British public footpath system - are we lucky to have this?

[malente]

Interesting! My German wife (Hamburg - not so far from Luneburg) says that there is nothing in Germany like our public right of way footpaths across farmland.

Jim

Yeah, and I agree! (as I said)

access in UK (in terms of where you can actually go) is better, though in terms of clarity and amount of signposting, Germany wins hands down...

I liked it better in the UK in terms of walking over fields with stiles etc. Here it's stick to the designated paths!

 

[caliban]

There seems to be a superficially slight but maybe important difference between the German system and the British system, in that the German system is based on the principle that, "You may walk here", and the British system is nbased on the principle that, "You may not prevent people from walking here".

 

[Toddy]

Could we perhaps be aware of the differences here within the United Kingdom.

In Scotland we have the right of responsible access which is totally different from the situation in England, Wales and Ireland (N & S).
I don't want to hijack the thread and I don't want a political rant, but when discussing walking off path this is not a 'British' issue, it is an English, Welsh and Irish issue,

Do I feel the footpath network is a good thing ?
Well, yes and no.

Yes, it allows access that would otherwise be denied the vast majority of the population.
No, because like the paupers share, folks take what they are given, give thanks and don't expect any more.

Incidentally Scotland is not alone in her access laws. Much of Scandinavia too has the right of responsible access, it's not a unique situation.

cheers,
Toddy

 

[Toadflax]

What originally prompted me to start this thread was a visit to the south western corner of Ireland last year. I'd imagined that in a fairly sparsely populated rural area, we would have been able to walk around over the hills, but in fact everywhere seemed to be enclosed with no obvious pathways/stiles and the only walks we were apparently able to do were along roads.

Compare this to returning home to an over-populated southern part of England, where the local countryside is laced with a network of footpaths that, while restricting me to a strip of ground a few feet wide, does allow me through wide tracts of countryside that would otherwise be denied to me. Even the private Blenheim Park Estate has a public footpath running through it, but watch yourself if you stray from the path!

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to be able to wander more freely (given that I believe that I would act in a responsible and low-impact manner) but I do also understand the issues of landowners not wanting hordes of people damaging what may be part of their livelihood.

However, I'm starting to derail my own thread!


Geoff

 

[Tadpole]

I’m sorry but you’ve managed t contradict yourself,

Whats annoys me is people saying where we can and can't go. NOBODY owns the land, yet many think they do. They merely inhabit it for a short while.

you claim that no one owns the land, then in your next post claim that some of your friends are landowners

People like me eh? Funny that. especially when you consider that a lot of my close friends are landowners, and they have become friends through me using their land.

To cap it all you claim that no one has challenged you because you are the helpful kind of trespasser, you claim that you help the landowner to repair damaged gates and clear fallen trees. Clearly you are in two minds; you allow that your friends are ‘allowed’ to own land because they don’t stop you from trespassing on their property. But you say no one can own anything unless they make it for themselves. I own my car, but I didn’t make it, I own my house but I didn’t build it, I could go on.

Land is/can be owned, nothing you can say, do or think, can deny that. “You are entitled to you opinion but not your own facts” Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
Land ownership is a fact. So the owners of the land can pretty much tell you what you can or cannot do. Nothing in your opinion, your refusal to recognise the rights of land ownership, would stop you from being prosecuted, should the aforementioned land owner decided that you were an unwelcome guest.

My earlier post obviously does not put this across. I am a man who will match manners with manners and attitude with attitude. If anyone came over with a bad attitude they would cop for it trust me. I show respect they show respect, thats the way it works. I bet anyone who has had an earful of someone who has land has deserved it in one way or another, maybe climbing fences or being gobby etc.
based on your post tengu YOUR attitude stinks.

I’m sure this part of the post is meant to show the forum what kind of person you are, And believe me it does, just not how you think it does.

 

[Toddy]

Hmmm, but Tengu was hardly diplomatic herself in her comment that HillBill responded to.

I reckoned it tit for tat and let it lie.

cheers,
Toddy

 

[Wallenstein]

Where do we think the line should be drawn?

I have a small garden and would find it odd that I should be allowed to let anyone "roam" around it.

HillBill claims no such thing as ownership of land but presumably would have issues if I set up camp in his back garden?

At what point does a "garden" become an "estate"? 0.3 acres, 3 acres, 30 acres, 3000 acres or 30,000 acres?

(Incidently, do you know why communists won't drink Earl Grey? It's cos they don't believe in proper tea.)

 

[Toddy]

They system in Scotland excludes the curtilege........that's the private garden area around a home. In general respect folks privacy, but don't start claiming that you need 300 acres to do so There have been a few court cases over landowners claiming huge areas. The courts have so far favoured smaller areas while still granting privacy.

cheers,
Toddy

P.S. Don't like Earl Grey tea but I do like Lady Grey, much more pleasant to drink

 

[Wallenstein]

They system in Scotland excludes the curtilege........that's the private garden area around a home. In general respect folks privacy, but don't start claiming that you need 300 acres to do so There have been a few court cases over landowners claiming huge areas. The courts have so far favoured smaller areas while still granting privacy.

cheers,
Toddy

P.S. Don't like Earl Grey tea but I do like Lady Grey, much more pleasant to drink

Did the courts specify a consistent limit for curtilege? Is it different for a croft than for a castle? I agree that 300 acres is excessive, but what about 30 acres? Even 3 acres seems a lot to someone with a windowbox in a tenement!

I presume the onus is on the landowner to prove that his/her privacy is invaded?

There was an interesting article in the Observer at the weekend about "right to roam" conflicts on Iono:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/05/iona-hebrides-crofters-roam

 

[sandbender]

My place in Scotland has a large garden, it is longer than it is wide and has a small wood at the end furthest from the house. A few summers back I was in that wood felling a couple of young sycamores, it was a very warm day and I'd stripped to a pair of football shorts to do so. Pausing for a breather I noticed three young men walking along the minor road that runs parallel to the wood, they were obviously oblivious to my presence as one of them fell behind his mates, jumped over the wall, promptly dropped his trousers and squatted, intent on answering a call of nature. It was at this point that I offered a polite "good afternoon" and he turned his head to see a dirty, half naked, hairy man wearing next to nothing and carrying a GB Scandinavian felling axe...

I didn't know a man could run so fast with his trousers about his knees.

My point being that whereas I consider those woods to be part of my garden, someone who has spent much of their life living in the city or suburbia where gardens tend to a more regular shape and smaller size might struggle to think that a wood so far from any buildings could be anything other than open countryside where the 'right to roam' would apply.

(Incidently, do you know why communists won't drink Earl Grey? It's cos they don't believe in proper tea.)

I'm more of a PG tips man myself

 

[HillBill]

I’m sorry but you’ve managed t contradict yourself, you claim that no one owns the land, then in your next post claim that some of your friends are landowners
To cap it all you claim that no one has challenged you because you are the helpful kind of trespasser, you claim that you help the landowner to repair damaged gates and clear fallen trees. Clearly you are in two minds; you allow that your friends are ‘allowed’ to own land because they don’t stop you from trespassing on their property. But you say no one can own anything unless they make it for themselves. I own my car, but I didn’t make it, I own my house but I didn’t build it, I could go on.

Land is/can be owned, nothing you can say, do or think, can deny that. “You are entitled to you opinion but not your own facts” Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
Land ownership is a fact. So the owners of the land can pretty much tell you what you can or cannot do. Nothing in your opinion, your refusal to recognise the rights of land ownership, would stop you from being prosecuted, should the aforementioned land owner decided that you were an unwelcome guest.

I’m sure this part of the post is meant to show the forum what kind of person you are, And believe me it does, just not how you think it does.

Fair point mate i suppose. I use the term "Landowner" as that is a given title. My opinion is that no one owns the land. It was there before us and will be there after us. People inhabit the land, we come from the land, how can you own that which created you? I show respect to both land and people and one of the returns from that, is that it itself is returned.

You can try make me look however you like mate, it's your life. Your words though twist how it is to how you would like others to see it. There are not contradictions from how it was intended to be conveyed, i hope this has cleared it up for you.

 

[HillBill]

HillBill claims no such thing as ownership of land but presumably would have issues if I set up camp in his back garden?

Obviously there is an amount of judgement and reason involved, this is where the respect comes into play.

No point breaking it down into an unrealistic situation as what you say here would not happen. At least not if respect is a priority.

 

[Tadpole]

You can try make me look however you like mate, it's your life. Your words though twist how it is to how you would like others to see it. There are not contradictions from how it was intended to be conveyed, i hope this has cleared it up for you.

There are many many contradictions, contradictions that you may not see, but are there, I’m merely pointing out things, that in my opinion, do not make sense , at least not in the way you’ve expressed them in the posts quoted.
I’m sure that given some thought, you would see the false dilemma of your posts, and come to see there is and always will be a middle ground.
In this case, laws protecting the land owners right to manage the land they own, and use as they see fit, including throwing off or calling the police on trespassers, even those trespassers do not believe in the concept of landownership. And laws providing the rights of people to roam. There must be a middle way that treats all with the respect you hold forth about, but do not seem to be in your everyday dealing.

I’m not quite 100% sure, but language and the style of your post seems somewhat familiar, it’s almost as if you are channeling someone who was banned from here just after you joined.

 

[HillBill]

There are many many contradictions, contradictions that you may not see, but are there, I’m merely pointing out things, that in my opinion, do not make sense , at least not in the way you’ve expressed them in the posts quoted.
I’m sure that given some thought, you would see the false dilemma of your posts, and come to see there is and always will be a middle ground.
In this case, laws protecting the land owners right to manage the land they own, and use as they see fit, including throwing off or calling the police on trespassers, even those trespassers do not believe in the concept of landownership. And laws providing the rights of people to roam. There must be a middle way that treats all with the respect you hold forth about, but do not seem to be in your everyday dealing.

I’m not quite 100% sure, but language and the style of your post seems somewhat familiar, it’s almost as if you are channeling someone who was banned from here just after you joined.

That last part made me chuckle, thanks

As to being thrown off land etc, i may be lucky that this has never happened to me thus far. If i was asked to leave from somewhere i was then i would, its that respect thing again(provided respect was shown). While i do not agree that someone owns the land, i believe that "landowners" are charged with the responsibility of that particular piece of it. So there is no disregard for them from my part. I know how much hard work they, their families, and their staff have and will put into it. I have put a good share in myself mainly for the priveledge of being there. it is a small price to pay for the trust put in you.

I do not know you tadpole, maybe you have acess to land maybe not. If you don't maybe you should give it a go. The rewards outweigh effort 100 fold.

Edit. Referfing to your comment in a pevious post about what we own, your example being your car. I was talking about people in general, somebody makes a car and sells it, the maker owned it and sold that ownership to you. No human being made the land, it was already there.

 

[smoggy]

I have to say I was dismayed to so the posting here by Hillbilly and wholeheartedly agreed with the following reply......it then transpires the what Hillbilly wrote was missleading regarding his intention and the facts..........

However Hillbilly, regardless of the fact that the land is "owned" or merely "looked after", the landowner/caretaker has the rifght to access and you do not!
Further more, regardless of the fact that you have friends who are landowners or if you have freely provided labour for the priviledge of accessing the land, that does not give you any further access "rights" to any land, merely "permition" to access those areas. Which in it's self sits in contradiction with your original posting.
Posting what you did, as you did, on this forum has merely provided a topic for debate and reflection which is good and healthy, however it is such statements which tend to be latched on to by the less desirable ellements who would see such as an excuse to do what they hell they like regardless and as such could be construde as somewhat irrisponsible, which is why you got the terse reply. I hope everyone here reflects on what and how they post, especially on what can be sensetive subjects...not only do bushcrafters need to be simpathetic to countryside issues, they need to be seen to be so for the general good of the pastime.

Regarding the footpath system, it may be in for a bit of a blow! recently there have been two traggic deaths involving walkers and cattle........following at least one court case, the judge rulled that it was the farmers responsibility to ensure that walkers were not placed in such danger. There could well be serious repercushions for both the right to roam and public footpaths due to this rulling.
ie, there are a number of criteria landowners can use to apply to have the right to roam removed from their land, one being privacy as mentioned above and another being safety.
As I understand it, a very well known recording star applied for extensive acreages to be exempted from the right to roam due to personell privicy, which I believe was not accepted, however the subsiquent submittion that it be exempted on safety grounds because ti was used for shooting was granted!

So it could turn out that nayfarmer with cattle could apply and be granted to have RtR and public footpath access closed (even it temporarily) on the grounds of public safety.

And yes we are lucky to have the access rights we do have even if they are not as free as other countries, despite some ellements who seem to believe open access should be for them and not everyone, but thats another issue.

Smoggy.

 

[Tadpole]

No human being made the land, it was already there.

I think you will find that almost every inch of the land in the UK has been made what it is by human intervention
Humans cut down the trees, diverted waters, moved off the other people, and moved on the sheep, then moved off the sheep and planted the trees, then chopped down the trees and planted other things. Most of the UK is man made. The land is manipulated into what it is in the same way a variety of metal ore were manipulated into a car, all at the hand of man and man made machines.

 

[malente]

Regardless of how posters here see their/ general access rights, I must say that at least in Scotland and Scandinavia, there is this fantastic right to roam. Also in Enland, after the reform (we all bought the new OS maps, didn't we ) access has been improved.

And with this right (a great power) comes great responsibility, to quote a famous uncle.

Tread lightly, no impact etc. come to mind. Respect for the land and the landowner/ person who looks after it/ however you want to call it.

As 'bushcrafters', which are a suspect part of the general population (obsessed with OD, knives and axes, fire, ...) we should try to not shed a bad light by short sighted actions IMHO.

Mike

 

[HillBill]

I think you will find that almost every inch of the land in the UK has been made what it is by human intervention
Humans cut down the trees, diverted waters, moved off the other people, and moved on the sheep, then moved off the sheep and planted the trees, then chopped down the trees and planted other things. Most of the UK is man made. The land is manipulated into what it is in the same way a variety of metal ore were manipulated into a car, all at the hand of man and man made machines.

Hairstylists do not own the hair they style.

 

[Wallenstein]

Hairstylists do not own the hair they style.

No, it belongs to the person whose head it's on.

That analogy is like a farmer and his workforce - the workers tend the crops (i.e. cut the hair), but the head (land) is owned by the famer.

Next thing you know there'll be a picture of a crying Red Indian pointing out that we are only borrowing the land from our children or some such glurge.

 

[Tadpole]

Hairstylists do not own the hair they style.

How very zen, not at all relevant, but zen none the less