Jump to content

I wonder if this will be applied to the waterways ?


Alan de Enfield

Featured Posts

11 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 amended the Trespass Act. It added subsection 2, which reads : "Subsection (1) above does not extend to anything done by a person in the exercise of the access rights created by the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003"

Provided that the Land Reform Act is complied with, the Trespass Act doesn't apply. However, the Land Reform Act does include a requirement to act responsibly, and comply with the Access Code,

In practice, I don't think it makes much difference.

Grateful - many thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Graham Davis said:

So any farm that only has live stock is not farming? I think you need to re-think your ideas about farming and agriculture.

Nope not what I said at all. Not that important either. But as you seem stuck on the point, I simply said that in my head hill farming, with livestock spread incredibly thinly over many many acres of hills / mountain sides, isn't agricultural land. It was said to support the argument that people shouldn't really be wandering through heavily managed farmland, such as crop fields or fields with herds in them, to differentiate between that and the ability to roam on a mountain side with very lightly managed and sparsely distributed livestock. 

 

If you're of the belief that people should be able to roam freely through crop / livestock fields then we are in disagreement.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Boater Sam said:

But vast areas of land in this country are owned by huge estates, it is these areas which we should be free to venture upon.

 

Sorry? Why? Its not your land so you have no rights whatever to trespass.   Think about if it was your land, would you want a load of path churning vandals speeding through it leaving gates open etc.?

 

I agree we don't have any rights to trespass on this land, never said we did.

Yes I would want "a load of path churning vandals" on my fictitious estate. Though I'd prefer to think of them as free citizens seeking to enjoy the land in which they live even if they aren't fortuitous enough to have been left a vast vast estate by their family (or water company, or made a load of money and bought the land etc). Why the vast majority of this country should be restricted to very small area's due to some archaic rules is beyond me. We know the health benefits, mental and physical, of getting outdoors. How would people feel more enabled to get outdoors if they were to get a criminal record for missing a footpath and "trespassing", they wouldn't.

 

The land reform act in Scotland hasn't caused any problems. People exercising their right to walk over their countries land, which happens to presently be owned by someone, should be extended to England and Wales. Wales have recently be surveying to determine the benefit of bringing the Right to Roam there, my fingers are crossed.

 

What we definitely shouldn't be doing is classifying people as criminals simply to appease some big land owners. 

 

Criminalising rough sleeping is an inexplicably cold hearted thing to do. I once helped get a homeless bloke set-up with proper camping gear after we discovered him sleeping rough in the Aston Court Estate in Bristol. To think he would get a criminal record for merely trying to survive the cold nights is appalling 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sirweste said:

Nope not what I said at all. Not that important either. But as you seem stuck on the point, I simply said that in my head hill farming, with livestock spread incredibly thinly over many many acres of hills / mountain sides, isn't agricultural land. It was said to support the argument that people shouldn't really be wandering through heavily managed farmland, such as crop fields or fields with herds in them, to differentiate between that and the ability to roam on a mountain side with very lightly managed and sparsely distributed livestock. 

 

If you're of the belief that people should be able to roam freely through crop / livestock fields then we are in disagreement.

 

 

I repeat, you quite obviously do not understand typical Welsh (or other parts of the UK) hill farming.

And no I do not agree that there should be free access to ALL land. I have seen the damage done by idiots that do not understand the needs of agriculture, from free running dogs, to the rubbish left behind.

 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sirweste said:

People exercising their right to walk over their countries land, which happens to presently be owned by someone, should be extended to England and Wales.

The problem I have with that is size.   Most people take the attitude large estates you should be allowed to wander on but aren't prepared to have their garden under the same rules.   So why is it OK on a large estate and not on garden?   Where would you draw the line 2 hectare (5 acre) garden OK, 1.8 hectare (4.5 acres) not OK?

 

If you are going to allow free access why should any land be classed as different to what is a couple of miles down the road.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sirweste said:

Nope not what I said at all. Not that important either. But as you seem stuck on the point, I simply said that in my head hill farming, with livestock spread incredibly thinly over many many acres of hills / mountain sides, isn't agricultural land. It was said to support the argument that people shouldn't really be wandering through heavily managed farmland, such as crop fields or fields with herds in them, to differentiate between that and the ability to roam on a mountain side with very lightly managed and sparsely distributed livestock. 

 

If you're of the belief that people should be able to roam freely through crop / livestock fields then we are in disagreement.

 

 

Just to add another aspect to idiots wandering through heavily managed farmland it seems odd that the local hunt is allowed to do it with immunity but a few harmless walkers cannot. We lost several pets to the hounds and had crops flattened and fences damaged by the horses. 

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Felshampo said:

Just to add another aspect to idiots wandering through heavily managed farmland it seems odd that the local hunt is allowed to do it with immunity but a few harmless walkers cannot. We lost several pets to the hounds and had crops flattened and fences damaged by the horses. 

The local hunt usually (always?) has the permission of the land owner.  Round here the packs are told to keep off some peoples land and as far as I can see obey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jerra said:

The local hunt usually (always?) has the permission of the land owner.  Round here the packs are told to keep off some peoples land and as far as I can see obey.

Trouble with that is the fox hasn't been told that and the hunt follows them. We only had a few hundred acres and so weren't consulted. Only an irritation but they certainly did more damage than any walkers could ever do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Felshampo said:

Trouble with that is the fox hasn't been told that and the hunt follows them. We only had a few hundred acres and so weren't consulted. Only an irritation but they certainly did more damage than any walkers could ever do. 

Currently they aren't supposed to be hunting foxes are they?   Report them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Jerra said:

The local hunt usually (always?) has the permission of the land owner.  Round here the packs are told to keep off some peoples land and as far as I can see obey.

In our area many if the farms are 'tenants' with the land owner being the estate that runs the hunt, other farmers grant permission and those that don't do not have the hunt pass over their land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

In our area many if the farms are 'tenants' with the land owner being the estate that runs the hunt, other farmers grant permission and those that don't do not have the hunt pass over their land.

I was in the boat earlier and I saw a group of 10 ants just running about.

 

I made a small house for them out of a cornflake box. 

 

This technically makes me their landlord and they are my... 

 

Tenants

  • Greenie 1
  • Haha 3
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, rusty69 said:

This technically makes me their landlord and they are my... 

 

Tenants

There's a Pink Panther theme tune joke running towards this thread.

 

I just hope your ten ants survive long enough that we can all avoid the "dead ant ... dead ant ... dead ant dead ant dead ant" punchline.

  • Horror 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ferd said:

Should a hunt trespass over land they do not have permission to be on because the fox they are chasing didn't know the boundary, then would the police go for the hunt or the sabs.

Neither, trespass is currently a Civil matter which the Police do not / cannot get involved in.

(Police may be in attendance to avoid a 'criminal disturbance' between the Sabs & the Hunt.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ferd said:

Should a hunt trespass over land they do not have permission to be on because the fox they are chasing didn't know the boundary, then would the police go for the hunt or the sabs.

Possibly both as the hunt isn't supposed to be chasing foxes.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

Neither, trespass is currently a Civil matter which the Police do not / cannot get involved in.

(Police may be in attendance to avoid a 'criminal disturbance' between the Sabs & the Hunt.)

There are certain areas where trespass is a criminal matter, such as on the Railway, on land under control of the Nuclear agency, and some MoD land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely the point with the "badly-behaved scum walking on my land" issue is that they're badly-behaved, not that they're walking on your land?

 

Careful well-intentioned walkers should be allowed to roam anywhere so long as they don't cause damage or nuisance, hence the "right to roam". If a small minority of people then damage crops or their dogs chase or kill livestock, then they should be prosecuted for this, not for being on the land in the first place which in itself harms nobody.

 

It's like saying that because some drunks abuse people and have fights or injure others nobody should be allowed to have a drink -- the real problem is the badly-behaved drunks, not the well-behaved drinkers.

 

Tarring everyone with the same brush is not helpful...

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Possibly both as the hunt isn't supposed to be chasing foxes.

Well obviously they would never chase a real fox, cause that's against the law isn't it.

.

We really need an irony smiley 

Edited by tree monkey
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/01/2020 at 17:16, Graham Davis said:

I have seen the damage done by idiots that do not understand the needs of agriculture, from free running dogs, to the rubbish left behind.

I agree completely, though as said previously the outdoor code is working well in Scotland. I don't understand why people still think that Right to Roam won't work after it's worked successfully for +15 years in Scotland.  Prior to Scotland I'd understand the reservations, but we now have evidence of it working.

 

On 21/01/2020 at 17:32, Jerra said:

The problem I have with that is size.   Most people take the attitude large estates you should be allowed to wander on but aren't prepared to have their garden under the same rules.   So why is it OK on a large estate and not on garden?   Where would you draw the line 2 hectare (5 acre) garden OK, 1.8 hectare (4.5 acres) not OK?

 

If you are going to allow free access why should any land be classed as different to what is a couple of miles down the road.

The act in Scotland defines this, it's to do with land surrounding buildings. Can't remember the details but it does draw a distinction. So effectively there is the right to roam on land, if your garden is big enough then folk could enter it, despite it not being big enough to be classed as an estate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/01/2020 at 18:35, rusty69 said:

I was in the boat earlier and I saw a group of 10 ants just running about.

 

I made a small house for them out of a cornflake box. 

 

This technically makes me their landlord and they are my... 

 

Tenants

Wait 'til the summer and they start wandering up your mooring lines and take up residence in your food cupboard. They'll take up residence in your box of Frostie's. Challange them and they'll tell you "we've stopped in one of these before, it's our right!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Slim said:

Wait 'til the summer and they start wandering up your mooring lines and take up residence in your food cupboard. They'll take up residence in your box of Frostie's. Challange them and they'll tell you "we've stopped in one of these before, it's our right!"

I will soon nipon that in the bud. 

  • Horror 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.