Could be the beginning of the end?

  • Hey Guest, For sale we have Hultafors Outdoor Knives with Firesteel PLEASE LOOK HERE for more information or use the Pay Now button in the sidebar

torjusg

New Member
Aug 10, 2005
1,246
21
39
Telemark, Norway
livingprimitively.com
Such people are very, very annoying. Rich city-folk try this all the time here as well, but it rarely makes to the court as the commoner's right to roam is very well protected here.

It is a bigger problem on the coast though, where it is very common that the owners fence in their piece of shoreline, preventing the common man from passing through. However, some places the government is taking action and starting to force the owners into tearing down their fences, docks and whatever buildings they have too close to the sea.

Torjus Gaaren
 

falling rain

Native
Oct 17, 2003
1,737
29
Woodbury Devon
Mmmm. I can sense a long thread coming along on this one.
I wish we could go where we pleased too. Lets say any of us were privelaged or fortunate enough to own a large piece of land and property and it belonged to YOU. Can you honestly put your hand on your heart and admit you wouldn't mind every man and his dog trapsing across your land. Although most people are perfectly respectful to others property, as we've all seen for ourselves whilst out and about, and read not least on this forum, there are an awful lot of clowns out there too.
 

running bare

Banned
Sep 28, 2005
382
1
61
jarrow,tyne & wear uk
its a pity they couldnt come to a mutual compromise.give over a section of the wodland to rambling and the like, i assume the seven foot fence also encloses the woodland, if so surely the planning dept when they gave permission to erect it ( after the fence was already up ) should have given her it on the proviso that public can have access to the woodland.
 

Dougster

Full Member
Oct 13, 2005
5,223
190
The banks of the Deveron.
A compromise I can see is footpath only access. Considering the laziness and sheer girth of much of our population they don't venture far from the car. If car parking is limited you'll also get fewer people (apart from Noddy who churns up the verge). Several places where you can only get on foot are generally better looked after, cleaner and with less litter (although no matter there are always exeptions). Some of the smaller, less accesible coves in Purbeck are points in case; fewer, nicer people & less litter than the beaches with parking next to them.

I could with hand on heart say if I had land that's what I would like to do.

It seems to me a good place to start.
 

British Red

M.A.B (Mad About Bushcraft)
Dec 30, 2005
25,705
628
Mercia
Interesting to read the article and see the following quote:

"Access to the remainder of the 23-acre estate is not affected and remains as it was when the castle operated as a hotel."

So the woman in question has left part of a very small estate open to the public but fenced off an area for security and privacy it seems.

If we guess that about half the estate is fenced off - 11 or 12 acres. To be honest, that doesn't seem unreasonable to me. She has bought a small estate (less than a twentieth of the size of this farm for example). She has given the public access to part and has kept part for herself - the area she has kept for herself is the size of a medium field. Whats wrong with that?

Red
 

BorderReiver

Full Member
Mar 31, 2004
2,692
13
Norfolk U.K.
Aye,fair enough Red but this will set a precedent if it goes through.

12 acres this time,50 the next,then whole glens closed off for "privacy". :(
 

British Red

M.A.B (Mad About Bushcraft)
Dec 30, 2005
25,705
628
Mercia
BorderReiver said:
Aye,fair enough Red but this will set a precedent if it goes through.

12 acres this time,50 the next,then whole glens closed off for "privacy". :(
Mike,

I understand the concern, but its a precedent I'm happy to see set to be honest. As a country dweller all my life, I think that land owners have rights too. The property in question has changed use to be that of a private dwelling. The owner of that dwelling wants to set aside a small amount of land for the use of her family and to maintain her privacy and security. I'm really okay with that. Particularly given that she has left part of a very small estate publicly accesible. If land can never change use, anyone who builds a house or converts a barn in Scotland must allow poeple into what will become their garden. Thats clearly silly. The whole of the British Isles is man made and land has changed use for centuries and must be continued to do so. I support the idea of land access but within limits. Landowners have responsibilities but they must be allowed rights commensurate with those responsibilities. Why should someone who doesn't own the land or maintain it or pay tax on it have the same right to it as someone who just breezes up and has never made any investment of time, money or effort into it? As I say, keeping the size of a medium sized field for the use of your family only seems reasonable to me. Sure this should be a reasonable amount, sure it should be up for legal challenge through the courts but the precedent and principle are okay by me!

Red
 

ArkAngel

Native
May 16, 2006
1,201
22
48
North Yorkshire
I have to say i can see her point. As has been said below there are a lot of genuine caring folk around the countryside but more than a fair share of 'don't care/understand' people around as well.
From my experiences i am a tennant on a 220acre farm on the Rudding Estate in North Yorkshire. My landlord (who is the farmer) is more than happy for me to wander wherever i choose to, he knows me and trusts me.
On this farm there are public footpaths, bridalways and points of access required by the estate. In the 4 years we have been here my wife and i have helped round up the dairy herd twice, once from a gate left open and the second when a horse owner pushed a gate instead of pulling it and wrecked the whole thing allowing the whole herd of 135 cows loose on a busy and fast country road very close to a main bypass. I came accross them on my way to work and a few phone calls later and a bit of running around we got them back in. The alternative does not bear thinking about!
There have also been entire gates removed (taken off their hinges) so mountain bikers don't have to stop at the end of fields and can keep their speed up.
The final and most annoying habit is the fields between a local caravan site and a local pub. Instead of walking an extra 100m most people can't be bothered and actually cut through the chain link fence on a regular basis, it cost the farmer hundreds of pounds a year to constantly repair his fencing.
Then people wonder why landowners get crabby with people on their land and are reluctant to allow access.
Education and respect for our environment at all times!
 

Angus Og

Full Member
Nov 6, 2004
1,035
3
Glasgow
Sorry about starting this and disappearing off out the door.

BorderReiver said:
Aye,fair enough Red but this will set a precedent if it goes through.

12 acres this time,50 the next,then whole glens closed off for "privacy".

Thats the way I was thinking this could go.

British Red said:
Interesting to read the article and see the following quote:

"Access to the remainder of the 23-acre estate is not affected and remains as it was when the castle operated as a hotel."

So the woman in question has left part of a very small estate open to the public but fenced off an area for security and privacy it seems.

If we guess that about half the estate is fenced off - 11 or 12 acres. To be honest, that doesn't seem unreasonable to me. She has bought a small estate (less than a twentieth of the size of this farm for example). She has given the public access to part and has kept part for herself - the area she has kept for herself is the size of a medium field. Whats wrong with that?

Red

Red i agree that everybody is entitled to privacy no matter how much land they own or how little.

Scotsman said:
The "prison camp" style fence was condemned by the Ramblers Association in Scotland. It accused the co-founder of the Stagecoach transport empire of preventing public access to a woodland area of national significance.
But this is the bit that got my attention.

British Red said:
Why should someone who doesn't own the land or maintain it or pay tax on it have the same right to it as someone who just breezes up and has never made any investment of time, money or effort into it?

Sorry Red but I think we do pay for the land in the subsidies that farmers and land owners get from the government. One estate owner in the north of Scotland got £2 million to plant 2.5 million on 8000 acres of trees on a 60,000 acre estate.

Scotsman said:
Administered by the Forestry Commission, it has a budget of around £17m a year. But it has been criticised for handing out large amounts of taxpayers’ cash to wealthy private individuals. Two years ago, Harrods tycoon Mohamed Al Fayed was given £800,000 to plant trees on 1,850 acres of his Inveroykel estate in Sutherland. http://news.scotsman.com/inverness.cfm?id=295132002
That was in 2000

ArkAngel said:
I have to say i can see her point. As has been said below there are a lot of genuine caring folk around the countryside but more than a fair share of 'don't care/understand' people around as well.
From my experiences i am a tennant on a 220acre farm on the Rudding Estate in North Yorkshire. My landlord (who is the farmer) is more than happy for me to wander wherever i choose to, he knows me and trusts me.
On this farm there are public footpaths, bridalways and points of access required by the estate. In the 4 years we have been here my wife and i have helped round up the dairy herd twice, once from a gate left open and the second when a horse owner pushed a gate instead of pulling it and wrecked the whole thing allowing the whole herd of 135 cows loose on a busy and fast country road very close to a main bypass. I came accross them on my way to work and a few phone calls later and a bit of running around we got them back in. The alternative does not bear thinking about!
There have also been entire gates removed (taken off their hinges) so mountain bikers don't have to stop at the end of fields and can keep their speed up.
The final and most annoying habit is the fields between a local caravan site and a local pub. Instead of walking an extra 100m most people can't be bothered and actually cut through the chain link fence on a regular basis, it cost the farmer hundreds of pounds a year to constantly repair his fencing.
Then people wonder why landowners get crabby with people on their land and are reluctant to allow access.
Education and respect for our environment at all times!

Mate its always going to happen no matter how hard you try and teach some people it just doesn't stick in there heads.


I didn't start this thread to be about the rights and wrongs of Scottish land rights and they get very political fast. Just trying to keep some informed.

I'm sorry I started this I can see where it's going :( If it is going to get some discussion try and keep it about Scotland. :)
 

BorderReiver

Full Member
Mar 31, 2004
2,692
13
Norfolk U.K.
ArkAngel said:
I have to say i can see her point. As has been said below there are a lot of genuine caring folk around the countryside but more than a fair share of 'don't care/understand' people around as well.
From my experiences i am a tennant on a 220acre farm on the Rudding Estate in North Yorkshire. My landlord (who is the farmer) is more than happy for me to wander wherever i choose to, he knows me and trusts me.
On this farm there are public footpaths, bridalways and points of access required by the estate. In the 4 years we have been here my wife and i have helped round up the dairy herd twice, once from a gate left open and the second when a horse owner pushed a gate instead of pulling it and wrecked the whole thing allowing the whole herd of 135 cows loose on a busy and fast country road very close to a main bypass. I came accross them on my way to work and a few phone calls later and a bit of running around we got them back in. The alternative does not bear thinking about!
There have also been entire gates removed (taken off their hinges) so mountain bikers don't have to stop at the end of fields and can keep their speed up.
The final and most annoying habit is the fields between a local caravan site and a local pub. Instead of walking an extra 100m most people can't be bothered and actually cut through the chain link fence on a regular basis, it cost the farmer hundreds of pounds a year to constantly repair his fencing.
Then people wonder why landowners get crabby with people on their land and are reluctant to allow access.
Education and respect for our environment at all times!

Get the gate hung so that it can't be removed. :thinkerg:

Wire the chain link to the mains. :twak: :cool:
 

British Red

M.A.B (Mad About Bushcraft)
Dec 30, 2005
25,705
628
Mercia
Iain,

Its an interesting discussion mate - don't be sorry you started it please! No-one is getting heated and its all very civilised.

If I might respond to your point about farm subsidies, those subsidies are given for a specific purpose (in the cases you have cited, to plant trees). With respect, I think the point is relevant to the case under discussion only if the woman has received a grant to plant trees in the hotel and former grounds. If she has received no subsidy (as seems likely given the type of property involved), then I still can't see how the Scottish Ramblers or anyone else have contributed to the land in question.

However, you raise an interesting point! I think that a fair compromise would be to make it a condition of receipt of a forestry grant that all or some of the forest in question be publicly accesible. Then landowners who don't need public money can close their land, and those lands subsidised by the public will be accesible to the public - that seems fair

Red
 

ArkAngel

Native
May 16, 2006
1,201
22
48
North Yorkshire
heh very good BorderReiver
Unfortunaly the gates do have to be removable for painting/matainence but yes i see your point they could be harder to remove (although you would think that a big metal gate 4'high and 10' long would put some off anyway! :D ) in fact i do believe the farmer is in the process of 'securing' the gates.

Machine gun nests are on order, and the first batch of genetically modified mutant ninja cows are almost ready (there goes the organic farm certification :lmao: )
 

Kane

Forager
Aug 22, 2005
167
1
UK
May not be popular for this but if it was mine and there was no legal access issues then it would all be fenced off especially if the alternative was herds of ramblers traipsing around as though they owned the place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: British Red

george

New Member
Oct 1, 2003
627
6
59
N.W. Highlands (or in the shed!)
Sorry Angus but - Rant on

Guys who are these "ramblers" you all seem to speak about so disparagingly?

The word seems to be used by the press to include anyone who accesses the countryside for recreation - that means you.

In the eyes of the press you are a rambler too.

The ramblers association has done a power of good standing up for access rights and I for one have nothing against them.

Scottish access rights are enshrined in law. Until comparitively recently the land was considered to be owned by the people of Scotland and they had specific rights to use it in certain ways - collecting peats, seaweed, firewood etc. Right of navigation on rivers and the right to cross land and to camp on it.

These rights were gradually eroded and ultimately wiped out by the landowning "gentry" who took it as far as the clearances.

If you dont know about the clearances have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_clearances

The Scottish Parliament and the people of Scotland have worked hard to reclaim those ancient rights - this culminated in the recent access legislation that effectively states that the people of Scotland own the right to move freely across their own country.

There will always be individuals like the Gloags who will try to challenge these rights and thats fine - thats what the courts are for. But to listen to some of you saying that its ok for some people to access the countryside because they will respect it but not for others because they dont, sticks in my throat.

In my mind it's access for all and try and educate - or it's back to the bad old days of "private" and "keep out" and the land divided into playgrounds for the "lairds" only.


Rant off.

George

PS I say this as a crofter and "landowner" who regularly has to explain "responsible access" to visitors crossing the land I look after.
 

wingstoo

Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
May 12, 2005
2,272
38
South Marches
Hi Folks,

I found this and thought it might be of some interest...

Trespass
As applied to a piece of land open to the public which is not common land or a public right of way. This is also one area where the laws of England and Scotland are significantly different.

If you enter land against the wishes of the landowner, or if you stray outside an area to which you are allowed access, or if you use land in a way which you are not authorised to do, you become a trespasser. Ignorance of that fact is no defence under this law.

Any person can enter a public park, because the landowners permit it. However, this does not make a permanent right of access, and therefore it is within the power of the landowner to ask any person to leave. The landowner does not have to give a reason. If the person does not go, as quickly as possible, by the shortest obvious route, then they are trespassing. Despite the well known sign "Trespassers will be Prosecuted" trespass is not a criminal offence, and trespassers cannot usually be prosecuted. They can, however, be sued. There is little chance of such a matter ever being so serious as to be worth suing over, and so this rarely happens.

People in a park will often protest (if asked to leave) that it is public land. This does not mean that they have a right to be on it at all times - they do not. If the place closes at a certain time and someone is present after that time, they can then be considered to be trespassing. If a visitor misbehaves at any time and refuses to leave when asked to do so by someone with a right to do so (usually the landowner or a representative) then the visitor becomes a trespasser because they no longer have the landowner's permission to be there, even if they entered legally.

This law is of little practical use but might be employed when arguing with more reasonable people. It does not apply to people on a public footpath or other right of way.

Note: this also gives landowners the absolute right to close off paths (other than rights of way), and areas without notice or explanation.

It is against the law to trespass on any land (and that includes land covered by water such as rivers or lakes) or in any building. The word trespass covers much more than people usually realise. All land in this country belongs to someone. If you go on to land without the owner's permission, you are trespassing unless there is some right of access for the public, or for you specifically (for example if you have a right to pass over the land to reach some land of your own).

Sometimes, people go onto private property such as heathland which is not apparently fenced off and where the owners do not seem to mind. The fact that there is no fence or no sign saying that the land is private does not mean that people can go there. Wandering on to farmers' fields or other places which are obviously private is clearly trespassing, but so is wandering over land which may not be so clearly private, if the public has no right of access.

It is not normally possible to be a trespasser whilst legitimately on a right of way. However, if the user is not using the right of way as a route to get from one place to another, but using it for some other reason, such as to interfere with the landowner, they can be considered to be a trespasser. A real example of this concerned a hunt saboteur who was deemed by a court to be a trespasser for shouting and waving flags, whilst on a footpath, on a grouse moor. This important distinction was the purpose for which the person was there. This does not mean that it is always wrong to shout and wave flags on a footpath.

See also the legislation on the so-called 'right to roam'. Note that this applies only to specific areas of land and has many limitations. There is still no such thing as a general 'right to roam'.


http://www.naturenet.net/law/common.html#tres

LS
 

Toddy

Mod
Mod
Jan 21, 2005
36,709
2,628
S. Lanarkshire
I'm with George on this one, very well said :D

Nice country and folks south of the border; pity they don't mix.

Cheers,
Toddy
 

BorderReiver

Full Member
Mar 31, 2004
2,692
13
Norfolk U.K.
ArkAngel said:
heh very good BorderReiver
Unfortunaly the gates do have to be removable for painting/matainence but yes i see your point they could be harder to remove (although you would think that a big metal gate 4'high and 10' long would put some off anyway! :D ) in fact i do believe the farmer is in the process of 'securing' the gates.

Machine gun nests are on order, and the first batch of genetically modified mutant ninja cows are almost ready (there goes the organic farm certification :lmao: )

I've seen gates with judiciously applied chains and padlocks at the hinge end. :)

The ninja crows should not lose you your certification if they are treated as a bioengineering project kept separate from the main farm. :p :D
 

Hultafors Outdoor knife for Sale

We have a a number of Hultafors Outdoor Knives with Firesteels for sale.

You can see more details here in this thread OUTDOOR KNIVES The price is £27 posted to the UK. Pay via the paypal button below.