire and East Lancashire.
http://craven-and-pendle-birding.org/

"Roger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The message <[email hidden]>
from "Duncan Gray" <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/letters/display...
snobbery_not_security_is_main_motivation.php
is a better letter

Hi Duncan, you have been quiet for a long time. :-)

Hi Roger.

I do look in here occasionally to see what's happening.

Quoted message said:

When I first started walking in the Highlands circa 1961 I was given to
understand that there was indeed a de facto right to roam but since then
the lawyers go into the act and produced an interpretation of Scottish
Law that was virtually indistinguishable from the Law South of the
Border. In a leaflet "Access for Mountain Climbers" published jointly by
The Scottish Landowners Federation and the Mountaineering Council of
Scotland from 1972 the following is stated:

"In Scotland, we have a situation more favourable to the mountaineer
than elsewhere in the UK.

One cannot be prosecuted for walking in open country, but

One may be sued for damage arising from trespass.

It is an offence to light a fire without the land owner's permission.

Camping without permission may be an offence.

One may not drive a vehicle on private roads, fields, or shores without*
permission.

...................................................

Generally, landowners accept the mountaineer's need for remote camping
and wide-ranging access for small groups. Both sides have much to gain
from amicable cooperation.

September 1981."

*The leaflet I have actually said 'with' but 'with' doesn't make sense.

By April 1984 the leaflet had been superceded by a shiny booklet "Access
for Mountaineers and Hillwalkers" sponsored by the "The Royal Bank" but
the message, although expanded, remained much the same.

It is my understanding that until very recently trespass in England and
Wales was only a civil offence outside railways and MOD establishments
and contrary to the booklet I suspect that is equally true in Scotland.
Indeed the Trespass (Scotland) Act of 1865 could possibly have made
Scottish Law more repressive if there wasn't a similar law to the South.
(There may be, I just don't know).

As Chris says, there wasn't really a law on trespass previously in Scotland.
Given that we live in more litigious times, I think we're probably better
off now, having our rights formalised.

I refuse to try to learn all your English access rules, with maps and
'access land', whatever that means....

"Graham Seed" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Bill Grey" <[email hidden]> wrote in

Quoted message said:

I'm not fully up to speed on the law of Rights of Way, but it is not an
easy matter to move or close a ROW.

I have heard that if a funereal procession used a route, i.e. a coffin
was carried over a route then it could be deemed a ROW (?)

One of the more famous 'funeral routes' the Lyke Wake Walk isn't a RoW
though...
I got a coffin badge for doing it twice as a kid. I nearly needed one
after finishing on the second occasion.

And to be honest that route was and never was a full coffin route;-) Only a
very small bit was!
--
Craven and Pendle Birds:
Bird watching in and around Craven & Pendle.
North Yorkshire and East Lancashire.
http://craven-and-pendle-birding.org/

The message <[email hidden]>
from "C R Fishwick" <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

One of the more famous 'funeral routes' the Lyke Wake Walk isn't a RoW
though...
I got a coffin badge for doing it twice as a kid. I nearly needed one
after finishing on the second occasion.

Graham should have tried starting at midnight during January to get the
authentic experience. :-)

Quoted message said:

And to be honest that route was and never was a full coffin route;-) Only a
very small bit was!

I am not sure any of it really was, indeed Bill Cowley denies it. The
connection was with the Lyke Wake Dirge and the route over "Whinny Moor"
aka Wheeldale Moor that departed souls are supposed to take.

--
Roger Chapman
Nearest Marilyn still to be visited - Great Orme.
89 miles as the crow flies,
considerably more as the walker drives.

The message <[email hidden]>
from "Duncan Gray" <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Hi Roger.

Quoted message said:

I do look in here occasionally to see what's happening.

Usually not very much. :-) We could do with a bit more participation.

snip

Quoted message said:

As Chris says, there wasn't really a law on trespass previously in
Scotland.
Given that we live in more litigious times, I think we're probably better
off now, having our rights formalised.

I was just disappointed that the bods at the Mountaineering Council of
Scotland at that time acquiesced to what I suspected was a bluff by the
landowners lawyers. You are probably right though to believe you are
better off now. There always have been a few landowners who went out of
their way to be difficult. I was once camping near the road until I was
moved on by one of them, or more likely his factor. Kinlochhourn Estate
- restricted period the whole year according to the leaflet.

Quoted message said:

I refuse to try to learn all your English access rules, with maps and
'access land', whatever that means....

Quite simple really. Do as usual and go where you want. When challenged
modify old excuse "until a few minutes ago I was convinced I was on a
PROW, please direct me back to it" by substituting 'access land' for 'a
PROW'. ;-)

FWIW I don't think I was ever challenged in England or Wales prior to
the introduction of access land. Since then I have been challenged
twice, both times about low marilyns with no access land. Once on the
peak itself. once back at my car after the event. The former by getting
in the way of a pheasant shoot, the later prior to a buck shoot at a
time of the year I had previously thought was the close season. (Fallow
deer buck season runs to 30th April).

--
Roger Chapman
Nearest Marilyn still to be visited - Great Orme.
89 miles as the crow flies,
considerably more as the walker drives.

Bill Grey wrote

Quoted message said:

I have heard that if a funereal procession used a route, i.e. a coffin was
carried over a route then it could be deemed a ROW (?)

I have heard a story that the road through Chatsworth Park
only became a RoW because one of the Dukes allowed a
funeral cortege to pass through the grounds, not realsing that
in doing so the route would consequently default to a public
RoW. I'd thought it somewhat apocryphal but your assertion
makes me think perhaps its true after all.

Chris

"Roger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The message <[email hidden]>
from "C R Fishwick" <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

One of the more famous 'funeral routes' the Lyke Wake Walk isn't a RoW
though...
I got a coffin badge for doing it twice as a kid. I nearly needed one
after finishing on the second occasion.

Graham should have tried starting at midnight during January to get the
authentic experience. :-)

Quoted message said:

And to be honest that route was and never was a full coffin route;-) Only
a
very small bit was!

I am not sure any of it really was, indeed Bill Cowley denies it. The
connection was with the Lyke Wake Dirge and the route over "Whinny Moor"
aka Wheeldale Moor that departed souls are supposed to take.

I'm getting old! Just realised I did it in the '80's. And I found it very
boring to say the least;-) Oh, to be young again:-0
--
Craven and Pendle Birds:
Bird watching in and around Craven & Pendle.
North Yorkshire and East Lancashire.
http://craven-and-pendle-birding.org/

"Chris Townsend" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In message <[email hidden]>, Roger

<snipped>

Quoted message said:

My own experience is that for hillwalkers and wild campers the Access
Legislation has made little difference.

Is that true? I seem to think in the legistlation you can be now prosecuted
for tresspass!
Albiet, doubtful because it was just an expensive political exercise!

Quoted message said:

However the requirement in the legislation for core path networks around
towns and in lowland countryside will open these areas up.

No it won't, landowners still have their rights! Why pontificate about this?
It's a farce!

--
Craven and Pendle Birds:
Bird watching in and around Craven & Pendle.
North Yorkshire and East Lancashire.
http://craven-and-pendle-birding.org/

In message <[email hidden]>, C R Fishwick
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

"Chris Townsend" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In message <[email hidden]>, Roger

<snipped>

Quoted message said:

My own experience is that for hillwalkers and wild campers the Access
Legislation has made little difference.

Is that true?

I always went where I wanted before the legislation anyway. Only once in
many, many years was I ever asked to move a camp and even then the
person said one night was okay and I was moving on the next day anyway.

Quoted message said:

I seem to think in the legistlation you can be now prosecuted
for tresspass!

No, you can't.

Quoted message said:

Albiet, doubtful because it was just an expensive political exercise!

I think it was worthwhile.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

However the requirement in the legislation for core path networks around
towns and in lowland countryside will open these areas up.

No it won't, landowners still have their rights!
Why pontificate about this?
It's a farce!

No it isn't.

Why do you say that?

What is your experience of walking in Scotland before and after the
legislation?

Quoted message said:

--
Chris Townsend

http://www.auchnarrow.demon.co.uk

"Roger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I was just disappointed that the bods at the Mountaineering Council of
Scotland at that time acquiesced to what I suspected was a bluff by the
landowners lawyers.

I don't know what you're talking about re the landowners lawyers, don't
remember anything like that. The MCofS didn't have that much influence in
the final shape of the legislation, they were just one of many voices
expressing their opinions. The main factor in it all were the landowners.
They demonstrated to the government during the foot and mouth outbreak that
they weren't prepared to be reasonable over allowing access, so the Act was
adjusted to make sure they had to.

Quoted message said:

You are probably right though to believe you are
better off now. There always have been a few landowners who went out of
their way to be difficult. I was once camping near the road until I was
moved on by one of them, or more likely his factor. Kinlochhourn Estate
- restricted period the whole year according to the leaflet.

See, we're better off. The estate wouldn't get away with that sort of thing
nowadays.