The Land Reform Act needs buried.

Quoted message said:

The Land Reform Act is a nasty piece of legislation based on envy and
confrontation, which was badgered for by the Ramblers Association and
is a throwback to its Manchester Communism origins.

It has made very little difference across most of open moor and
fellsides to which access already existed. The new act doesn't affect
any customary freedoms enjoyed previously under common law.

Some additional areas in England have been opened up where there wasn't
previously an access agreement in place.

I'm not an expert on Scotland so I'll leave it to some whinging
communist sponger north of the border to comment (unless they're all
down here in Manchester at the moment planning on creating havoc on
Kinder Scout). From what I've experienced though, it hasn't opened up
any areas I couldn't previously have visited (or at any rate would have
wanted to).

Quoted message said:

At a public meeting in Gartocharn during the consultation period Dave
Morris, Director of the Scottish Ramblers Association, boasted of
having had a picnic on the lawn of some country house.

During consultation? You mean prior to the act? Are you sure he wasn't
just recalling a family outing to an NT property?

Quoted message said:

Ms Gloag has always been a pioneer and more than deserves her victory.
Many others should now follow her example, as privacy and security
should not be confined solely to the rich and famous. The right to
protect one's property from all intruders, in these days of escalating
crime in the countryside, should be paramount.

There are exclusions in the act including:

Buildings and their curtilage (I'm pretty sure that would include the
front lawn of a country house - unless they charge for entry)
Farmyards.
Land where crops have been sown or are growing (including hay and silage).
In relation to a house, sufficient adjacent land to enable persons
living there to have reasonable measures of privacy in that house or
place and to ensure that their enjoyment of that house or place is not
unreasonably disturbed.

There is also the concept of "Responsible Access" based on respect for
the interests of others, care for the environment and taking
responsibilty for ones own action.

Quoted message said:

Why should the interests of those who wish to walk on other peoples'
ground, be a greater "right" than that of the owners of such
properties to be "entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of their
possessions" which is a "fundamental freedom" under the Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights?

Why should the rights of landowners who can purchase huge tracts of land
be greater than those of the population as a whole to enjoy the natural
environment on foot?

Quoted message said:

The Land Reform Act needs buried together with the divisive attitude
of those who sought its implementation.

It seems there is little likelihood. If anything, expansion is on the
cards. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6766221.stm

Roy.

The message <[email hidden]>
from Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

At a public meeting in Gartocharn during the consultation period Dave
Morris, Director of the Scottish Ramblers Association, boasted of
having had a picnic on the lawn of some country house.

Quoted message said:

During consultation? You mean prior to the act? Are you sure he wasn't
just recalling a family outing to an NT property?

I rather think that what Dave Morris was speaking about might have been
his visit to Kinfauns, on which the Sheriff comments in his judgement as
follows:

[21] In some ways that evidence was rather surprising considering what
Mr Morris had said about the majority of access takers. He had indicated
that 95 percent of such people follow the Code. Yet he himself had taken
access across land in the teeth of opposition by the land manager which
he was acutely aware was land excluded from the right of access by the
legislation and very certainly by the very document which he had handed
over to police officers. Not only was he not exercising access
responsibly in terms of the Code he was exercising access over land
which he knew was excluded from the right of access contained in the
legislation in circumstances when he had specifically been requested to
leave. Matters become worse however because when the police officers
arrived, in circumstances where prior to the legislation no doubt they
would have simply asked him to leave, they were informed by him that it
was not a criminal matter for them but a civil matter and they fell for
it, when in truth he was probably creating a breach of the peace by
refusing to leave when requested to do so in circumstances where he was
exercising a right of access which he knew did not exist. In short he
had chosen to ignore the very legislation that he was complimenting
because it suited his purpose.

um, er.

Richard

Richard Spencer said:

The message <[email hidden]>
from Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

At a public meeting in Gartocharn during the consultation period Dave
Morris, Director of the Scottish Ramblers Association, boasted of
having had a picnic on the lawn of some country house.

Quoted message said:

During consultation? You mean prior to the act? Are you sure he wasn't
just recalling a family outing to an NT property?

I rather think that what Dave Morris was speaking about might have been
his visit to Kinfauns, on which the Sheriff comments in his judgement as
follows:

[21] In some ways that evidence was rather surprising considering what
Mr Morris had said about the majority of access takers. He had indicated
that 95 percent of such people follow the Code. Yet he himself had taken
access across land in the teeth of opposition by the land manager which
he was acutely aware was land excluded from the right of access by the
legislation and very certainly by the very document which he had handed
over to police officers. Not only was he not exercising access
responsibly in terms of the Code he was exercising access over land
which he knew was excluded from the right of access contained in the
legislation in circumstances when he had specifically been requested to
leave. Matters become worse however because when the police officers
arrived, in circumstances where prior to the legislation no doubt they
would have simply asked him to leave, they were informed by him that it
was not a criminal matter for them but a civil matter and they fell for
it, when in truth he was probably creating a breach of the peace by
refusing to leave when requested to do so in circumstances where he was
exercising a right of access which he knew did not exist. In short he
had chosen to ignore the very legislation that he was complimenting
because it suited his purpose.

um, er.

Um er indeed. He sounds like the last person we want representing "our"
interests. His action may well be partly responsible for the court
decision (which personally on balance I think was the right judgement
given the wording of the act).

Roy.

In message <[email hidden]>

Roy roy@somedomainsomewhere said:

[email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why should the interests of those who wish to walk on other peoples'
ground, be a greater "right" than that of the owners of such
properties to be "entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of their
possessions" which is a "fundamental freedom" under the Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights?

Quoted message said:

Why should the rights of landowners who can purchase huge tracts of land
be greater than those of the population as a whole to enjoy the natural
environment on foot?

For the same reason as for buying anything else, unless you're so left
wing that you reject the idea of owning anything at all. Having a go
at landowners with large amounts of land but accepting, say, a small
garden, just smacks of jealousy.

FWIW I don't have a problem with the act, I'm just nitpicking on one
point of your post.

--
Simon Challands

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes

nothing of any importance, except to show how illiterate you are by not
even being able to write correct English in the subject line :-(

--
Malcolm

Richard Spencer said:

The message <[email hidden]>
from Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

At a public meeting in Gartocharn during the consultation period Dave
Morris, Director of the Scottish Ramblers Association, boasted of
having had a picnic on the lawn of some country house.

Quoted message said:

During consultation? You mean prior to the act? Are you sure he wasn't
just recalling a family outing to an NT property?

I rather think that what Dave Morris was speaking about might have been
his visit to Kinfauns, on which the Sheriff comments in his judgement as
follows:

[21] In some ways that evidence was rather surprising considering what
Mr Morris had said about the majority of access takers. He had indicated
that 95 percent of such people follow the Code. Yet he himself had taken
access across land in the teeth of opposition by the land manager which
he was acutely aware was land excluded from the right of access by the
legislation and very certainly by the very document which he had handed
over to police officers. Not only was he not exercising access
responsibly in terms of the Code he was exercising access over land
which he knew was excluded from the right of access contained in the
legislation in circumstances when he had specifically been requested to
leave. Matters become worse however because when the police officers
arrived, in circumstances where prior to the legislation no doubt they
would have simply asked him to leave, they were informed by him that it
was not a criminal matter for them but a civil matter and they fell for
it, when in truth he was probably creating a breach of the peace by
refusing to leave when requested to do so in circumstances where he was
exercising a right of access which he knew did not exist. In short he
had chosen to ignore the very legislation that he was complimenting
because it suited his purpose.

um, er.

Richard

He was asking for a good hiding and was lucky not to get 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)

Simon Challands said:

In message <[email hidden]>

Roy roy@somedomainsomewhere said:

[email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why should the interests of those who wish to walk on other peoples'
ground, be a greater "right" than that of the owners of such
properties to be "entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of their
possessions" which is a "fundamental freedom" under the Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights?

Quoted message said:

Why should the rights of landowners who can purchase huge tracts of land
be greater than those of the population as a whole to enjoy the natural
environment on foot?

For the same reason as for buying anything else, unless you're so left
wing that you reject the idea of owning anything at all. Having a go
at landowners with large amounts of land but accepting, say, a small
garden, just smacks of jealousy.

FWIW I don't have a problem with the act, I'm just nitpicking on one
point of your post.

Ah but I didn't suggest for one moment that people shouldn't be allowed
to own huge tracts of land. I would describe my stance as liberal rather
than ultra left wing.

Roy.

Malcolm said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes

nothing of any importance, except to show how illiterate you are by not
even being able to write correct English in the subject line :-(

Pedant :-))

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)

Roy roy@somedomainsomewhere said:

Simon Challands said:

In message <[email hidden]>
Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Why should the interests of those who wish to walk on other peoples'
> ground, be a greater "right" than that of the owners of such
> properties to be "entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of their
> possessions" which is a "fundamental freedom" under the Convention for
> the Protection of Human Rights?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why should the rights of landowners who can purchase huge tracts of land
be greater than those of the population as a whole to enjoy the natural
environment on foot?

Quoted message said:

For the same reason as for buying anything else, unless you're so left
wing that you reject the idea of owning anything at all. Having a go
at landowners with large amounts of land but accepting, say, a small
garden, just smacks of jealousy.

Quoted message said:

FWIW I don't have a problem with the act, I'm just nitpicking on one
point of your post.

Ah but I didn't suggest for one moment that people shouldn't be allowed
to own huge tracts of land. I would describe my stance as liberal rather
than ultra left wing.

Roy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How much is huge?

Is a mountain huge, what would you do with it?

In message <[email hidden]>

Roy roy@somedomainsomewhere said:

Simon Challands said:

In message <[email hidden]>
Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why should the rights of landowners who can purchase huge tracts of land
be greater than those of the population as a whole to enjoy the natural
environment on foot?

For the same reason as for buying anything else, unless you're so left
wing that you reject the idea of owning anything at all. Having a go
at landowners with large amounts of land but accepting, say, a small
garden, just smacks of jealousy.

Quoted message said:

Ah but I didn't suggest for one moment that people shouldn't be allowed
to own huge tracts of land. I would describe my stance as liberal rather
than ultra left wing.

But I'm assuming that you object to the idea that they could keep
everyone else off it?

--
Simon Challands

dewi said:

On 19 Jun, 22:51, Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ah but I didn't suggest for one moment that people shouldn't be allowed
to own huge tracts of land. I would describe my stance as liberal rather
than ultra left wing.

Roy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How much is huge?

Between large and enormous

Quoted message said:

Is a mountain huge,

I would say yes.

what would you do with it?

Well it wouldn't fit on the mantlepiece.

Roy.

Simon Challands said:

In message <[email hidden]>

Roy roy@somedomainsomewhere said:

Simon Challands said:

In message <[email hidden]>
Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Why should the rights of landowners who can purchase huge tracts of land
> be greater than those of the population as a whole to enjoy the natural
> environment on foot?
For the same reason as for buying anything else, unless you're so left
wing that you reject the idea of owning anything at all. Having a go
at landowners with large amounts of land but accepting, say, a small
garden, just smacks of jealousy.

Quoted message said:

Ah but I didn't suggest for one moment that people shouldn't be allowed
to own huge tracts of land. I would describe my stance as liberal rather
than ultra left wing.

But I'm assuming that you object to the idea that they could keep
everyone else off it?

Yes.

In message <[email hidden]>

Roy roy@somedomainsomewhere said:

Simon Challands said:

But I'm assuming that you object to the idea that they could keep
everyone else off it?

Quoted message said:

Yes.

Sweet and to the point! Still, get me in a debate and I'd probably
start moaning too much (again) anyway.

--
Simon Challands