Sponging Ramblers

Quoted message said:

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

See letter and comment.

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)

When walking something that always disturbs me is if the footpath passes
through someone's garden or right past, say a farmhouse window. It
puzzles me as to why these footpaths cannot just be moved a little.
Obviously on occasions that may not be convenient for one reason and
another. Most footpaths were originally short cuts to church often, so
then there was a good reason for keeping them as short as possible, that
no longer applies.
By the way, the Offa's Dyke footpath has been diverted around Gornel
Farm just South of Four Crosses, whether to miss the slurry pit I don't
know, but they have made an excellent job of the diversion.

"Broadback" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

When walking something that always disturbs me is if the footpath passes
through someone's garden or right past, say a farmhouse window. It
puzzles me as to why these footpaths cannot just be moved a little.

It wouldn't concern me either if a footpath was moved a few feet provided
the diversion didn't detract from quality of the original route. Some people
however will not budge on this issue. I think there needs to be a certain
amount of compromise - I would be quite happy to walk round a farm rather
than through the middle with its gates, temporary pens, dogs and geese.....

Quoted message said:

Obviously on occasions that may not be convenient for one reason and
another. Most footpaths were originally short cuts to church often, so
then there was a good reason for keeping them as short as possible, that
no longer applies.
By the way, the Offa's Dyke footpath has been diverted around Gornel Farm
just South of Four Crosses, whether to miss the slurry pit I don't know,
but they have made an excellent job of the diversion.

There you go!

Graham

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.

All [censored] passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is ignored.

Yawn...

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

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

The message <[email hidden]>
from "Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Third, it is ignored.

Quoted message said:

Yawn...

Yes, but don't feed the troll. :-)

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

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

Quoted message said:

The message <[email hidden]>
from "Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Third, it is ignored.

Quoted message said:

Yawn...

Yes, but don't feed the troll. :-)

Oh I dunno...I quite like the way an attempted troll like this can be turned
into a sensible thread much in the way Broadback has tried.

Graham

On Sun, 27 May 2007 13:29:52 +0100, Roger wrote...

Quoted message said:

The message <[email hidden]>
from "Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Third, it is ignored.

Quoted message said:

Yawn...

Yes, but don't feed the troll. :-)

Paul is still at stage 1: ridiculing Angus' [censored].

--
Tim Jackson
[email hidden]
(Change '.invalid' to '.com' to reply direct)

Graham Seed wrote

Quoted message said:

Oh I dunno...I quite like the way an attempted troll like this can be
turned into a sensible thread much in the way Broadback has tried.

The Bollocks of Balloch is a unifying force :-D

Chris

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

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. :-)

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).

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

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.

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 (?)

There must be other criteria which define a ROW
--
Bill Grey

On Sun, 27 May 2007 19:22:40 +0100, Bill Grey wrote...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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.

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.

--
Tim Jackson
[email hidden]
(Change '.invalid' to '.com' to reply direct)

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 when he attacks those who want privacy and
security for their country homes.

The tone of his letter re-emphasises the Communist Party origins of
the Ramblers Association that in recent times has resurfaced and is
changing the public perception of Ramblers from an eccentric group of
slightly sad walkers into a politically motivated militant
organisation intent on stamping out what he sees as inequality.

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.

If Mr McNeish thinks people with 40 acre gardens should allow public
access to those who only have small back gardens, a logical step would
be that he allows public access to his own garden to all those who
have no gardens at all.

The Land Reform Act was no more than a law of the envious and
disgruntled and should be scrapped by the new administration.

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 Paul Saunders <[email hidden]> said

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.

Work, the pub, the shop/PO, the church, the girlfriend, the manor (to
pay the rent), and even a few round here to a communal well or spring in
the middle of a field. But as someone said, mostly from (back) door to
door.

Quoted message said:

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

Yep, I wouldn't want one to my back door these days. Problem is that the
council wants £600-£2k to move a footpath (even by just 10 yards), even
assuming the militant ramblers don't object. Which just causes
unnecessary friction.

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

Tim Jackson said:

Paul is still at stage 1: ridiculing Angus' [censored].

LOL!

Actually I think I've come full circle! I've been through the first two
stages long ago and I've been ignoring him for a long time now.

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

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

In message <[email hidden]>, Roger
<[email hidden]> writes

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. :-)

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.

They may have done but that interpretation was never tested in the
courts and was generally held to have been unlikely to succeed. Alan
Blackshaw did a great deal of research on the situation in Scotland as
part of the campaign for the access legislation and concluded that there
was no actual law of trespass and that as anything that isn't explicitly
forbidden is permitted in Scots law then access was a de facto right.

My own experience is that for hillwalkers and wild campers the Access
Legislation has made little difference. However the requirement in the
legislation for core path networks around towns and in lowland
countryside will open these areas up.
--
Chris Townsend

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

GSV Three Minds in a Can said:

Quoted message said:

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

Work, the pub, the shop/PO, the church, the girlfriend, the manor (to
pay the rent), and even a few round here to a communal well or spring
in the middle of a field. But as someone said, mostly from (back)
door to door.

Maybe, but I was thinking specifically of the ones way out in the
countryside, which are mostly farm to farm.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Yep, I wouldn't want one to my back door these days. Problem is that
the council wants £600-£2k to move a footpath (even by just 10
yards), even assuming the militant ramblers don't object. Which just
causes unnecessary friction.

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!

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

In message <[email hidden]>, Tim
Jackson <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 27 May 2007 19:22:40 +0100, Bill Grey wrote...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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.

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.

Indeed ! Doesn't one have to advertise or apply via the London Gazette
or something ?
--
Bill Grey