UCHR

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

Quoted message said:

UCHR provides for the rights to the peaceful enjoyment of one's
possessions.

Could this be used against walkers who insist on their "legal right"
to access peoples" property such as estates and farms etc?

Anyone know?

Unicode keyboard-layout ?
I shouldn't think so.......

On Tue, 29 May 2007 19:26:11 +0100, [email hidden] wrote...

Quoted message said:

UCHR provides for the rights to the peaceful enjoyment of one's
possessions.

Could this be used against walkers who insist on their "legal right"
to access peoples" property such as estates and farms etc?

In a word, no. (And not only because you've got the initials wrong.)

The relevant legislation is Article 1, Protocol 1 of the Human Rights
Act (HRA). This is based on the corresponding protocol of the European
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which in turn is based on the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/946400.stm#protocol

Notice that the right to quiet enjoyment is not absolute. It is
balanced by the right of the State to enforce such laws as it deems
necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general
interest. That's exactly what the access legislation does: it balances
the interests of the landowner against the interests of the public.

If you denied reasonable, responsible access, that would not achieve the
balance that is required by the HRA, ECHR and UDHR.

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

Tim Jackson said:

On Tue, 29 May 2007 19:26:11 +0100, [email hidden] wrote...

Quoted message said:

UCHR provides for the rights to the peaceful enjoyment of one's
possessions.

Could this be used against walkers who insist on their "legal right"
to access peoples" property such as estates and farms etc?

In a word, no. (And not only because you've got the initials wrong.)

Sorry about the initials.

Quoted message said:

The relevant legislation is Article 1, Protocol 1 of the Human Rights
Act (HRA). This is based on the corresponding protocol of the European
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which in turn is based on the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

That seems fair enough.

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/946400.stm#protocol

Notice that the right to quiet enjoyment is not absolute.

Fair enough.

Quoted message said:

It is
balanced by the right of the State to enforce such laws as it deems
necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general
interest.

I can see that.

Quoted message said:

That's exactly what the access legislation does: it balances
the interests of the landowner against the interests of the public.

But perhaps not the general interest.

Quoted message said:

If you denied reasonable, responsible access, that would not achieve the
balance that is required by the HRA, ECHR and UDHR.

But how does one know that access is going to be "reasonable and
responsible" without being able to tell the future. If the same
applied to our houses we wouldn't need to lock the doors until they
had been ransacked - and that would be too late.

But perhaps the greater general interest is to protect one's
possessions and does the word property not mean all of one's owned
assets and not just real estate? Although real estate would
obviously be included IMHO but not

Does Article 8 not have some bearing on the matter as well.

And does the fact that other European countries do not have as liberal
an access provision not matter? For instance, parts of France has
had a ban on wild camping since the seventies and I understand Germany
does not have access in enclosed areas.

So where does the overall "general interest" in Europe start and end?
Has all this ever been tested in the courts?

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)

On Tue, 29 May 2007 23:51:44 +0100, [email hidden] wrote...

Quoted message said:

Tim Jackson said:

If you denied reasonable, responsible access, that would not achieve the
balance that is required by the HRA, ECHR and UDHR.

But how does one know that access is going to be "reasonable and
responsible" without being able to tell the future.

How do you know it's not? Your attitude is that you will deny access
even when it *is* reasonable and responsible.

And in actual fact, the vast majority of walkers are indeed reasonable
and responsible. Suggesting otherwise, and denying them reasonable,
responsible access, is the thing that's not reasonable.

Quoted message said:

If the same
applied to our houses we wouldn't need to lock the doors until they
had been ransacked - and that would be too late.

Someone who ransacked your house would be breaking the laws against
theft, burglary etc. A further law against entering open land many
miles from your house is hardly going to stop them.

But then, you've been ignoring that obvious truth for ages, so you're
not likely to change now.

Quoted message said:

But perhaps the greater general interest is to protect one's
possessions and does the word property not mean all of one's owned
assets and not just real estate?

You are equating "general interest" solely with the interest of the
property owner.

Protocol 1 to the ECHR, on the other hand, clearly contrasts the
interests of the property owner as something separate from the general
or public interest (it uses both terms). It requires there to be a
balance between the property owner's interest and the general/public
interest. A balance that you would deny.

Quoted message said:

Does Article 8 not have some bearing on the matter as well.

Article 8 also requires there to be a balance between the rights of the
individual and the rights and freedoms of others.

Angus, you are clutching at straws. The ECHR (and UDHR) simply don't
support your position.

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

Tim Jackson said:

On Tue, 29 May 2007 23:51:44 +0100, [email hidden] wrote...

Quoted message said:

Tim Jackson said:

If you denied reasonable, responsible access, that would not achieve the
balance that is required by the HRA, ECHR and UDHR.

But how does one know that access is going to be "reasonable and
responsible" without being able to tell the future.

How do you know it's not? Your attitude is that you will deny access
even when it *is* reasonable and responsible.

But you can't tell that something "is" until it's happened. You lock
the door of your house for that very reason.

Quoted message said:

And in actual fact, the vast majority of walkers are indeed reasonable
and responsible.

Sure, but so is the public at large that are not walkers but you
wouldn't leave your front door open on the off chance that they are.

Quoted message said:

Suggesting otherwise, and denying them reasonable,
responsible access, is the thing that's not reasonable.

I think it's very reasonable to protect one's property

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If the same
applied to our houses we wouldn't need to lock the doors until they
had been ransacked - and that would be too late.

Someone who ransacked your house would be breaking the laws against
theft, burglary etc. A further law against entering open land many
miles from your house is hardly going to stop them.

But you people don't talk about "many miles from your house"

Quoted message said:

But then, you've been ignoring that obvious truth for ages, so you're
not likely to change now.

It's not a "truth"; It's a fallacy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But perhaps the greater general interest is to protect one's
possessions and does the word property not mean all of one's owned
assets and not just real estate?

You are equating "general interest" solely with the interest of the
property owner.

Everybody owns some property. Even the homeless. And they have a
human right fir it to be protected.

Quoted message said:

Protocol 1 to the ECHR, on the other hand, clearly contrasts the
interests of the property owner as something separate from the general
or public interest (it uses both terms).

Where?

Quoted message said:

It requires there to be a
balance between the property owner's interest and the general/public
interest. A balance that you would deny.

I would deny anyone to use my property unless I allowed them to and
I'm sure you would as well.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Does Article 8 not have some bearing on the matter as well.

Article 8 also requires there to be a balance between the rights of the
individual and the rights and freedoms of others.

So can I have the freedom to watch television in your parlour tonight?

Quoted message said:

Angus, you are clutching at straws. The ECHR (and UDHR) simply don't
support your position.

I'm asking questions. And you haven't covered the point about a
uniform system in Europe not whether it's been tested in court.

Why not?

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)

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

Quoted message said:

And does the fact that other European countries do not have as liberal
an access provision not matter? For instance, parts of France has
had a ban on wild camping since the seventies and I understand Germany
does not have access in enclosed areas.

Norway, Sweden and Finland have what is called "Everyman's Right", which
gives access to open land and a right to wild camping. "The main rule is
that one can walk, ski or cycle everywhere as long as nothing is harmed
and nobody disturbed."

In much of France, especially mountain areas, there is open access. I've
walked extensively in the Pyrenees and there is a much freedom there as
in the Highlands.
--
Chris Townsend

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

Chris Townsend said:

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

Quoted message said:

And does the fact that other European countries do not have as liberal
an access provision not matter? For instance, parts of France has
had a ban on wild camping since the seventies and I understand Germany
does not have access in enclosed areas.

Norway, Sweden and Finland have what is called "Everyman's Right", which
gives access to open land and a right to wild camping. "The main rule is
that one can walk, ski or cycle everywhere as long as nothing is harmed
and nobody disturbed."

So what happens if something is harmed or someone disturbed?

Quoted message said:

In much of France, especially mountain areas, there is open access. I've
walked extensively in the Pyrenees and there is a much freedom there as
in the Highlands.

No one I know is suggesting there shouldn't be freedom in the
mountains although I believe walkers should pay for the damage they do
to paths etc and have insurance for SAR.

High profile cases recently have centred on people walking through
peoples' private estates within range and sight of their homes. That
causes disturbance.

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)

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

Quoted message said:

Chris Townsend said:

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

Quoted message said:

And does the fact that other European countries do not have as liberal
an access provision not matter? For instance, parts of France has
had a ban on wild camping since the seventies and I understand Germany
does not have access in enclosed areas.

Norway, Sweden and Finland have what is called "Everyman's Right", which
gives access to open land and a right to wild camping. "The main rule is
that one can walk, ski or cycle everywhere as long as nothing is harmed
and nobody disturbed."

So what happens if something is harmed or someone disturbed?

Presumably the offender is prosecuted for breaking the law. I've walked
and skied thousands of miles in those three countries without any
problems.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In much of France, especially mountain areas, there is open access. I've
walked extensively in the Pyrenees and there is a much freedom there as
in the Highlands.

No one I know is suggesting there shouldn't be freedom in the
mountains although I believe walkers should pay for the damage they do
to paths etc and have insurance for SAR.

High profile cases recently have centred on people walking through
peoples' private estates within range and sight of their homes. That
causes disturbance.

Many paths in the Highlands are within range and sight of people's
homes. Many run through private estates - most of the Highlands consists
of private estates. Are these people so delicate they are disturbed at
the sight of other people?

--
Chris Townsend

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

Chris Townsend said:

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

Quoted message said:

Chris Townsend said:

In message <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes
>
>And does the fact that other European countries do not have as liberal
>an access provision not matter? For instance, parts of France has
>had a ban on wild camping since the seventies and I understand Germany
>does not have access in enclosed areas.
>
Norway, Sweden and Finland have what is called "Everyman's Right", which
gives access to open land and a right to wild camping. "The main rule is
that one can walk, ski or cycle everywhere as long as nothing is harmed
and nobody disturbed."

So what happens if something is harmed or someone disturbed?

Presumably the offender is prosecuted for breaking the law.

How do the authorities know?

Quoted message said:

I've walked
and skied thousands of miles in those three countries without any
problems.

How do you know? You may have upset or caused concern to local
people.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In much of France, especially mountain areas, there is open access. I've
walked extensively in the Pyrenees and there is a much freedom there as
in the Highlands.

No one I know is suggesting there shouldn't be freedom in the
mountains although I believe walkers should pay for the damage they do
to paths etc and have insurance for SAR.

High profile cases recently have centred on people walking through
peoples' private estates within range and sight of their homes. That
causes disturbance.

Many paths in the Highlands are within range and sight of people's
homes. Many run through private estates - most of the Highlands consists
of private estates. Are these people so delicate they are disturbed at
the sight of other people?

One needn't be "delicate" to regard people with suspicion in these
times of crime and vandalism. Indeed, it's very prudent to do so and
estate owners should have the right to fence off what areas they see
fit for their security.

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)

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

Quoted message said:

Chris Townsend said:

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

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 30 May 2007 16:51:46 +0100, Chris Townsend
<[email hidden]> wrote:

>In message <[email hidden]>,
>[email hidden] writes
>>
>>And does the fact that other European countries do not have as liberal
>>an access provision not matter? For instance, parts of France has
>>had a ban on wild camping since the seventies and I understand Germany
>>does not have access in enclosed areas.
>>
>Norway, Sweden and Finland have what is called "Everyman's Right", which
>gives access to open land and a right to wild camping. "The main rule is
>that one can walk, ski or cycle everywhere as long as nothing is harmed
>and nobody disturbed."

So what happens if something is harmed or someone disturbed?

Presumably the offender is prosecuted for breaking the law.

How do the authorities know?

Presumable by people complaining to them.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've walked
and skied thousands of miles in those three countries without any
problems.

How do you know? You may have upset or caused concern to local
people.

I met many local people and always found them friendly, helpful and
welcoming. In those countries large numbers of people go walking and
skiing. They have national chains of huts for people to use, though you
can always camp. The "outdoor life" in "nature", as they say there, is a
very important part of their culture and they are happy to share it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>In much of France, especially mountain areas, there is open access. I've
>walked extensively in the Pyrenees and there is a much freedom there as
>in the Highlands.

No one I know is suggesting there shouldn't be freedom in the
mountains although I believe walkers should pay for the damage they do
to paths etc and have insurance for SAR.

High profile cases recently have centred on people walking through
peoples' private estates within range and sight of their homes. That
causes disturbance.

Many paths in the Highlands are within range and sight of people's
homes. Many run through private estates - most of the Highlands consists
of private estates. Are these people so delicate they are disturbed at
the sight of other people?

One needn't be "delicate" to regard people with suspicion in these
times of crime and vandalism.

Anyone who regards someone walking within sight of their home as
disturbing and suspicious is paranoid.

Quoted message said:

Indeed, it's very prudent to do so and
estate owners should have the right to fence off what areas they see
fit for their security.

No they shouldn't, and thankfully they don't have the right and aren't
going to get it.

The amount of crime and vandalism in the Highlands is very low.

You're rehashing all the arguments that came out from some landowners at
the time of the Land Reform Bill. They were rejected then.

--
Chris Townsend

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

On Wed, 30 May 2007 08:02:16 +0100, [email hidden] wrote...

Quoted message said:

You lock
the door of your house for that very reason.

[snip]

Quoted message said:

...you wouldn't leave your front door open...

Access legislation doesn't require that you leave your front door open
and provide access into your house.

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Protocol 1 to the ECHR, on the other hand, clearly contrasts the
interests of the property owner as something separate from the general
or public interest (it uses both terms).

Where?

Go read it.

"... No one shall be deprived of his possessions ***except in the public
interest*** ..."

And: "The preceding provisions [about quiet enjoyment of your
possessions] shall not, however, in any way impair the right of the
State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of
property in accordance with the general interest ..."

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

Tim Jackson said:

On Wed, 30 May 2007 08:02:16 +0100, [email hidden] wrote...

Quoted message said:

You lock
the door of your house for that very reason.

[snip]

Quoted message said:

...you wouldn't leave your front door open...

Access legislation doesn't require that you leave your front door open
and provide access into your house.

I know that, but the principle's the same.

We're talking about the general public having "responsible" access.

Why do you need locks on your door if you think the public will act
responsibly and not steal your property?

Or do the public only act responsibly when they're in the countryside
when no one is watching them?

Quoted message said:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Protocol 1 to the ECHR, on the other hand, clearly contrasts the
interests of the property owner as something separate from the general
or public interest (it uses both terms).

Where?

Go read it.

"... No one shall be deprived of his possessions ***except in the public
interest*** ..."

Which means nothing in connection with access.

It could be argued that your house should be sold and the proceeds
given to the NHS.

That fits the criterion.

Quoted message said:

And: "The preceding provisions [about quiet enjoyment of your
possessions] shall not, however, in any way impair the right of the
State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of
property in accordance with the general interest ..."

Your possession of property is not exclusive to real estate.

It could be anything you own.

If you're in debt, any "property" can be seized.

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)

Chris Townsend said:

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

Quoted message said:

Chris Townsend said:

In message <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes
>On Wed, 30 May 2007 16:51:46 +0100, Chris Townsend
><[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>>In message <[email hidden]>,
>>[email hidden] writes
>>>
>>>And does the fact that other European countries do not have as liberal
>>>an access provision not matter? For instance, parts of France has
>>>had a ban on wild camping since the seventies and I understand Germany
>>>does not have access in enclosed areas.
>>>
>>Norway, Sweden and Finland have what is called "Everyman's Right", which
>>gives access to open land and a right to wild camping. "The main rule is
>>that one can walk, ski or cycle everywhere as long as nothing is harmed
>>and nobody disturbed."
>
>So what happens if something is harmed or someone disturbed?

Presumably the offender is prosecuted for breaking the law.

How do the authorities know?

Presumable by people complaining to them.

So you don't know. And how would that prevent lawbreaking. You're
advocating reactiveness rather than the need for protection.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've walked
and skied thousands of miles in those three countries without any
problems.

How do you know? You may have upset or caused concern to local
people.

I met many local people and always found them friendly, helpful and
welcoming. In those countries large numbers of people go walking and
skiing. They have national chains of huts for people to use, though you
can always camp. The "outdoor life" in "nature", as they say there, is a
very important part of their culture and they are happy to share it.

Is there not considerably less crime in these countries than here?

I think Denmark is the lowest, although not one you mentioned.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>>
>>In much of France, especially mountain areas, there is open access. I've
>>walked extensively in the Pyrenees and there is a much freedom there as
>>in the Highlands.
>
>No one I know is suggesting there shouldn't be freedom in the
>mountains although I believe walkers should pay for the damage they do
>to paths etc and have insurance for SAR.
>
> High profile cases recently have centred on people walking through
>peoples' private estates within range and sight of their homes. That
>causes disturbance.

Many paths in the Highlands are within range and sight of people's
homes. Many run through private estates - most of the Highlands consists
of private estates. Are these people so delicate they are disturbed at
the sight of other people?

One needn't be "delicate" to regard people with suspicion in these
times of crime and vandalism.

Anyone who regards someone walking within sight of their home as
disturbing and suspicious is paranoid.

Not in the slightest. Countryside crime has been rising steadily.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Indeed, it's very prudent to do so and
estate owners should have the right to fence off what areas they see
fit for their security.

No they shouldn't, and thankfully they don't have the right and aren't
going to get it.

So you can tell the future?

Quoted message said:

The amount of crime and vandalism in the Highlands is very low.

Sure, in remote places. But the current legislation is not
exclusive to the Highlands and a one-fix solution for all places is
nonsense.

Quoted message said:

You're rehashing all the arguments that came out from some landowners at
the time of the Land Reform Bill. They were rejected then.

Yes, but the difference now is that some people are challenging this
legislation and they may well win. Who knows?

Since the Land Reform Act anti-social and criminal behaviour has
increased exponentially in the Loch Lomond area, to such an extent
that it is out of control and there is no credible solution other than
to restrict access.

Those living in areas where this type of behaviour is prevalent might
well have a case that their human rights are being undermined - but
that's one for lawyers and courts to thrash out.

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)

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

Quoted message said:

Chris Townsend said:

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

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 30 May 2007 17:27:15 +0100, Chris Townsend
<[email hidden]> wrote:

>In message <[email hidden]>,
>[email hidden] writes
>>On Wed, 30 May 2007 16:51:46 +0100, Chris Townsend
>><[email hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <[email hidden]>,
>>>[email hidden] writes
>>>>
>>>>And does the fact that other European countries do not have as liberal
>>>>an access provision not matter? For instance, parts of France has
>>>>had a ban on wild camping since the seventies and I understand Germany
>>>>does not have access in enclosed areas.
>>>>
>>>Norway, Sweden and Finland have what is called "Everyman's Right", which
>>>gives access to open land and a right to wild camping. "The main rule is
>>>that one can walk, ski or cycle everywhere as long as nothing is harmed
>>>and nobody disturbed."
>>
>>So what happens if something is harmed or someone disturbed?
>
>Presumably the offender is prosecuted for breaking the law.

How do the authorities know?

Presumable by people complaining to them.

So you don't know. And how would that prevent lawbreaking. You're
advocating reactiveness rather than the need for protection.

I'm not advocating anything. Amazingly enough I don't have any say over
the legal system in Norway, Sweden and Finland.

How much so you know about access and the Scandinavian countries?
Nothing, it seems. How often have you been there? These countries are
very proud of their access laws. These laws cause no problems and crime
is low in rural and mountain areas.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I've walked
>and skied thousands of miles in those three countries without any
>problems.

How do you know? You may have upset or caused concern to local
people.

I met many local people and always found them friendly, helpful and
welcoming. In those countries large numbers of people go walking and
skiing. They have national chains of huts for people to use, though you
can always camp. The "outdoor life" in "nature", as they say there, is a
very important part of their culture and they are happy to share it.

Is there not considerably less crime in these countries than here?

Maybe that's because they have civilised access laws and people going
for a walk aren't treated as disturbing and suspicious.

Quoted message said:

I think Denmark is the lowest, although not one you mentioned.

Denmark isn't a country I know or one with mountains and wild land.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>
>>>
>>>In much of France, especially mountain areas, there is open access. I've
>>>walked extensively in the Pyrenees and there is a much freedom there as
>>>in the Highlands.
>>
>>No one I know is suggesting there shouldn't be freedom in the
>>mountains although I believe walkers should pay for the damage they do
>>to paths etc and have insurance for SAR.
>>
>> High profile cases recently have centred on people walking through
>>peoples' private estates within range and sight of their homes. That
>>causes disturbance.
>
>Many paths in the Highlands are within range and sight of people's
>homes. Many run through private estates - most of the Highlands consists
>of private estates. Are these people so delicate they are disturbed at
>the sight of other people?

One needn't be "delicate" to regard people with suspicion in these
times of crime and vandalism.

Anyone who regards someone walking within sight of their home as
disturbing and suspicious is paranoid.

Not in the slightest. Countryside crime has been rising steadily.

Not where I live it isn't. Do you have any evidence for this claim?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Indeed, it's very prudent to do so and
estate owners should have the right to fence off what areas they see
fit for their security.

No they shouldn't, and thankfully they don't have the right and aren't
going to get it.

So you can tell the future?

Of course in the distant future anything is possible but at present the
direction is towards more access not less. And when people have rights
they are usually reluctant to give them up. I don't know of anyone
credible proposing repeal of the access laws.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The amount of crime and vandalism in the Highlands is very low.

Sure, in remote places. But the current legislation is not
exclusive to the Highlands and a one-fix solution for all places is
nonsense.

It isn't a one-fix solution. The whole point of the core path network is
to provide access and paths in lowland areas. The Highlands don't need a
core path network except around towns. Also, the Highlands (and Southern
Uplands) is where most people go walking.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You're rehashing all the arguments that came out from some landowners at
the time of the Land Reform Bill. They were rejected then.

Yes, but the difference now is that some people are challenging this
legislation and they may well win. Who knows?

Since the Land Reform Act anti-social and criminal behaviour has
increased exponentially in the Loch Lomond area, to such an extent
that it is out of control and there is no credible solution other than
to restrict access.

Cites please. What is the evidence and how does the anti-social and
criminal behaviour relate to access?

I know that in some areas roadside camping is becoming a problem. This
however is not covered by the access legislation.

Quoted message said:

Those living in areas where this type of behaviour is prevalent might
well have a case that their human rights are being undermined - but
that's one for lawyers and courts to thrash out.

Chris Townsend said:

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

Quoted message said:

Chris Townsend said:

In message <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes
>On Wed, 30 May 2007 17:27:15 +0100, Chris Townsend
><[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>>In message <[email hidden]>,
>>[email hidden] writes
>>>On Wed, 30 May 2007 16:51:46 +0100, Chris Townsend
>>><[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <[email hidden]>,
>>>>[email hidden] writes
>>>>>
>>>>>And does the fact that other European countries do not have as liberal
>>>>>an access provision not matter? For instance, parts of France has
>>>>>had a ban on wild camping since the seventies and I understand Germany
>>>>>does not have access in enclosed areas.
>>>>>
>>>>Norway, Sweden and Finland have what is called "Everyman's Right", which
>>>>gives access to open land and a right to wild camping. "The main rule is
>>>>that one can walk, ski or cycle everywhere as long as nothing is harmed
>>>>and nobody disturbed."
>>>
>>>So what happens if something is harmed or someone disturbed?
>>
>>Presumably the offender is prosecuted for breaking the law.
>
>How do the authorities know?

Presumable by people complaining to them.

So you don't know. And how would that prevent lawbreaking. You're
advocating reactiveness rather than the need for protection.

I'm not advocating anything. Amazingly enough I don't have any say over
the legal system in Norway, Sweden and Finland.

Of course you are. See what you wrote.

Quoted message said:

How much so you know about access and the Scandinavian countries?
Nothing, it seems. How often have you been there? These countries are
very proud of their access laws. These laws cause no problems and crime
is low in rural and mountain areas.

So what?

We don't live in Scandinavia.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>> I've walked
>>and skied thousands of miles in those three countries without any
>>problems.
>
>How do you know? You may have upset or caused concern to local
>people.

I met many local people and always found them friendly, helpful and
welcoming. In those countries large numbers of people go walking and
skiing. They have national chains of huts for people to use, though you
can always camp. The "outdoor life" in "nature", as they say there, is a
very important part of their culture and they are happy to share it.

Is there not considerably less crime in these countries than here?

Maybe that's because they have civilised access laws and people going
for a walk aren't treated as disturbing and suspicious.

Rubbish

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think Denmark is the lowest, although not one you mentioned.

Denmark isn't a country I know or one with mountains and wild land.

But the point you are missing is that the access law here covers all
of the countryside, not just mountains and wild land

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>In much of France, especially mountain areas, there is open access. I've
>>>>walked extensively in the Pyrenees and there is a much freedom there as
>>>>in the Highlands.
>>>
>>>No one I know is suggesting there shouldn't be freedom in the
>>>mountains although I believe walkers should pay for the damage they do
>>>to paths etc and have insurance for SAR.
>>>
>>> High profile cases recently have centred on people walking through
>>>peoples' private estates within range and sight of their homes. That
>>>causes disturbance.
>>
>>Many paths in the Highlands are within range and sight of people's
>>homes. Many run through private estates - most of the Highlands consists
>>of private estates. Are these people so delicate they are disturbed at
>>the sight of other people?
>
>One needn't be "delicate" to regard people with suspicion in these
>times of crime and vandalism.

Anyone who regards someone walking within sight of their home as
disturbing and suspicious is paranoid.

Not in the slightest. Countryside crime has been rising steadily.

Not where I live it isn't. Do you have any evidence for this claim?

Plenty near where we live.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Indeed, it's very prudent to do so and
>estate owners should have the right to fence off what areas they see
>fit for their security.

No they shouldn't, and thankfully they don't have the right and aren't
going to get it.

So you can tell the future?

Of course in the distant future anything is possible but at present the
direction is towards more access not less. And when people have rights
they are usually reluctant to give them up. I don't know of anyone
credible proposing repeal of the access laws.

That could change.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The amount of crime and vandalism in the Highlands is very low.

Sure, in remote places. But the current legislation is not
exclusive to the Highlands and a one-fix solution for all places is
nonsense.

It isn't a one-fix solution. The whole point of the core path network is
to provide access and paths in lowland areas.

But the access is to almost everywhere not just core paths

Quoted message said:

The Highlands don't need a
core path network except around towns. Also, the Highlands (and Southern
Uplands) is where most people go walking.

You obviously don't know your own country.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You're rehashing all the arguments that came out from some landowners at
the time of the Land Reform Bill. They were rejected then.

Yes, but the difference now is that some people are challenging this
legislation and they may well win. Who knows?

Since the Land Reform Act anti-social and criminal behaviour has
increased exponentially in the Loch Lomond area, to such an extent
that it is out of control and there is no credible solution other than
to restrict access.

Cites please.

Plenty. Read rte newspapers.

Quoted message said:

What is the evidence and how does the anti-social and
criminal behaviour relate to access?

If access was restricted landowners could make provision to protect
their properties

Quoted message said:

I know that in some areas roadside camping is becoming a problem. This
however is not covered by the access legislation.

Not only roadside camping. wild camping in other areas.

The access legislation only covers responsible behaviour but there's
not way of enforcing it so it's a complete nonsense.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Those living in areas where this type of behaviour is prevalent might
well have a case that their human rights are being undermined - but
that's one for lawyers and courts to thrash out.

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)

The message <[email hidden]>
from Chris Townsend <[email hidden]> contains these
words:

Quoted message said:

Many paths in the Highlands are within range and sight of people's
homes. Many run through private estates - most of the Highlands consists
of private estates. Are these people so delicate they are disturbed at
the sight of other people?

Chris,

I think the answer to this one is as long as a bit of string! I didn't
expect to look out of the sitting room window a few years back, and see
a very pretty girl in a red dress having her photograph taken within a
metre of the house. Actually neither she nor boyfriend/cameraman had any
access rights, because they'd driven in, and from the speed with which
they drove off, as I came out to enquire who they were, I think they
knew they were out of bounds.

I think the whole thing is down to tact and common sense. If I am on a
path that passes a house, I look to see whether there is another spur of
path slightly further away, and if there isn't, I clip by swiftly,
taking no photographs, and avoiding looking into any windows.

You also wrote, "Anyone who regards someone walking within sight of
their home as disturbing and suspicious is paranoid.", with which I
entirely agree. There is, however, a lot of difference between "within
sight of their home" and walking past their windows.

Richard

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

Quoted message said:

Chris Townsend said:

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

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 30 May 2007 20:23:17 +0100, Chris Townsend
<[email hidden]> wrote:

>In message <[email hidden]>,
>[email hidden] writes
>>On Wed, 30 May 2007 17:27:15 +0100, Chris Townsend
>><[email hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <[email hidden]>,
>>>[email hidden] writes
>>>>On Wed, 30 May 2007 16:51:46 +0100, Chris Townsend
>>>><[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In message <[email hidden]>,
>>>>>[email hidden] writes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And does the fact that other European countries do not have as liberal
>>>>>>an access provision not matter? For instance, parts of France has
>>>>>>had a ban on wild camping since the seventies and I understand Germany
>>>>>>does not have access in enclosed areas.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Norway, Sweden and Finland have what is called "Everyman's Right", which
>>>>>gives access to open land and a right to wild camping. "The main rule is
>>>>>that one can walk, ski or cycle everywhere as long as nothing is harmed
>>>>>and nobody disturbed."
>>>>
>>>>So what happens if something is harmed or someone disturbed?
>>>
>>>Presumably the offender is prosecuted for breaking the law.
>>
>>How do the authorities know?
>
>Presumable by people complaining to them.

So you don't know. And how would that prevent lawbreaking. You're
advocating reactiveness rather than the need for protection.

I'm not advocating anything. Amazingly enough I don't have any say over
the legal system in Norway, Sweden and Finland.

Of course you are. See what you wrote.

I know what I wrote. The fact you don't understand it is your problem.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How much so you know about access and the Scandinavian countries?
Nothing, it seems. How often have you been there? These countries are
very proud of their access laws. These laws cause no problems and crime
is low in rural and mountain areas.

So what?

We don't live in Scandinavia.

You're the one who brought up European countries. Now that it turns out
they don't all have the repressive access laws you thought they had you
can only say "so what?".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>
>>> I've walked
>>>and skied thousands of miles in those three countries without any
>>>problems.
>>
>>How do you know? You may have upset or caused concern to local
>>people.
>
>I met many local people and always found them friendly, helpful and
>welcoming. In those countries large numbers of people go walking and
>skiing. They have national chains of huts for people to use, though you
>can always camp. The "outdoor life" in "nature", as they say there, is a
>very important part of their culture and they are happy to share it.

Is there not considerably less crime in these countries than here?

Maybe that's because they have civilised access laws and people going
for a walk aren't treated as disturbing and suspicious.

Rubbish

A typical response from someone who has no actual arguments.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think Denmark is the lowest, although not one you mentioned.

Denmark isn't a country I know or one with mountains and wild land.

But the point you are missing is that the access law here covers all
of the countryside, not just mountains and wild land

As it does in Norway, Sweden and Finland. I know well that's what it
covers here as I was involved in the campaign for the access law. And
I'm involved in the campaign to ensure it's adhered to and not watered
down.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In much of France, especially mountain areas, there is open access. I've
>>>>>walked extensively in the Pyrenees and there is a much freedom there as
>>>>>in the Highlands.
>>>>
>>>>No one I know is suggesting there shouldn't be freedom in the
>>>>mountains although I believe walkers should pay for the damage they do
>>>>to paths etc and have insurance for SAR.
>>>>
>>>> High profile cases recently have centred on people walking through
>>>>peoples' private estates within range and sight of their homes. That
>>>>causes disturbance.
>>>
>>>Many paths in the Highlands are within range and sight of people's
>>>homes. Many run through private estates - most of the Highlands consists
>>>of private estates. Are these people so delicate they are disturbed at
>>>the sight of other people?
>>
>>One needn't be "delicate" to regard people with suspicion in these
>>times of crime and vandalism.
>
>Anyone who regards someone walking within sight of their home as
>disturbing and suspicious is paranoid.
>

Not in the slightest. Countryside crime has been rising steadily.

Not where I live it isn't. Do you have any evidence for this claim?

Plenty near where we live.

Some evidence please?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>Indeed, it's very prudent to do so and
>>estate owners should have the right to fence off what areas they see
>>fit for their security.
>
>No they shouldn't, and thankfully they don't have the right and aren't
>going to get it.

So you can tell the future?

Of course in the distant future anything is possible but at present the
direction is towards more access not less. And when people have rights
they are usually reluctant to give them up. I don't know of anyone
credible proposing repeal of the access laws.

That could change.

Of course but I think it very unlikely.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>The amount of crime and vandalism in the Highlands is very low.

Sure, in remote places. But the current legislation is not
exclusive to the Highlands and a one-fix solution for all places is
nonsense.

It isn't a one-fix solution. The whole point of the core path network is
to provide access and paths in lowland areas.

But the access is to almost everywhere not just core paths

Quoted message said:

The Highlands don't need a
core path network except around towns. Also, the Highlands (and Southern
Uplands) is where most people go walking.

You obviously don't know your own country.

I know the figures for where people walk. What figures do you have that
suggest most people walk in lowland areas.

In the Highlands and Southern Uplands I am including walking in the
glens, round lochs and other lowland walks as well as up hills.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>You're rehashing all the arguments that came out from some landowners at
>the time of the Land Reform Bill. They were rejected then.

Yes, but the difference now is that some people are challenging this
legislation and they may well win. Who knows?

Since the Land Reform Act anti-social and criminal behaviour has
increased exponentially in the Loch Lomond area, to such an extent
that it is out of control and there is no credible solution other than
to restrict access.

Cites please.

Plenty. Read rte newspapers.

So you haven't any evidence. I do read the newspapers -- Herald and
Scotsman - and I see no evidence there.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What is the evidence and how does the anti-social and
criminal behaviour relate to access?

If access was restricted landowners could make provision to protect
their properties

Why do they need to protect their property?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I know that in some areas roadside camping is becoming a problem. This
however is not covered by the access legislation.

Not only roadside camping. wild camping in other areas.

Wild camping isn't a problem.

Quoted message said:

The access legislation only covers responsible behaviour but there's
not way of enforcing it so it's a complete nonsense.

Educating people on how to behave responsibility is important, though
most people behave responsibly anyway.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Those living in areas where this type of behaviour is prevalent might
well have a case that their human rights are being undermined - but
that's one for lawyers and courts to thrash out.

--
Chris Townsend

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

In message <[email hidden]>, Richard Spencer
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

The message <[email hidden]>
from Chris Townsend <[email hidden]> contains these
words:

Quoted message said:

Many paths in the Highlands are within range and sight of people's
homes. Many run through private estates - most of the Highlands consists
of private estates. Are these people so delicate they are disturbed at
the sight of other people?

Chris,

I think the answer to this one is as long as a bit of string! I didn't
expect to look out of the sitting room window a few years back, and see
a very pretty girl in a red dress having her photograph taken within a
metre of the house. Actually neither she nor boyfriend/cameraman had any
access rights, because they'd driven in, and from the speed with which
they drove off, as I came out to enquire who they were, I think they
knew they were out of bounds.

I think the whole thing is down to tact and common sense. If I am on a
path that passes a house, I look to see whether there is another spur of
path slightly further away, and if there isn't, I clip by swiftly,
taking no photographs, and avoiding looking into any windows.

You also wrote, "Anyone who regards someone walking within sight of
their home as disturbing and suspicious is paranoid.", with which I
entirely agree. There is, however, a lot of difference between "within
sight of their home" and walking past their windows.

Richard,

I agree with you. The example you give isn't about access rights. I have
an estate track some 10 metres in front of my house which is used by
estate and farm vehicles, walkers and cyclists. Most people don't look
in the house. If they do and I can see them I give them a wave.

--
Chris Townsend

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

Chris Townsend said:

In message <[email hidden]>, Richard Spencer
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

The message <[email hidden]>
from Chris Townsend <[email hidden]> contains these
words:

Quoted message said:

Many paths in the Highlands are within range and sight of people's
homes. Many run through private estates - most of the Highlands consists
of private estates. Are these people so delicate they are disturbed at
the sight of other people?

Chris,

I think the answer to this one is as long as a bit of string! I didn't
expect to look out of the sitting room window a few years back, and see
a very pretty girl in a red dress having her photograph taken within a
metre of the house. Actually neither she nor boyfriend/cameraman had any
access rights, because they'd driven in, and from the speed with which
they drove off, as I came out to enquire who they were, I think they
knew they were out of bounds.

I think the whole thing is down to tact and common sense. If I am on a
path that passes a house, I look to see whether there is another spur of
path slightly further away, and if there isn't, I clip by swiftly,
taking no photographs, and avoiding looking into any windows.

You also wrote, "Anyone who regards someone walking within sight of
their home as disturbing and suspicious is paranoid.", with which I
entirely agree. There is, however, a lot of difference between "within
sight of their home" and walking past their windows.

Richard,

I agree with you. The example you give isn't about access rights. I have
an estate track some 10 metres in front of my house which is used by
estate and farm vehicles, walkers and cyclists. Most people don't look
in the house. If they do and I can see them I give them a wave.

So you're now admitting strangers are invading your privacy.

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)