UCHR

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 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.

You obviously don't understand what you write.

Quoted message said:

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?".

I didn't bring up the Scandiaavian countries, I metioned France and
Germany.which have much less access provision than here.

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.

Not at all. It is access laws which allow people to go where they
please over other peoples land that creates suspicion and disturbance.
You've even admitted elsewhere they look in your windows. No wonder
landowners want rid of walkers off their land.

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.

Well, it should be watered down and fast.

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?

There's a start

http://living.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=241&id=1336002006

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.

You might be surprised.

People are not prepared to put up with the scum.

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.

People walk everywhere. Haven't you noticed?

Quoted message said:

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

See above.

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.

Well, you don't read enough.

Quoted message said:

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?

Why do you?

Quoted message said:

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.

Of course it is.

Quoted message said:

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.

Rubbish. Education doesn't work. There has been anti litter schemes
in urban areas for years and the litter is worse than ever. And if
education worked there'd be no crime.

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.
>

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)

<[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Some swine looked into my kitchen and waved at me as I was washing the pots
the other day. Grrr! If only the council hadn't put that footpath next to
the public road! I rushed out and confronted him...'stop inviding my
privacy!' I raged. [to be continued]

Graham

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

Quoted message said:

Chris Townsend said:

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

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 31 May 2007 12:29:27 +0100, Chris Townsend
<[email hidden]> wrote:

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

You obviously don't understand what you write.

I understand it perfectly.

Quoted message said:

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?".

I didn't bring up the Scandiaavian countries, I metioned France and
Germany.which have much less access provision than here.

You brought up European countries, which include Scandinavia. I'm not
familiar with access in Germany but it's pretty good in some areas of
France.

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.

Not at all. It is access laws which allow people to go where they
please over other peoples land that creates suspicion and disturbance.

Well it shouldn't. I have no sympathy with paranoid landowners.

Quoted message said:

You've even admitted elsewhere they look in your windows.

And I have no objection to this. People walk past houses in town and
look in the windows.

Quoted message said:

No wonder
landowners want rid of walkers off their land.

Most don't want them off. Many welcome them. There's a few who are
selfish but they are a small minority.

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.

Well, it should be watered down and fast.

It's not going to be though.

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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>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?

There's a start

http://living.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=241&id=1336002006

Education would seem the answer here and the National Park seem to have
a good solution. Also, the camping by a car park isn't wild camping and
isn't allowed for in the access law.

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.

You might be surprised.

People are not prepared to put up with the scum.

Who are these "people"? The article you cited above says "the vast
majority come and stay and leave without causing any impact". Are you
saying the vast majority should suffer because of a small minority?

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

>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.

People walk everywhere. Haven't you noticed?

I never said people didn't. I said that most people go walking in the
Highlands and Southern Uplands, which in terms of the access legislation
they do. I'm not talking about people walking on streets or in parks in
towns.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

See above.

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.

Well, you don't read enough.

What should I read then?

You still haven't produced any evidence.

Quoted message said:

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?

Why do you?

I lock my doors at night due to the very remote chance that I might be
burgled. That has nothing to do with access.

Quoted message said:

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.

Of course it is.

Again, provide some evidence. I've just walked across Scotland, wild
camping most nights, as have 250 others on the TGO Challenge. We've been
welcome along the way by locals, as we are every year. Some landowners
have even opened up private lodges and bothies for people to use. This
was the 28th such annual event and there have never been any problems.

I wild camp regularly all over Scotland and have done so for 30 years. I
have rarely seen any sign of other wild campers let alone any problems.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Rubbish. Education doesn't work. There has been anti litter schemes
in urban areas for years and the litter is worse than ever. And if
education worked there'd be no crime.

It's hardly worth discussing crude generalisations like the above but
education does work. There will always be crime. That doesn't mean
education doesn't work.

Some newcomers in the outdoors don't know the best way to act to
minimise their impact. Education can show them this.

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]>,
[email hidden] writes

Quoted message said:

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:

> 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.

I have no problem with people looking towards my house. I don't feel
this is an invasion of my privacy. As I said, if I notice I just wave.
If I'm in the garden I sometimes chat to them.
--
Chris Townsend

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

Chris Townsend said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> You're advocating...
>>>
>> I'm not advocating...
>
> Of course you are. See what you wrote.

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

You obviously don't understand what you write.

I understand it perfectly.

Isn't your head starting to hurt after bashing it against this brick wall
for so long Chris? :-)

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/

Chris Townsend said:

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

Quoted message said:

Chris Townsend said:

In message <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes
>On Thu, 31 May 2007 12:29:27 +0100, Chris Townsend
><[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>>In message <[email hidden]>,
>>[email hidden] writes
>>>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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>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.

You obviously don't understand what you write.

I understand it perfectly.

Seemingly not, if you think that waiting for a crime to be perpetrated
against you without having the means to protect your property, and
then reporting it, is not "reactive".

Quoted message said:

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?".

I didn't bring up the Scandiaavian countries, I metioned France and
Germany.which have much less access provision than here.

You brought up European countries, which include Scandinavia. I'm not
familiar with access in Germany but it's pretty good in some areas of
France.

Wild camping is prohibited in many 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.
>
>Rubbish

A typical response from someone who has no actual arguments.

Not at all. It is access laws which allow people to go where they
please over other peoples land that creates suspicion and disturbance.

Well it shouldn't. I have no sympathy with paranoid landowners.

But you have plenty of prejudice.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You've even admitted elsewhere they look in your windows.

And I have no objection to this. People walk past houses in town and
look in the windows.

But there is a greater degree of security because of other people
about.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No wonder
landowners want rid of walkers off their land.

Most don't want them off. Many welcome them.

So why do you need access rights?

Quoted message said:

There's a few who are
selfish but they are a small minority.

If that's the case why not let the few have their privacy and let the
rest welcome them?

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.

Well, it should be watered down and fast.

It's not going to be though.

I don't know anyone else that can tell the future. Clever fellow :-))

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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>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?

There's a start

http://living.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=241&id=1336002006

Education would seem the answer here and the National Park seem to have
a good solution.

Like what?

Quoted message said:

Also, the camping by a car park isn't wild camping and
isn't allowed for in the access law.

Where does the line away from a car park exist? If they camp in a
field adjacent to a car park that's wild camping.

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.

You might be surprised.

People are not prepared to put up with the scum.

Who are these "people"? The article you cited above says "the vast
majority come and stay and leave without causing any impact". Are you
saying the vast majority should suffer because of a small minority?

Actually, the vast majority do cause an impact. Erosion of footpaths,
disturbance of wildlife, and the pollution they cause by accessing the
countryside with their cars. Few "ramblers" ramble from their front
door.

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
>
>>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.

People walk everywhere. Haven't you noticed?

I never said people didn't. I said that most people go walking in the
Highlands and Southern Uplands, which in terms of the access legislation
they do.

Rubbish. Most people walk in easily accessed places like Loch
Lomondside.

Quoted message said:

I'm not talking about people walking on streets or in parks in
towns.

I know.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

See above.

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.

Well, you don't read enough.

What should I read then?

You still haven't produced any evidence.

It is well known that in this area crime and vandalism has increased
significantly since the Land Reform Act and the National Park was
introduced. The Convenor of the NP is on record as saying that he
would not take his young daughter to certain parts of the Park because
of the problem.

Quoted message said:

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?

Why do you?

I lock my doors at night due to the very remote chance that I might be
burgled. That has nothing to do with access.

As you live in a remote place it has everything to do with access.

Quoted message said:

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.

Of course it is.

Again, provide some evidence. I've just walked across Scotland, wild
camping most nights, as have 250 others on the TGO Challenge. We've been
welcome along the way by locals, as we are every year. Some landowners
have even opened up private lodges and bothies for people to use. This
was the 28th such annual event and there have never been any problems.

I wild camp regularly all over Scotland and have done so for 30 years. I
have rarely seen any sign of other wild campers let alone any problems.

Wild campers are responsible for much anti-social behaviour such as
damaging trees, drunken behaviour, lighting fires all around the Loch
Lomond area.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Rubbish. Education doesn't work. There has been anti litter schemes
in urban areas for years and the litter is worse than ever. And if
education worked there'd be no crime.

It's hardly worth discussing crude generalisations like the above but
education does work. There will always be crime. That doesn't mean
education doesn't work.

These are not crude generalisations, they are fact.

Quoted message said:

Some newcomers in the outdoors don't know the best way to act to
minimise their impact. Education can show them this.

Nonsense, for the reasons I have stated.

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.
>>>

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]>, Paul Saunders
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Chris Townsend said:

Quoted message said:

>>>> You're advocating...
>>>>
>>> I'm not advocating...
>>
>> Of course you are. See what you wrote.
>
> I know what I wrote. The fact you don't understand it is your
> problem.

You obviously don't understand what you write.

I understand it perfectly.

Isn't your head starting to hurt after bashing it against this brick wall
for so long Chris? :-)

It's good practice at times :-) But not for too long.

Oddly enough, I find some meetings I attend of like-minded people in
conservation groups make my head hurt more! That's due to some of the
bureaucracy involved.

--
Chris Townsend

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

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

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 00:03:08 +0100, Chris Townsend
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Snip - getting far too long

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>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.

You obviously don't understand what you write.

I understand it perfectly.

Seemingly not, if you think that waiting for a crime to be perpetrated
against you without having the means to protect your property, and
then reporting it, is not "reactive".

The conversation went:

" So what happens if something is harmed or someone disturbed?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Presumably the offender is prosecuted for breaking the law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How do the authorities know?
>>>>>
>>>>>Presumable by people complaining to them."

I was presuming what would happen, not advocating anything or saying
what I though should or could happen. I was saying what I assumed would
happen.

Quoted message said:

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?".

I didn't bring up the Scandiaavian countries, I metioned France and
Germany.which have much less access provision than here.

You brought up European countries, which include Scandinavia. I'm not
familiar with access in Germany but it's pretty good in some areas of
France.

Wild camping is prohibited in many areas.

So?

The only areas I know where wild camping is restricted are in mountain
areas where there is otherwise free access. In the Pyrenees National
Park for example camping is prohibited within an hours walk from the
road (though how far that is isn't specified).

Quoted message said:

snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You've even admitted elsewhere they look in your windows.

And I have no objection to this. People walk past houses in town and
look in the windows.

But there is a greater degree of security because of other people
about.

The same applies in the countryside.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No wonder
landowners want rid of walkers off their land.

Most don't want them off. Many welcome them.

So why do you need access rights?

I don't, personally. But I think they are needed in lowland areas and
they are a means for getting rid of intimidating signs and barriers to
access.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There's a few who are
selfish but they are a small minority.

If that's the case why not let the few have their privacy and let the
rest welcome them?

I don't believe in rewarding selfishness. There's also a matter of
principle. If only a few people break a law it doesn't mean they should
be ignored.

However I don't think there are any major access problems at present so
it isn't a big issue.

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.

Well, it should be watered down and fast.

It's not going to be though.

I don't know anyone else that can tell the future. Clever fellow :-))

Of course I could be wrong. But I doubt. Everything is moving towards
greater access and freedom and there are no signs of movement in the
other direction.

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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>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?

There's a start

http://living.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=241&id=1336002006

Education would seem the answer here and the National Park seem to have
a good solution.

Like what?

Like education. Like explaining good outdoor toilet practice and issuing
plastic trowels.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Also, the camping by a car park isn't wild camping and
isn't allowed for in the access law.

Where does the line away from a car park exist? If they camp in a
field adjacent to a car park that's wild camping.

I would say that if you can carry heavy camping gear to a site it's not
wild camping. Wild camping is when you can only take what you can carry
on your back.

This isn't a new problem. It existed long before the access legislation.
There used to be roadside camping in Glencoe near the old NTS visitor
centre and on Skye near the Sligachan Hotel. The numbers grew so great
that there were problems so both areas were closed to camping - in the
case of Glencoe people were directed to camp sites further down the
glen, in the case of Sligachan a camp site was created near the hotel.
In both cases the roadside camping stopped and the problem went away. As
roadside camping is not a right under the access legislation it could be
stopped.

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.

You might be surprised.

People are not prepared to put up with the scum.

Who are these "people"? The article you cited above says "the vast
majority come and stay and leave without causing any impact". Are you
saying the vast majority should suffer because of a small minority?

Actually, the vast majority do cause an impact. Erosion of footpaths,
disturbance of wildlife, and the pollution they cause by accessing the
countryside with their cars. Few "ramblers" ramble from their front
door.

So you disagree with the article you cited as evidence?

And you think everyone should stay at home? I presume you don't drive?

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
>>
>>>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.
>

People walk everywhere. Haven't you noticed?

I never said people didn't. I said that most people go walking in the
Highlands and Southern Uplands, which in terms of the access legislation
they do.

Rubbish. Most people walk in easily accessed places like Loch
Lomondside.

Much of Loch Lomond is in the Highlands.

Quoted message said:

snip

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.

Well, you don't read enough.

What should I read then?

You still haven't produced any evidence.

It is well known that in this area crime and vandalism has increased
significantly since the Land Reform Act and the National Park was
introduced. The Convenor of the NP is on record as saying that he
would not take his young daughter to certain parts of the Park because
of the problem.

"It is well known" is meaningless. It's not well known to me. Where is
the evidence?

Also, are you saying the existence of the National Park is a cause of
crime and vandalism?

Quoted message said:

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?

Why do you?

I lock my doors at night due to the very remote chance that I might be
burgled. That has nothing to do with access.

As you live in a remote place it has everything to do with access.

IWhat has it to do with access? Do you think burglars are likely to
think they can't burgle somewhere because they have no rights of access
to the land around it?

I also used to lock my doors when I lived in a town. I was burgled
several times when living in towns.

Quoted message said:

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.

Of course it is.

Again, provide some evidence. I've just walked across Scotland, wild
camping most nights, as have 250 others on the TGO Challenge. We've been
welcome along the way by locals, as we are every year. Some landowners
have even opened up private lodges and bothies for people to use. This
was the 28th such annual event and there have never been any problems.

I wild camp regularly all over Scotland and have done so for 30 years. I
have rarely seen any sign of other wild campers let alone any problems.

Wild campers are responsible for much anti-social behaviour such as
damaging trees, drunken behaviour, lighting fires all around the Loch
Lomond area.

I think you're talking about roadside camping again.

Quoted message said:

snip
--
Chris Townsend

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

Chris Townsend said:

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

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 00:03:08 +0100, Chris Townsend
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Snip - getting far too long

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>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.
>
>You obviously don't understand what you write.
>
I understand it perfectly.

Seemingly not, if you think that waiting for a crime to be perpetrated
against you without having the means to protect your property, and
then reporting it, is not "reactive".

The conversation went:

" So what happens if something is harmed or someone disturbed?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Presumably the offender is prosecuted for breaking the law.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>How do the authorities know?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Presumable by people complaining to them."

I was presuming what would happen, not advocating anything or saying
what I though should or could happen. I was saying what I assumed would
happen.

You were using that presumption as part of your argument, which is
advocating it.

Quoted message said:

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?".
>
>I didn't bring up the Scandiaavian countries, I metioned France and
>Germany.which have much less access provision than here.

You brought up European countries, which include Scandinavia. I'm not
familiar with access in Germany but it's pretty good in some areas of
France.

Wild camping is prohibited in many areas.

So?

The only areas I know where wild camping is restricted are in mountain
areas where there is otherwise free access. In the Pyrenees National
Park for example camping is prohibited within an hours walk from the
road (though how far that is isn't specified).

Well you don't know much about France either. Wild camping is banned
in many areas of France Such as Gard and Herault departments.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>You've even admitted elsewhere they look in your windows.

And I have no objection to this. People walk past houses in town and
look in the windows.

But there is a greater degree of security because of other people
about.

The same applies in the countryside.

No it doesn't. There fewer people about.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> No wonder
>landowners want rid of walkers off their land.

Most don't want them off. Many welcome them.

So why do you need access rights?

I don't, personally. But I think they are needed in lowland areas and
they are a means for getting rid of intimidating signs and barriers to
access.

There are more signs than ever now. To keep people out of private
driveways

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There's a few who are
selfish but they are a small minority.

If that's the case why not let the few have their privacy and let the
rest welcome them?

I don't believe in rewarding selfishness. There's also a matter of
principle. If only a few people break a law it doesn't mean they should
be ignored.

So like I said in one of my letters, it's the politics of envy born of
the Ramblers communist party origins. You just can't bear to see
anyone have anything you haven't.

Quoted message said:

However I don't think there are any major access problems at present so
it isn't a big issue.

There are two significant challenges I know of at present.

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.
>
>Well, it should be watered down and fast.

It's not going to be though.

I don't know anyone else that can tell the future. Clever fellow :-))

Of course I could be wrong. But I doubt. Everything is moving towards
greater access and freedom and there are no signs of movement in the
other direction.

That's debatable.

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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>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?
>
>
>There's a start
>
>http://living.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=241&id=1336002006

Education would seem the answer here and the National Park seem to have
a good solution.

Like what?

Like education. Like explaining good outdoor toilet practice and issuing
plastic trowels.

So why should people put up with others sh*****g on their ground?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Also, the camping by a car park isn't wild camping and
isn't allowed for in the access law.

Where does the line away from a car park exist? If they camp in a
field adjacent to a car park that's wild camping.

I would say that if you can carry heavy camping gear to a site it's not
wild camping. Wild camping is when you can only take what you can carry
on your back.

You're avoiding the issue.

Quoted message said:

This isn't a new problem.

You admit it's a "problem". So it should be stopped.

Quoted message said:

It existed long before the access legislation.

So it should be stopped.

Quoted message said:

There used to be roadside camping in Glencoe near the old NTS visitor
centre and on Skye near the Sligachan Hotel. The numbers grew so great
that there were problems so both areas were closed to camping - in the
case of Glencoe people were directed to camp sites further down the
glen, in the case of Sligachan a camp site was created near the hotel.
In both cases the roadside camping stopped and the problem went away. As
roadside camping is not a right under the access legislation it could be
stopped.

Where does "roadside camping" stop and "wild camping" begin in your
view?

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.
>
>You might be surprised.
>
>People are not prepared to put up with the scum.

Who are these "people"? The article you cited above says "the vast
majority come and stay and leave without causing any impact". Are you
saying the vast majority should suffer because of a small minority?

Actually, the vast majority do cause an impact. Erosion of footpaths,
disturbance of wildlife, and the pollution they cause by accessing the
countryside with their cars. Few "ramblers" ramble from their front
door.

So you disagree with the article you cited as evidence?

In this respect, yes.

Quoted message said:

And you think everyone should stay at home? I presume you don't drive?

Not at all but I'm pointing out that "walking" is not the
environmentally friendly and undamaging recreation you make it out to
be.

I drive, but I don't drive hundreds of miles to walk.

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
>>>
>>>>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.
>>
>
>People walk everywhere. Haven't you noticed?

I never said people didn't. I said that most people go walking in the
Highlands and Southern Uplands, which in terms of the access legislation
they do.

Rubbish. Most people walk in easily accessed places like Loch
Lomondside.

Much of Loch Lomond is in the Highlands.

Quoted message said:

Not as most people would see it.

Quoted message said:

snip

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.
>
>Well, you don't read enough.

What should I read then?

You still haven't produced any evidence.

It is well known that in this area crime and vandalism has increased
significantly since the Land Reform Act and the National Park was
introduced. The Convenor of the NP is on record as saying that he
would not take his young daughter to certain parts of the Park because
of the problem.

"It is well known" is meaningless. It's not well known to me. Where is
the evidence?

Do a search of the Herald.

Quoted message said:

Also, are you saying the existence of the National Park is a cause of
crime and vandalism?

Yes, it has increased significantly since the inauguration of the NP.

Quoted message said:

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?
>
>Why do you?

I lock my doors at night due to the very remote chance that I might be
burgled. That has nothing to do with access.

As you live in a remote place it has everything to do with access.

IWhat has it to do with access?

A lot.

Quoted message said:

Do you think burglars are likely to
think they can't burgle somewhere because they have no rights of access
to the land around it?

They can masquerade as walkers and be unchallenged due to the access
rights.

Quoted message said:

I also used to lock my doors when I lived in a town. I was burgled
several times when living in towns.

Sure. and it's the same people that are being invited out into the
countryside.

Quoted message said:

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.
>
>Of course it is.

Again, provide some evidence. I've just walked across Scotland, wild
camping most nights, as have 250 others on the TGO Challenge. We've been
welcome along the way by locals, as we are every year. Some landowners
have even opened up private lodges and bothies for people to use. This
was the 28th such annual event and there have never been any problems.

I wild camp regularly all over Scotland and have done so for 30 years. I
have rarely seen any sign of other wild campers let alone any problems.

Wild campers are responsible for much anti-social behaviour such as
damaging trees, drunken behaviour, lighting fires all around the Loch
Lomond area.

I think you're talking about roadside camping again.

See my question above.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

snip

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 Fri, 1 Jun 2007 00:03:08 +0100, Chris Townsend
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Snip - getting far too long

Quoted message said:

>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>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
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>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.
>>
>>You obviously don't understand what you write.
>>
>I understand it perfectly.

Seemingly not, if you think that waiting for a crime to be perpetrated
against you without having the means to protect your property, and
then reporting it, is not "reactive".

The conversation went:

" So what happens if something is harmed or someone disturbed?

Quoted message said:

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Presumably the offender is prosecuted for breaking the law.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>How do the authorities know?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Presumable by people complaining to them."

I was presuming what would happen, not advocating anything or saying
what I though should or could happen. I was saying what I assumed would
happen.

You were using that presumption as part of your argument, which is
advocating it.

Presuming and advocating are different. To presume something is not to
advocate it.

Quoted message said:

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?".
>>
>>I didn't bring up the Scandiaavian countries, I metioned France and
>>Germany.which have much less access provision than here.
>
>You brought up European countries, which include Scandinavia. I'm not
>familiar with access in Germany but it's pretty good in some areas of
>France.

Wild camping is prohibited in many areas.

So?

The only areas I know where wild camping is restricted are in mountain
areas where there is otherwise free access. In the Pyrenees National
Park for example camping is prohibited within an hours walk from the
road (though how far that is isn't specified).

Well you don't know much about France either. Wild camping is banned
in many areas of France Such as Gard and Herault departments.

I never claimed to know much about France. What I said was that access
was pretty good in some areas, which it is.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

snip

Quoted message said:

>>You've even admitted elsewhere they look in your windows.
>
>And I have no objection to this. People walk past houses in town and
>look in the windows.
>

But there is a greater degree of security because of other people
about.

The same applies in the countryside.

No it doesn't. There fewer people about.

Having access often means there are more people about.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> No wonder
>>landowners want rid of walkers off their land.
>
>Most don't want them off. Many welcome them.

So why do you need access rights?

I don't, personally. But I think they are needed in lowland areas and
they are a means for getting rid of intimidating signs and barriers to
access.

There are more signs than ever now. To keep people out of private
driveways

Private driveways aren't part of the access legislation. I'm talking
about the sort of notices that say "deer stalking, access forbidden",
"high-powered rifles in use year round" and the like.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>There's a few who are
>selfish but they are a small minority.

If that's the case why not let the few have their privacy and let the
rest welcome them?

I don't believe in rewarding selfishness. There's also a matter of
principle. If only a few people break a law it doesn't mean they should
be ignored.

So like I said in one of my letters, it's the politics of envy born of
the Ramblers communist party origins. You just can't bear to see
anyone have anything you haven't.

Now you're just talking rubbish.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

However I don't think there are any major access problems at present so
it isn't a big issue.

There are two significant challenges I know of at present.

Which are?

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.
>>
>>Well, it should be watered down and fast.
>
>It's not going to be though.

I don't know anyone else that can tell the future. Clever fellow :-))

Of course I could be wrong. But I doubt. Everything is moving towards
greater access and freedom and there are no signs of movement in the
other direction.

That's debatable.

What examples of a movement to restricting access are there?

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
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>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?
>>
>>
>>There's a start
>>
>>http://living.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=241&id=1336002006
>
>Education would seem the answer here and the National Park seem to have
>a good solution.

Like what?

Like education. Like explaining good outdoor toilet practice and issuing
plastic trowels.

So why should people put up with others sh*****g on their ground?

If people use good practice there's no reason why people shouldn't put
up with it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Also, the camping by a car park isn't wild camping and
>isn't allowed for in the access law.

Where does the line away from a car park exist? If they camp in a
field adjacent to a car park that's wild camping.

I would say that if you can carry heavy camping gear to a site it's not
wild camping. Wild camping is when you can only take what you can carry
on your back.

You're avoiding the issue.

No, I'm stating what the issue is. Roadside camping is not wild camping.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This isn't a new problem.

You admit it's a "problem". So it should be stopped.

Quoted message said:

It existed long before the access legislation.

So it should be stopped.

And below I outlined how it can and has been stopped.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There used to be roadside camping in Glencoe near the old NTS visitor
centre and on Skye near the Sligachan Hotel. The numbers grew so great
that there were problems so both areas were closed to camping - in the
case of Glencoe people were directed to camp sites further down the
glen, in the case of Sligachan a camp site was created near the hotel.
In both cases the roadside camping stopped and the problem went away. As
roadside camping is not a right under the access legislation it could be
stopped.

Where does "roadside camping" stop and "wild camping" begin in your
view?

I've already said that but here it is again: wild camping is when you
can only take what you can carry on your back. If you're a few minutes
from a car it's not wild camping.

Wild camping also means minimum impact and leaving no obvious sign
you've been there.

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.
>>
>>You might be surprised.
>>
>>People are not prepared to put up with the scum.
>
>Who are these "people"? The article you cited above says "the vast
>majority come and stay and leave without causing any impact". Are you
>saying the vast majority should suffer because of a small minority?

Actually, the vast majority do cause an impact. Erosion of footpaths,
disturbance of wildlife, and the pollution they cause by accessing the
countryside with their cars. Few "ramblers" ramble from their front
door.

So you disagree with the article you cited as evidence?

In this respect, yes.

Quoted message said:

And you think everyone should stay at home? I presume you don't drive?

Not at all but I'm pointing out that "walking" is not the
environmentally friendly and undamaging recreation you make it out to
be.

It is while you are walking. It's far more environmentally friendly than
driving between places every day.

Quoted message said:

I drive, but I don't drive hundreds of miles to walk.

So driving is okay for your activities, whatever they are, but not for
walking?

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
>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>
>>
>>People walk everywhere. Haven't you noticed?
>
>I never said people didn't. I said that most people go walking in the
>Highlands and Southern Uplands, which in terms of the access legislation
>they do.

Rubbish. Most people walk in easily accessed places like Loch
Lomondside.

Much of Loch Lomond is in the Highlands.

Quoted message said:

Not as most people would see it.

Then most people are wrong because geographically it is. The Highland
Boundary Fault runs across the southern end of Loch Lomond. All the land
and the loch to the north are in the Highlands.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

snip

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.
>>
>>Well, you don't read enough.
>
>What should I read then?
>
>You still haven't produced any evidence.

It is well known that in this area crime and vandalism has increased
significantly since the Land Reform Act and the National Park was
introduced. The Convenor of the NP is on record as saying that he
would not take his young daughter to certain parts of the Park because
of the problem.

"It is well known" is meaningless. It's not well known to me. Where is
the evidence?

Do a search of the Herald.

It's up to you to produce evidence of your claims.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Also, are you saying the existence of the National Park is a cause of
crime and vandalism?

Yes, it has increased significantly since the inauguration of the NP.

That's not the same as saying the NP is the cause.

Quoted message said:

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?
>>
>>Why do you?
>
>I lock my doors at night due to the very remote chance that I might be
>burgled. That has nothing to do with access.

As you live in a remote place it has everything to do with access.

IWhat has it to do with access?

A lot.

Quoted message said:

Do you think burglars are likely to
think they can't burgle somewhere because they have no rights of access
to the land around it?

They can masquerade as walkers and be unchallenged due to the access
rights.

Burglars tend to approach places when no one is around or can see them.
Also there is no right of access to the immediate environs of houses.
Most houses gave gates, fences and gardens, which remain private.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I also used to lock my doors when I lived in a town. I was burgled
several times when living in towns.

Sure. and it's the same people that are being invited out into the
countryside.

There is no evidence for this.

Quoted message said:

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.
>>
>>Of course it is.
>
>Again, provide some evidence. I've just walked across Scotland, wild
>camping most nights, as have 250 others on the TGO Challenge. We've been
>welcome along the way by locals, as we are every year. Some landowners
>have even opened up private lodges and bothies for people to use. This
>was the 28th such annual event and there have never been any problems.
>
>I wild camp regularly all over Scotland and have done so for 30 years. I
>have rarely seen any sign of other wild campers let alone any problems.

Wild campers are responsible for much anti-social behaviour such as
damaging trees, drunken behaviour, lighting fires all around the Loch
Lomond area.

I think you're talking about roadside camping again.

See my question above.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

snip

--
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
>On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 00:03:08 +0100, Chris Townsend
><[email hidden]> wrote:
>
Snip - getting far too long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>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
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>You obviously don't understand what you write.
>>>
>>I understand it perfectly.
>
>Seemingly not, if you think that waiting for a crime to be perpetrated
>against you without having the means to protect your property, and
>then reporting it, is not "reactive".

The conversation went:

" 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."

I was presuming what would happen, not advocating anything or saying
what I though should or could happen. I was saying what I assumed would
happen.

You were using that presumption as part of your argument, which is
advocating it.

Presuming and advocating are different. To presume something is not to
advocate it.

It is if it's used within an argument promoting or opposing something.

Quoted message said:

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?".
>>>
>>>I didn't bring up the Scandiaavian countries, I metioned France and
>>>Germany.which have much less access provision than here.
>>
>>You brought up European countries, which include Scandinavia. I'm not
>>familiar with access in Germany but it's pretty good in some areas of
>>France.
>
>Wild camping is prohibited in many areas.

So?

The only areas I know where wild camping is restricted are in mountain
areas where there is otherwise free access. In the Pyrenees National
Park for example camping is prohibited within an hours walk from the
road (though how far that is isn't specified).

Well you don't know much about France either. Wild camping is banned
in many areas of France Such as Gard and Herault departments.

I never claimed to know much about France. What I said was that access
was pretty good in some areas, which it is.

Quoted message said:

Well it was in Scotland too, before the access legislation.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
snip
>
>
>>>You've even admitted elsewhere they look in your windows.
>>
>>And I have no objection to this. People walk past houses in town and
>>look in the windows.
>>
>
>But there is a greater degree of security because of other people
>about.

The same applies in the countryside.

No it doesn't. There fewer people about.

Having access often means there are more people about.

Not at all. And no-gooders will pick where and when there aren't.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>>> No wonder
>>>landowners want rid of walkers off their land.
>>
>>Most don't want them off. Many welcome them.
>
>So why do you need access rights?

I don't, personally. But I think they are needed in lowland areas and
they are a means for getting rid of intimidating signs and barriers to
access.

There are more signs than ever now. To keep people out of private
driveways

Private driveways aren't part of the access legislation. I'm talking
about the sort of notices that say "deer stalking, access forbidden",
"high-powered rifles in use year round" and the like.

They still prevent access.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>>There's a few who are
>>selfish but they are a small minority.
>
>If that's the case why not let the few have their privacy and let the
>rest welcome them?

I don't believe in rewarding selfishness. There's also a matter of
principle. If only a few people break a law it doesn't mean they should
be ignored.

So like I said in one of my letters, it's the politics of envy born of
the Ramblers communist party origins. You just can't bear to see
anyone have anything you haven't.

Now you're just talking rubbish.

Not at all. It come through loud and clear. And are you saying that
Ramblers didn't come from communist origins?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

However I don't think there are any major access problems at present so
it isn't a big issue.

There are two significant challenges I know of at present.

Which are?

Read the papers.

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.
>>>
>>>Well, it should be watered down and fast.
>>
>>It's not going to be though.
>
>I don't know anyone else that can tell the future. Clever fellow :-))

Of course I could be wrong. But I doubt. Everything is moving towards
greater access and freedom and there are no signs of movement in the
other direction.

That's debatable.

What examples of a movement to restricting access are there?

What examples are there of a movement towards greater access?

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
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>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
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>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?
>>>
>>>
>>>There's a start
>>>
>>>http://living.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=241&id=1336002006
>>
>>Education would seem the answer here and the National Park seem to have
>>a good solution.
>
>Like what?

Like education. Like explaining good outdoor toilet practice and issuing
plastic trowels.

So why should people put up with others sh*****g on their ground?

If people use good practice there's no reason why people shouldn't put
up with it.

Would you like people to s**t on your ground?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>
>> Also, the camping by a car park isn't wild camping and
>>isn't allowed for in the access law.
>
>Where does the line away from a car park exist? If they camp in a
>field adjacent to a car park that's wild camping.

I would say that if you can carry heavy camping gear to a site it's not
wild camping. Wild camping is when you can only take what you can carry
on your back.

You're avoiding the issue.

No, I'm stating what the issue is. Roadside camping is not wild camping.

So what's the difference in your view?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This isn't a new problem.

You admit it's a "problem". So it should be stopped.

Quoted message said:

It existed long before the access legislation.

So it should be stopped.

And below I outlined how it can and has been stopped.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There used to be roadside camping in Glencoe near the old NTS visitor
centre and on Skye near the Sligachan Hotel. The numbers grew so great
that there were problems so both areas were closed to camping - in the
case of Glencoe people were directed to camp sites further down the
glen, in the case of Sligachan a camp site was created near the hotel.
In both cases the roadside camping stopped and the problem went away. As
roadside camping is not a right under the access legislation it could be
stopped.

Where does "roadside camping" stop and "wild camping" begin in your
view?

I've already said that but here it is again: wild camping is when you
can only take what you can carry on your back. If you're a few minutes
from a car it's not wild camping.

Where is that in the access code?

Quoted message said:

Wild camping also means minimum impact and leaving no obvious sign
you've been there.

No it doesn't . It means camping outside of designated campsites.

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.
>>>
>>>You might be surprised.
>>>
>>>People are not prepared to put up with the scum.
>>
>>Who are these "people"? The article you cited above says "the vast
>>majority come and stay and leave without causing any impact". Are you
>>saying the vast majority should suffer because of a small minority?
>
>Actually, the vast majority do cause an impact. Erosion of footpaths,
>disturbance of wildlife, and the pollution they cause by accessing the
>countryside with their cars. Few "ramblers" ramble from their front
>door.

So you disagree with the article you cited as evidence?

In this respect, yes.

Quoted message said:

And you think everyone should stay at home? I presume you don't drive?

Not at all but I'm pointing out that "walking" is not the
environmentally friendly and undamaging recreation you make it out to
be.

It is while you are walking. It's far more environmentally friendly than
driving between places every day.

Why not walk from home?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I drive, but I don't drive hundreds of miles to walk.

So driving is okay for your activities, whatever they are, but not for
walking?

But people can walk from home if the want that type of recreation.

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
>>>>>
>>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>People walk everywhere. Haven't you noticed?
>>
>>I never said people didn't. I said that most people go walking in the
>>Highlands and Southern Uplands, which in terms of the access legislation
>>they do.
>
>Rubbish. Most people walk in easily accessed places like Loch
>Lomondside.

Much of Loch Lomond is in the Highlands.
>

Not as most people would see it.

Then most people are wrong because geographically it is. The Highland
Boundary Fault runs across the southern end of Loch Lomond. All the land
and the loch to the north are in the Highlands.

I know that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

snip
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>Well, you don't read enough.
>>
>>What should I read then?
>>
>>You still haven't produced any evidence.
>
>It is well known that in this area crime and vandalism has increased
>significantly since the Land Reform Act and the National Park was
>introduced. The Convenor of the NP is on record as saying that he
>would not take his young daughter to certain parts of the Park because
>of the problem.

"It is well known" is meaningless. It's not well known to me. Where is
the evidence?

Do a search of the Herald.

It's up to you to produce evidence of your claims.

Do your own research.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Also, are you saying the existence of the National Park is a cause of
crime and vandalism?

Yes, it has increased significantly since the inauguration of the NP.

That's not the same as saying the NP is the cause.

It encourages more scum.

Quoted message said:

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?
>>>
>>>Why do you?
>>
>>I lock my doors at night due to the very remote chance that I might be
>>burgled. That has nothing to do with access.
>
>As you live in a remote place it has everything to do with access.

IWhat has it to do with access?

A lot.

Quoted message said:

Do you think burglars are likely to
think they can't burgle somewhere because they have no rights of access
to the land around it?

They can masquerade as walkers and be unchallenged due to the access
rights.

Burglars tend to approach places when no one is around or can see them.

Exactly. Country properties.

Quoted message said:

Also there is no right of access to the immediate environs of houses.
Most houses gave gates, fences and gardens, which remain private.

Many in the country don't.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I also used to lock my doors when I lived in a town. I was burgled
several times when living in towns.

Sure. and it's the same people that are being invited out into the
countryside.

There is no evidence for this.

Are you saying only honest people access the countryside?

Quoted message said:

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.
>>>
>>>Of course it is.
>>
>>Again, provide some evidence. I've just walked across Scotland, wild
>>camping most nights, as have 250 others on the TGO Challenge. We've been
>>welcome along the way by locals, as we are every year. Some landowners
>>have even opened up private lodges and bothies for people to use. This
>>was the 28th such annual event and there have never been any problems.
>>
>>I wild camp regularly all over Scotland and have done so for 30 years. I
>>have rarely seen any sign of other wild campers let alone any problems.
>
>Wild campers are responsible for much anti-social behaviour such as
>damaging trees, drunken behaviour, lighting fires all around the Loch
>Lomond area.

I think you're talking about roadside camping again.

See my question above.

Quoted message said:

>

snip

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 Fri, 1 Jun 2007 13:53:42 +0100, Chris Townsend
<[email hidden]> wrote:

>In message <[email hidden]>,
>[email hidden] writes
>>On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 00:03:08 +0100, Chris Townsend
>><[email hidden]> wrote:
>>
>Snip - getting far too long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>You obviously don't understand what you write.
>>>>
>>>I understand it perfectly.
>>
>>Seemingly not, if you think that waiting for a crime to be perpetrated
>>against you without having the means to protect your property, and
>>then reporting it, is not "reactive".
>
>The conversation went:
>
>" 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."
>
>I was presuming what would happen, not advocating anything or saying
>what I though should or could happen. I was saying what I assumed would
>happen.

You were using that presumption as part of your argument, which is
advocating it.

Presuming and advocating are different. To presume something is not to
advocate it.

It is if it's used within an argument promoting or opposing something.

It isn't and I wasn't promoting or opposing anything, simply stating
what I presumed happened. I was not saying I was for or against what I
presumed.

Quoted message said:

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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>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?".
>>>>
>>>>I didn't bring up the Scandiaavian countries, I metioned France and
>>>>Germany.which have much less access provision than here.
>>>
>>>You brought up European countries, which include Scandinavia. I'm not
>>>familiar with access in Germany but it's pretty good in some areas of
>>>France.
>>
>>Wild camping is prohibited in many areas.
>
>So?
>
>The only areas I know where wild camping is restricted are in mountain
>areas where there is otherwise free access. In the Pyrenees National
>Park for example camping is prohibited within an hours walk from the
>road (though how far that is isn't specified).

Well you don't know much about France either. Wild camping is banned
in many areas of France Such as Gard and Herault departments.

I never claimed to know much about France. What I said was that access
was pretty good in some areas, which it is.

Quoted message said:

Well it was in Scotland too, before the access legislation.

True. But not everywhere which is why the access legislation was needed
and is something to be proud of.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>
>snip
>>
>>
>>>>You've even admitted elsewhere they look in your windows.
>>>
>>>And I have no objection to this. People walk past houses in town and
>>>look in the windows.
>>>
>>
>>But there is a greater degree of security because of other people
>>about.
>
>The same applies in the countryside.
>

No it doesn't. There fewer people about.

Having access often means there are more people about.

Not at all. And no-gooders will pick where and when there aren't.

As they did before the access legislation. It makes no difference.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>
>>>> No wonder
>>>>landowners want rid of walkers off their land.
>>>
>>>Most don't want them off. Many welcome them.
>>
>>So why do you need access rights?
>
>I don't, personally. But I think they are needed in lowland areas and
>they are a means for getting rid of intimidating signs and barriers to
>access.
>

There are more signs than ever now. To keep people out of private
driveways

Private driveways aren't part of the access legislation. I'm talking
about the sort of notices that say "deer stalking, access forbidden",
"high-powered rifles in use year round" and the like.

They still prevent access.

And they are now illegal and so disappearing. There is much discussion
on signs at present.

They don't prevent access anyway. Many of us just ignore them.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>
>>>There's a few who are
>>>selfish but they are a small minority.
>>
>>If that's the case why not let the few have their privacy and let the
>>rest welcome them?
>
>I don't believe in rewarding selfishness. There's also a matter of
>principle. If only a few people break a law it doesn't mean they should
>be ignored.
>

So like I said in one of my letters, it's the politics of envy born of
the Ramblers communist party origins. You just can't bear to see
anyone have anything you haven't.

Now you're just talking rubbish.

Not at all. It come through loud and clear. And are you saying that
Ramblers didn't come from communist origins?

I'm not concerned with the Ramblers origins as I'm not speaking on their
behalf or representing them in any way. It's rubbish because the
politics of envy, whatever that is, has nothing to do with access. And
the statement "you just can't bear to see anyone have anything you
haven't" is just laughable. However it is clear you can't bear to see
people having access.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>However I don't think there are any major access problems at present so
>it isn't a big issue.

There are two significant challenges I know of at present.

Which are?

Read the papers.

I do. I know of one access challenge, which I wouldn't describe as
significant, though I do hope access rights are established.

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.
>>>>
>>>>Well, it should be watered down and fast.
>>>
>>>It's not going to be though.
>>
>>I don't know anyone else that can tell the future. Clever fellow :-))
>
>Of course I could be wrong. But I doubt. Everything is moving towards
>greater access and freedom and there are no signs of movement in the
>other direction.

That's debatable.

What examples of a movement to restricting access are there?

What examples are there of a movement towards greater access?

The access legislation. Since when there has been work on creating core
paths, access forums to ensure access is available, work to revise the
Outdoor Access Code, public meetings to promote access. All these are
promoting greater access.

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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>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
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>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?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>There's a start
>>>>
>>>>http://living.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=241&id=1336002006
>>>
>>>Education would seem the answer here and the National Park seem to have
>>>a good solution.
>>
>>Like what?
>
>Like education. Like explaining good outdoor toilet practice and issuing
>plastic trowels.

So why should people put up with others sh*****g on their ground?

If people use good practice there's no reason why people shouldn't put
up with it.

Would you like people to s**t on your ground?

If I owned a large estate I would have no problem with it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>
>>
>>> Also, the camping by a car park isn't wild camping and
>>>isn't allowed for in the access law.
>>
>>Where does the line away from a car park exist? If they camp in a
>>field adjacent to a car park that's wild camping.
>
>I would say that if you can carry heavy camping gear to a site it's not
>wild camping. Wild camping is when you can only take what you can carry
>on your back.
>

You're avoiding the issue.

No, I'm stating what the issue is. Roadside camping is not wild camping.

So what's the difference in your view?

I've stated it twice.

"I would say that if you can carry heavy camping gear to a site it's not
wild camping. Wild camping is when you can only take what you can carry
on your back."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>This isn't a new problem.

You admit it's a "problem". So it should be stopped.

>It existed long before the access legislation.

So it should be stopped.

And below I outlined how it can and has been stopped.

Quoted message said:

>There used to be roadside camping in Glencoe near the old NTS visitor
>centre and on Skye near the Sligachan Hotel. The numbers grew so great
>that there were problems so both areas were closed to camping - in the
>case of Glencoe people were directed to camp sites further down the
>glen, in the case of Sligachan a camp site was created near the hotel.
>In both cases the roadside camping stopped and the problem went away. As
>roadside camping is not a right under the access legislation it could be
>stopped.

Where does "roadside camping" stop and "wild camping" begin in your
view?

I've already said that but here it is again: wild camping is when you
can only take what you can carry on your back. If you're a few minutes
from a car it's not wild camping.

Where is that in the access code?

Page 115, Wild Camping.

"This type of camping is lightweight, done in small numbers and only for
two or three nights in any one place. ........ help to avoid causing
problems for local people and land managers by not camping in enclosed
fields of crops or farm animals and by keeping well away from buildings,
roads or historic structures."

I would be quite happy if the Code was amended to state clearly that
roadside camping is not wild camping.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Wild camping also means minimum impact and leaving no obvious sign
you've been there.

No it doesn't . It means camping outside of designated campsites.

Wild camping means camping in wild places, away from roads and
buildings.

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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>fit for their security.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>No they shouldn't, and thankfully they don't have the right
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>You might be surprised.
>>>>
>>>>People are not prepared to put up with the scum.
>>>
>>>Who are these "people"? The article you cited above says "the vast
>>>majority come and stay and leave without causing any impact". Are you
>>>saying the vast majority should suffer because of a small minority?
>>
>>Actually, the vast majority do cause an impact. Erosion of footpaths,
>>disturbance of wildlife, and the pollution they cause by accessing the
>>countryside with their cars. Few "ramblers" ramble from their front
>>door.
>
>So you disagree with the article you cited as evidence?
>

In this respect, yes.

>And you think everyone should stay at home? I presume you don't drive?
>

Not at all but I'm pointing out that "walking" is not the
environmentally friendly and undamaging recreation you make it out to
be.

It is while you are walking. It's far more environmentally friendly than
driving between places every day.

Why not walk from home?

I often do.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I drive, but I don't drive hundreds of miles to walk.

So driving is okay for your activities, whatever they are, but not for
walking?

But people can walk from home if the want that type of recreation.

Many do. It depends where you live though. If I lived in a big city I
wouldn't walk from home.

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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>People walk everywhere. Haven't you noticed?
>>>
>>>I never said people didn't. I said that most people go walking in the
>>>Highlands and Southern Uplands, which in terms of the access legislation
>>>they do.
>>
>>Rubbish. Most people walk in easily accessed places like Loch
>>Lomondside.
>
>Much of Loch Lomond is in the Highlands.
>>

Not as most people would see it.

Then most people are wrong because geographically it is. The Highland
Boundary Fault runs across the southern end of Loch Lomond. All the land
and the loch to the north are in the Highlands.

I know that.

So you know that most of the area is part of the Highlands.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>snip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>Well, you don't read enough.
>>>
>>>What should I read then?
>>>
>>>You still haven't produced any evidence.
>>
>>It is well known that in this area crime and vandalism has increased
>>significantly since the Land Reform Act and the National Park was
>>introduced. The Convenor of the NP is on record as saying that he
>>would not take his young daughter to certain parts of the Park because
>>of the problem.
>
>"It is well known" is meaningless. It's not well known to me. Where is
>the evidence?
>

Do a search of the Herald.

It's up to you to produce evidence of your claims.

Do your own research.

I don't need to. You've made a claim. I've asked you to back it up. You
don't. My conclusion is that's because you can't.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Also, are you saying the existence of the National Park is a cause of
>crime and vandalism?

Yes, it has increased significantly since the inauguration of the NP.

That's not the same as saying the NP is the cause.

It encourages more scum.

How do you define "scum" and how does the NP encourage whoever they are?

Quoted message said:

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?
>>>>
>>>>Why do you?
>>>
>>>I lock my doors at night due to the very remote chance that I might be
>>>burgled. That has nothing to do with access.
>>
>>As you live in a remote place it has everything to do with access.
>
>IWhat has it to do with access?

A lot.

>Do you think burglars are likely to
>think they can't burgle somewhere because they have no rights of access
>to the land around it?
>

They can masquerade as walkers and be unchallenged due to the access
rights.

Burglars tend to approach places when no one is around or can see them.

Exactly. Country properties.

Mostly urban houses at night. There's not much burglary in the
countryside. And burglars are not going to approach anywhere where
there's someone who can see them, access rights or not.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Also there is no right of access to the immediate environs of houses.
Most houses gave gates, fences and gardens, which remain private.

Many in the country don't.

Most of the ones I see do.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>I also used to lock my doors when I lived in a town. I was burgled
>several times when living in towns.

Sure. and it's the same people that are being invited out into the
countryside.

There is no evidence for this.

Are you saying only honest people access the countryside?

No. But the number of dishonest people committing crimes in the
countryside is low. And some of those live in the countryside already.

snip
--
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
>On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 13:53:42 +0100, Chris Townsend
><[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>>In message <[email hidden]>,
>>[email hidden] writes
>>>On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 00:03:08 +0100, Chris Townsend
>>><[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>Snip - getting far too long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>You obviously don't understand what you write.
>>>>>
>>>>I understand it perfectly.
>>>
>>>Seemingly not, if you think that waiting for a crime to be perpetrated
>>>against you without having the means to protect your property, and
>>>then reporting it, is not "reactive".
>>
>>The conversation went:
>>
>>" 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."
>>
>>I was presuming what would happen, not advocating anything or saying
>>what I though should or could happen. I was saying what I assumed would
>>happen.
>
>You were using that presumption as part of your argument, which is
>advocating it.

Presuming and advocating are different. To presume something is not to
advocate it.

It is if it's used within an argument promoting or opposing something.

It isn't and I wasn't promoting or opposing anything, simply stating
what I presumed happened. I was not saying I was for or against what I
presumed.

No. you were using a presumption to favout your argument.

Quoted message said:

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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>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?".
>>>>>
>>>>>I didn't bring up the Scandiaavian countries, I metioned France and
>>>>>Germany.which have much less access provision than here.
>>>>
>>>>You brought up European countries, which include Scandinavia. I'm not
>>>>familiar with access in Germany but it's pretty good in some areas of
>>>>France.
>>>
>>>Wild camping is prohibited in many areas.
>>
>>So?
>>
>>The only areas I know where wild camping is restricted are in mountain
>>areas where there is otherwise free access. In the Pyrenees National
>>Park for example camping is prohibited within an hours walk from the
>>road (though how far that is isn't specified).
>
>Well you don't know much about France either. Wild camping is banned
>in many areas of France Such as Gard and Herault departments.

I never claimed to know much about France. What I said was that access
was pretty good in some areas, which it is.
>

Well it was in Scotland too, before the access legislation.

True. But not everywhere which is why the access legislation was needed
and is something to be proud of.

But it's not "everywhere"in France. And as Europeans perhaps owners
of properties should have the same human rights as others under the
articles that were discussed in the early part of this thread. If
not,why not?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>
>>snip
>>>
>>>
>>>>>You've even admitted elsewhere they look in your windows.
>>>>
>>>>And I have no objection to this. People walk past houses in town and
>>>>look in the windows.
>>>>
>>>
>>>But there is a greater degree of security because of other people
>>>about.
>>
>>The same applies in the countryside.
>>
>
>No it doesn't. There fewer people about.

Having access often means there are more people about.

Not at all. And no-gooders will pick where and when there aren't.

As they did before the access legislation. It makes no difference.

But they could be sent packing before the access legislation as
suspicious. Now all they have to say is they are walkers.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>
>>>
>>>>> No wonder
>>>>>landowners want rid of walkers off their land.
>>>>
>>>>Most don't want them off. Many welcome them.
>>>
>>>So why do you need access rights?
>>
>>I don't, personally. But I think they are needed in lowland areas and
>>they are a means for getting rid of intimidating signs and barriers to
>>access.
>>
>
>There are more signs than ever now. To keep people out of private
>driveways

Private driveways aren't part of the access legislation. I'm talking
about the sort of notices that say "deer stalking, access forbidden",
"high-powered rifles in use year round" and the like.

They still prevent access.

And they are now illegal and so disappearing. There is much discussion
on signs at present.

They don't prevent access anyway. Many of us just ignore them.

So what happens if someone gets shot?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>>>
>>>>There's a few who are
>>>>selfish but they are a small minority.
>>>
>>>If that's the case why not let the few have their privacy and let the
>>>rest welcome them?
>>
>>I don't believe in rewarding selfishness. There's also a matter of
>>principle. If only a few people break a law it doesn't mean they should
>>be ignored.
>>
>
>So like I said in one of my letters, it's the politics of envy born of
>the Ramblers communist party origins. You just can't bear to see
>anyone have anything you haven't.

Now you're just talking rubbish.

Not at all. It come through loud and clear. And are you saying that
Ramblers didn't come from communist origins?

I'm not concerned with the Ramblers origins as I'm not speaking on their
behalf or representing them in any way. It's rubbish because the
politics of envy, whatever that is, has nothing to do with access.

It has very much to do with it.

Quoted message said:

and
the statement "you just can't bear to see anyone have anything you
haven't" is just laughable.

Not at all. On the other hand, I don't care how wealthy people are.
If they have the money to buy an estate it should be theirs to decide
whether they want public access or not.

Quoted message said:

However it is clear you can't bear to see
people having access.

OI don't agree with the sponging walking fraternity who pay nothing to
upkeep where they walk.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>>However I don't think there are any major access problems at present so
>>it isn't a big issue.
>
>There are two significant challenges I know of at present.

Which are?

Read the papers.

I do. I know of one access challenge, which I wouldn't describe as
significant, though I do hope access rights are established.

What happens if they're not?

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.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, it should be watered down and fast.
>>>>
>>>>It's not going to be though.
>>>
>>>I don't know anyone else that can tell the future. Clever fellow :-))
>>
>>Of course I could be wrong. But I doubt. Everything is moving towards
>>greater access and freedom and there are no signs of movement in the
>>other direction.
>
>That's debatable.

What examples of a movement to restricting access are there?

What examples are there of a movement towards greater access?

The access legislation. Since when there has been work on creating core
paths, access forums to ensure access is available, work to revise the
Outdoor Access Code, public meetings to promote access. All these are
promoting greater access.

The revision of the access code could reduce access.

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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>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?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>There's a start
>>>>>
>>>>>http://living.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=241&id=1336002006
>>>>
>>>>Education would seem the answer here and the National Park seem to have
>>>>a good solution.
>>>
>>>Like what?
>>
>>Like education. Like explaining good outdoor toilet practice and issuing
>>plastic trowels.
>
>So why should people put up with others sh*****g on their ground?

If people use good practice there's no reason why people shouldn't put
up with it.

Would you like people to s**t on your ground?

If I owned a large estate I would have no problem with it.

What if you owned a 40 acre estate which was mostly garden ground?
That can't be determined as "large".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Also, the camping by a car park isn't wild camping and
>>>>isn't allowed for in the access law.
>>>
>>>Where does the line away from a car park exist? If they camp in a
>>>field adjacent to a car park that's wild camping.
>>
>>I would say that if you can carry heavy camping gear to a site it's not
>>wild camping. Wild camping is when you can only take what you can carry
>>on your back.
>>
>
>You're avoiding the issue.

No, I'm stating what the issue is. Roadside camping is not wild camping.

So what's the difference in your view?

I've stated it twice.

No you haven't. You've stated the difference between a site and wild
camping.

So, what's the difference between roadside camping and wild camping in
your view?

Quoted message said:

"I would say that if you can carry heavy camping gear to a site it's not
wild camping. Wild camping is when you can only take what you can carry
on your back."

See above.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>>This isn't a new problem.
>
>You admit it's a "problem". So it should be stopped.
>
>>It existed long before the access legislation.
>
>So it should be stopped.

And below I outlined how it can and has been stopped.
>
>>There used to be roadside camping in Glencoe near the old NTS visitor
>>centre and on Skye near the Sligachan Hotel. The numbers grew so great
>>that there were problems so both areas were closed to camping - in the
>>case of Glencoe people were directed to camp sites further down the
>>glen, in the case of Sligachan a camp site was created near the hotel.
>>In both cases the roadside camping stopped and the problem went away. As
>>roadside camping is not a right under the access legislation it could be
>>stopped.
>
>Where does "roadside camping" stop and "wild camping" begin in your
>view?

I've already said that but here it is again: wild camping is when you
can only take what you can carry on your back. If you're a few minutes
from a car it's not wild camping.

Where is that in the access code?

Page 115, Wild Camping.

"This type of camping is lightweight, done in small numbers and only for
two or three nights in any one place. ........ help to avoid causing
problems for local people and land managers by not camping in enclosed
fields of crops or farm animals and by keeping well away from buildings,
roads or historic structures."

I would be quite happy if the Code was amended to state clearly that
roadside camping is not wild camping.

No mention of your criteria. I thought not.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Wild camping also means minimum impact and leaving no obvious sign
you've been there.

No it doesn't . It means camping outside of designated campsites.

Wild camping means camping in wild places, away from roads and
buildings.

Well away from roads can be in a field a few yards from a road.

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
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>fit for their security.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>No they shouldn't, and thankfully they don't have the right
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>You might be surprised.
>>>>>
>>>>>People are not prepared to put up with the scum.
>>>>
>>>>Who are these "people"? The article you cited above says "the vast
>>>>majority come and stay and leave without causing any impact". Are you
>>>>saying the vast majority should suffer because of a small minority?
>>>
>>>Actually, the vast majority do cause an impact. Erosion of footpaths,
>>>disturbance of wildlife, and the pollution they cause by accessing the
>>>countryside with their cars. Few "ramblers" ramble from their front
>>>door.
>>
>>So you disagree with the article you cited as evidence?
>>
>
>In this respect, yes.
>
>
>>And you think everyone should stay at home? I presume you don't drive?
>>
>
>Not at all but I'm pointing out that "walking" is not the
>environmentally friendly and undamaging recreation you make it out to
>be.

It is while you are walking. It's far more environmentally friendly than
driving between places every day.

Why not walk from home?

I often do.

Why not do it all the time?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>I drive, but I don't drive hundreds of miles to walk.

So driving is okay for your activities, whatever they are, but not for
walking?

But people can walk from home if the want that type of recreation.

Many do. It depends where you live though. If I lived in a big city I
wouldn't walk from home.

Why not?

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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>People walk everywhere. Haven't you noticed?
>>>>
>>>>I never said people didn't. I said that most people go walking in the
>>>>Highlands and Southern Uplands, which in terms of the access legislation
>>>>they do.
>>>
>>>Rubbish. Most people walk in easily accessed places like Loch
>>>Lomondside.
>>
>>Much of Loch Lomond is in the Highlands.
>>>
>
>Not as most people would see it.

Then most people are wrong because geographically it is. The Highland
Boundary Fault runs across the southern end of Loch Lomond. All the land
and the loch to the north are in the Highlands.

I know that.

So you know that most of the area is part of the Highlands.

Yes but only in geographical terms. Most visitors don't regard Loch
Lomond as the Highlands.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>
>>snip
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, you don't read enough.
>>>>
>>>>What should I read then?
>>>>
>>>>You still haven't produced any evidence.
>>>
>>>It is well known that in this area crime and vandalism has increased
>>>significantly since the Land Reform Act and the National Park was
>>>introduced. The Convenor of the NP is on record as saying that he
>>>would not take his young daughter to certain parts of the Park because
>>>of the problem.
>>
>>"It is well known" is meaningless. It's not well known to me. Where is
>>the evidence?
>>
>
>Do a search of the Herald.

It's up to you to produce evidence of your claims.

Do your own research.

I don't need to. You've made a claim. I've asked you to back it up. You
don't. My conclusion is that's because you can't.

You're conclusion is wrong.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>>Also, are you saying the existence of the National Park is a cause of
>>crime and vandalism?
>
>Yes, it has increased significantly since the inauguration of the NP.

That's not the same as saying the NP is the cause.

It encourages more scum.

How do you define "scum" and how does the NP encourage whoever they are?

Those involved in antisocial behaviour.

Quoted message said:

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?
>>>>>
>>>>>Why do you?
>>>>
>>>>I lock my doors at night due to the very remote chance that I might be
>>>>burgled. That has nothing to do with access.
>>>
>>>As you live in a remote place it has everything to do with access.
>>
>>IWhat has it to do with access?
>
>A lot.
>
>>Do you think burglars are likely to
>>think they can't burgle somewhere because they have no rights of access
>>to the land around it?
>>
>
>They can masquerade as walkers and be unchallenged due to the access
>rights.

Burglars tend to approach places when no one is around or can see them.

Exactly. Country properties.

Mostly urban houses at night. There's not much burglary in the
countryside. And burglars are not going to approach anywhere where
there's someone who can see them, access rights or not.

They're more likely to be seen by others in the city. Haven't you
seen the latest CCTV figures?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Also there is no right of access to the immediate environs of houses.
Most houses gave gates, fences and gardens, which remain private.

Many in the country don't.

Most of the ones I see do.

What evidence do you have of that? Very few country houses I know
have gates and fences that stop entry.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>>I also used to lock my doors when I lived in a town. I was burgled
>>several times when living in towns.
>
>Sure. and it's the same people that are being invited out into the
>countryside.

There is no evidence for this.

Are you saying only honest people access the countryside?

No.

Good. You're getting there.

Quoted message said:

But the number of dishonest people committing crimes in the
countryside is low. And some of those live in the countryside already.

What evidence do you have of this in percentage terms relating to
population etc?

Quoted message said:

snip

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:

Quoted message said:

>>You were using that presumption as part of your argument, which is
>>advocating it.
>
>Presuming and advocating are different. To presume something is not to
>advocate it.

It is if it's used within an argument promoting or opposing something.

It isn't and I wasn't promoting or opposing anything, simply stating
what I presumed happened. I was not saying I was for or against what I
presumed.

No. you were using a presumption to favout your argument.

How was I doing this (hint, I wasn't)?

snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

True. But not everywhere which is why the access legislation was needed
and is something to be proud of.

But it's not "everywhere"in France. And as Europeans perhaps owners
of properties should have the same human rights as others under the
articles that were discussed in the early part of this thread. If
not,why not?

I would like to see access rights as in Scotland in other countries.
However as I don't live in other countries it's up to the people in
those countries to fight for their right to access.

snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>Having access often means there are more people about.

Not at all. And no-gooders will pick where and when there aren't.

As they did before the access legislation. It makes no difference.

But they could be sent packing before the access legislation as
suspicious. Now all they have to say is they are walkers.

They couldn't actually as there was no law of trespass in Scotland. If
people did damage they could be asked to leave, which is still the case.

snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>
>>
>>There are more signs than ever now. To keep people out of private
>>driveways
>
>Private driveways aren't part of the access legislation. I'm talking
>about the sort of notices that say "deer stalking, access forbidden",
>"high-powered rifles in use year round" and the like.

They still prevent access.

And they are now illegal and so disappearing. There is much discussion
on signs at present.

They don't prevent access anyway. Many of us just ignore them.

So what happens if someone gets shot?

The person who shot them should be prosecuted and jailed. But no one has
ever been shot as far as I know. Mostly these notices are intended to
intimidate.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>
>>>>
>>>>>There's a few who are
>>>>>selfish but they are a small minority.
>>>>
>>>>If that's the case why not let the few have their privacy and let the
>>>>rest welcome them?
>>>
>>>I don't believe in rewarding selfishness. There's also a matter of
>>>principle. If only a few people break a law it doesn't mean they should
>>>be ignored.
>>>
>>
>>So like I said in one of my letters, it's the politics of envy born of
>>the Ramblers communist party origins. You just can't bear to see
>>anyone have anything you haven't.
>
>Now you're just talking rubbish.

Not at all. It come through loud and clear. And are you saying that
Ramblers didn't come from communist origins?

I'm not concerned with the Ramblers origins as I'm not speaking on their
behalf or representing them in any way. It's rubbish because the
politics of envy, whatever that is, has nothing to do with access.

It has very much to do with it.

What has it to do with it? A right of access is having the right to
enjoy the countryside, which is a right everyone should have. Nothing to
do with envy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and
the statement "you just can't bear to see anyone have anything you
haven't" is just laughable.

Not at all. On the other hand, I don't care how wealthy people are.
If they have the money to buy an estate it should be theirs to decide
whether they want public access or not.

No they shouldn't and thankfully they don't.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

However it is clear you can't bear to see
people having access.

OI don't agree with the sponging walking fraternity who pay nothing to
upkeep where they walk.

Well, walkers contribute a vast amount to the economy of countryside
area. That's why so many places organise walking festivals and advertise
their areas for walking. They want to attract walkers.

The conservation organisations who conserve, maintain and improve many
areas are mostly supported by walkers too.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>
>>>However I don't think there are any major access problems at present so
>>>it isn't a big issue.
>>
>>There are two significant challenges I know of at present.
>
>Which are?

Read the papers.

I do. I know of one access challenge, which I wouldn't describe as
significant, though I do hope access rights are established.

What happens if they're not?

I would hope there would be an appeal and the case would continue until
they were established.

Quoted message said:

snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>
>>>Of course I could be wrong. But I doubt. Everything is moving towards
>>>greater access and freedom and there are no signs of movement in the
>>>other direction.
>>
>>That's debatable.
>
>What examples of a movement to restricting access are there?

What examples are there of a movement towards greater access?

The access legislation. Since when there has been work on creating core
paths, access forums to ensure access is available, work to revise the
Outdoor Access Code, public meetings to promote access. All these are
promoting greater access.

The revision of the access code could reduce access.

Unlikely from the meetings I've attended and the information I've seen
submitted. The likelihood is that some grey areas will be clarified.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If I owned a large estate I would have no problem with it.

What if you owned a 40 acre estate which was mostly garden ground?
That can't be determined as "large".

Sounds pretty large to me. This is covered in sections 3.13 to 3.17 of
the access code.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Also, the camping by a car park isn't wild camping and
>>>>>isn't allowed for in the access law.
>>>>
>>>>Where does the line away from a car park exist? If they camp in a
>>>>field adjacent to a car park that's wild camping.
>>>
>>>I would say that if you can carry heavy camping gear to a site it's not
>>>wild camping. Wild camping is when you can only take what you can carry
>>>on your back.
>>>
>>
>>You're avoiding the issue.
>
>No, I'm stating what the issue is. Roadside camping is not wild camping.

So what's the difference in your view?

I've stated it twice.

No you haven't. You've stated the difference between a site and wild
camping.

Three times now.

Quoted message said:

So, what's the difference between roadside camping and wild camping in
your view?

"I would say that if you can carry heavy camping gear to a site it's not
wild camping. Wild camping is when you can only take what you can carry
on your back."

Don't you understand that?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"I would say that if you can carry heavy camping gear to a site it's not
wild camping. Wild camping is when you can only take what you can carry
on your back."

See above.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>
>>>This isn't a new problem.
>>
>>You admit it's a "problem". So it should be stopped.
>>
>>>It existed long before the access legislation.
>>
>>So it should be stopped.
>
>And below I outlined how it can and has been stopped.
>>
>>>There used to be roadside camping in Glencoe near the old NTS visitor
>>>centre and on Skye near the Sligachan Hotel. The numbers grew so great
>>>that there were problems so both areas were closed to camping - in the
>>>case of Glencoe people were directed to camp sites further down the
>>>glen, in the case of Sligachan a camp site was created near the hotel.
>>>In both cases the roadside camping stopped and the problem went away. As
>>>roadside camping is not a right under the access legislation it could be
>>>stopped.
>>
>>Where does "roadside camping" stop and "wild camping" begin in your
>>view?
>
>I've already said that but here it is again: wild camping is when you
>can only take what you can carry on your back. If you're a few minutes
>from a car it's not wild camping.
>

Where is that in the access code?

Page 115, Wild Camping.

"This type of camping is lightweight, done in small numbers and only for
two or three nights in any one place. ........ help to avoid causing
problems for local people and land managers by not camping in enclosed
fields of crops or farm animals and by keeping well away from buildings,
roads or historic structures."

I would be quite happy if the Code was amended to state clearly that
roadside camping is not wild camping.

No mention of your criteria. I thought not.

I never said my criteria was in the access code but I think the code's
definition is pretty close to mine. I think that this is one area where
the code could be made clearer.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Wild camping also means minimum impact and leaving no obvious sign
>you've been there.

No it doesn't . It means camping outside of designated campsites.

Wild camping means camping in wild places, away from roads and
buildings.

Well away from roads can be in a field a few yards from a road.

No, that is close to a road. Note what the code says "keeping well away
from ... roads".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>

Why not walk from home?

I often do.

Why not do it all the time?

Because I want to visit different places.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>
>>I drive, but I don't drive hundreds of miles to walk.
>
>So driving is okay for your activities, whatever they are, but not for
>walking?

But people can walk from home if the want that type of recreation.

Many do. It depends where you live though. If I lived in a big city I
wouldn't walk from home.

Why not?

Because I want to walk in wild places and natural surroundings and not
in an urban environment. As it is, I live in the country but I would not
want to deprive city dwellers of the right to walk in the countryside.

snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>>>
>>>>>>People walk everywhere. Haven't you noticed?
>>>>>
>>>>>I never said people didn't. I said that most people go walking in the
>>>>>Highlands and Southern Uplands, which in terms of the access legislation
>>>>>they do.
>>>>
>>>>Rubbish. Most people walk in easily accessed places like Loch
>>>>Lomondside.
>>>
>>>Much of Loch Lomond is in the Highlands.
>>>>
>>
>>Not as most people would see it.
>
>Then most people are wrong because geographically it is. The Highland
>Boundary Fault runs across the southern end of Loch Lomond. All the land
>and the loch to the north are in the Highlands.

I know that.

So you know that most of the area is part of the Highlands.

Yes but only in geographical terms. Most visitors don't regard Loch
Lomond as the Highlands.

They are still walking in the Highlands there whether they think it's
the Highlands or not. I have no idea whether most visitors think they're
in the Highlands or not. How do you know?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>
>>>>It is well known that in this area crime and vandalism has increased
>>>>significantly since the Land Reform Act and the National Park was
>>>>introduced. The Convenor of the NP is on record as saying that he
>>>>would not take his young daughter to certain parts of the Park because
>>>>of the problem.
>>>
>>>"It is well known" is meaningless. It's not well known to me. Where is
>>>the evidence?
>>>
>>
>>Do a search of the Herald.
>
>It's up to you to produce evidence of your claims.

Do your own research.

I don't need to. You've made a claim. I've asked you to back it up. You
don't. My conclusion is that's because you can't.

You're conclusion is wrong.

Provide some evidence then.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>
>>>Also, are you saying the existence of the National Park is a cause of
>>>crime and vandalism?
>>
>>Yes, it has increased significantly since the inauguration of the NP.
>
>That's not the same as saying the NP is the cause.

It encourages more scum.

How do you define "scum" and how does the NP encourage whoever they are?

Those involved in antisocial behaviour.

And do you think calling people "scum" is going to help them change
their behaviour? I think landowners who restrict access are involved in
anti-social behaviour but I would rather try and talk to them than
insult them.

Also, why should the creation of a national park encourage those
involved in anti-social behaviour?

Quoted message said:

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?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why do you?
>>>>>
>>>>>I lock my doors at night due to the very remote chance that I might be
>>>>>burgled. That has nothing to do with access.
>>>>
>>>>As you live in a remote place it has everything to do with access.
>>>
>>>IWhat has it to do with access?
>>
>>A lot.
>>
>>>Do you think burglars are likely to
>>>think they can't burgle somewhere because they have no rights of access
>>>to the land around it?
>>>
>>
>>They can masquerade as walkers and be unchallenged due to the access
>>rights.
>
>Burglars tend to approach places when no one is around or can see them.

Exactly. Country properties.

Mostly urban houses at night. There's not much burglary in the
countryside. And burglars are not going to approach anywhere where
there's someone who can see them, access rights or not.

They're more likely to be seen by others in the city. Haven't you
seen the latest CCTV figures?

Yes. I've also seen the latest crime figures. Crime in general is going
down. And most crime takes place in cities, despite CCTV

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Also there is no right of access to the immediate environs of houses.
>Most houses gave gates, fences and gardens, which remain private.

Many in the country don't.

Most of the ones I see do.

What evidence do you have of that? Very few country houses I know
have gates and fences that stop entry.

I didn't say they stopped entry. Most gates are unlocked and most fences
can be easily scaled. But they create a boundary round a house inside
which is private property.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>
>>>I also used to lock my doors when I lived in a town. I was burgled
>>>several times when living in towns.
>>
>>Sure. and it's the same people that are being invited out into the
>>countryside.
>
>There is no evidence for this.

Are you saying only honest people access the countryside?

No.

Good. You're getting there.

Getting where?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But the number of dishonest people committing crimes in the
countryside is low. And some of those live in the countryside already.

What evidence do you have of this in percentage terms relating to
population etc?

I have no idea what the percentage terms are. But when I read my local
paper most of the crimes it reports, other than speeding, have been
carried out by local people. Very few people seem to bother to visit
remote areas to commit crimes.

--
Chris Townsend

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

Chris Townsend said:

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

Quoted message said:

Chris Townsend said:

>>>You were using that presumption as part of your argument, which is
>>>advocating it.
>>
>>Presuming and advocating are different. To presume something is not to
>>advocate it.
>
>It is if it's used within an argument promoting or opposing something.

It isn't and I wasn't promoting or opposing anything, simply stating
what I presumed happened. I was not saying I was for or against what I
presumed.

No. you were using a presumption to favout your argument.

How was I doing this (hint, I wasn't)?

Of course you were. A presumption is an interpretation of what might
happen based on your own thoughts. In this case making a
"presumption" on a personal bias to boost your argument when you had
no evidence to show that was the case. Therefore it was part of your
advocacy.

Quoted message said:

snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

True. But not everywhere which is why the access legislation was needed
and is something to be proud of.

But it's not "everywhere"in France. And as Europeans perhaps owners
of properties should have the same human rights as others under the
articles that were discussed in the early part of this thread. If
not,why not?

I would like to see access rights as in Scotland in other countries.

I would like to see it the other way around.

Quoted message said:

However as I don't live in other countries it's up to the people in
those countries to fight for their right to access.

And those who oppose it to fight for their human rights.

Quoted message said:

snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>
>>Having access often means there are more people about.
>
>Not at all. And no-gooders will pick where and when there aren't.

As they did before the access legislation. It makes no difference.

But they could be sent packing before the access legislation as
suspicious. Now all they have to say is they are walkers.

They couldn't actually as there was no law of trespass in Scotland. If
people did damage they could be asked to leave, which is still the case.

If they'd no legitimate reason to be there it could be construed they
were acting suspiciously and told to leave. Also, walking is
damaging.

Quoted message said:

snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>
>>>
>>>There are more signs than ever now. To keep people out of private
>>>driveways
>>
>>Private driveways aren't part of the access legislation. I'm talking
>>about the sort of notices that say "deer stalking, access forbidden",
>>"high-powered rifles in use year round" and the like.
>
>They still prevent access.

And they are now illegal and so disappearing. There is much discussion
on signs at present.

They don't prevent access anyway. Many of us just ignore them.

So what happens if someone gets shot?

The person who shot them should be prosecuted and jailed.

Not if it was an accident.

Quoted message said:

But no one has
ever been shot as far as I know. Mostly these notices are intended to
intimidate.

Quoted message said:

So what are the Health and Safety implications of removing these
notices?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>There's a few who are
>>>>>>selfish but they are a small minority.
>>>>>
>>>>>If that's the case why not let the few have their privacy and let the
>>>>>rest welcome them?
>>>>
>>>>I don't believe in rewarding selfishness. There's also a matter of
>>>>principle. If only a few people break a law it doesn't mean they should
>>>>be ignored.
>>>>
>>>
>>>So like I said in one of my letters, it's the politics of envy born of
>>>the Ramblers communist party origins. You just can't bear to see
>>>anyone have anything you haven't.
>>
>>Now you're just talking rubbish.
>
>Not at all. It come through loud and clear. And are you saying that
>Ramblers didn't come from communist origins?

I'm not concerned with the Ramblers origins as I'm not speaking on their
behalf or representing them in any way. It's rubbish because the
politics of envy, whatever that is, has nothing to do with access.

It has very much to do with it.

What has it to do with it? A right of access is having the right to
enjoy the countryside, which is a right everyone should have. Nothing to
do with envy.

There are plenty of places for people to enjoy the countryside and
always has been, without encroaching on other peoples' enclosed
property.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and
the statement "you just can't bear to see anyone have anything you
haven't" is just laughable.

Not at all. On the other hand, I don't care how wealthy people are.
If they have the money to buy an estate it should be theirs to decide
whether they want public access or not.

No they shouldn't and thankfully they don't.

Why should people invest in property for other people to use?

If the government want public access they should provide it by buying
the properties with owners consent.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

However it is clear you can't bear to see
people having access.

OI don't agree with the sponging walking fraternity who pay nothing to
upkeep where they walk.

Well, walkers contribute a vast amount to the economy of countryside
area.

What evidence do you have of that and what do they contribute to the
maintenance of the ground they walk on?

Week-end walkers and wild campers spend virtually nothing.

Ramblers drive to their walking location, carry their provisions in
their little knapsacks, do their walking, return to their cars, and
drive home. They contribute virtually nothing to the countryside and
sponge off it.

Quoted message said:

That's why so many places organise walking festivals and advertise
their areas for walking. They want to attract walkers.

On other peoples' land without contributing a thing to its
maintenance.

Quoted message said:

The conservation organisations who conserve, maintain and improve many
areas are mostly supported by walkers too.

Grant suckers.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>
>>>
>>>>However I don't think there are any major access problems at present so
>>>>it isn't a big issue.
>>>
>>>There are two significant challenges I know of at present.
>>
>>Which are?
>
>Read the papers.

I do. I know of one access challenge, which I wouldn't describe as
significant, though I do hope access rights are established.

What happens if they're not?

I would hope there would be an appeal and the case would continue until
they were established.

What happens if they win on appeal and access is denied?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>
>>>>Of course I could be wrong. But I doubt. Everything is moving towards
>>>>greater access and freedom and there are no signs of movement in the
>>>>other direction.
>>>
>>>That's debatable.
>>
>>What examples of a movement to restricting access are there?
>
>What examples are there of a movement towards greater access?

The access legislation. Since when there has been work on creating core
paths, access forums to ensure access is available, work to revise the
Outdoor Access Code, public meetings to promote access. All these are
promoting greater access.

The revision of the access code could reduce access.

Unlikely from the meetings I've attended and the information I've seen
submitted. The likelihood is that some grey areas will be clarified.

A human rights challenge to maintain privacy, if successful, might
undermine the whole Land Reform Act. What would happen then?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If I owned a large estate I would have no problem with it.

What if you owned a 40 acre estate which was mostly garden ground?
That can't be determined as "large".

Sounds pretty large to me. This is covered in sections 3.13 to 3.17 of
the access code.

Not large at all and any part of that likely to be infested with
walkers could be an infringement of privacy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, the camping by a car park isn't wild camping and
>>>>>>isn't allowed for in the access law.
>>>>>
>>>>>Where does the line away from a car park exist? If they camp in a
>>>>>field adjacent to a car park that's wild camping.
>>>>
>>>>I would say that if you can carry heavy camping gear to a site it's not
>>>>wild camping. Wild camping is when you can only take what you can carry
>>>>on your back.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You're avoiding the issue.
>>
>>No, I'm stating what the issue is. Roadside camping is not wild camping.
>
>So what's the difference in your view?

I've stated it twice.

No you haven't. You've stated the difference between a site and wild
camping.

Three times now.

Quoted message said:

So, what's the difference between roadside camping and wild camping in
your view?

"I would say that if you can carry heavy camping gear to a site it's not
wild camping. Wild camping is when you can only take what you can carry
on your back."

Don't you understand that?

I understand perfectly that you are not answering the question. I am
not asking about "sites". I'm asking what is the difference between
roadside camping and wild camping?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"I would say that if you can carry heavy camping gear to a site it's not
wild camping. Wild camping is when you can only take what you can carry
on your back."

See above.

Quoted message said:

>
>
>>>
>>>>This isn't a new problem.
>>>
>>>You admit it's a "problem". So it should be stopped.
>>>
>>>>It existed long before the access legislation.
>>>
>>>So it should be stopped.
>>
>>And below I outlined how it can and has been stopped.
>>>
>>>>There used to be roadside camping in Glencoe near the old NTS visitor
>>>>centre and on Skye near the Sligachan Hotel. The numbers grew so great
>>>>that there were problems so both areas were closed to camping - in the
>>>>case of Glencoe people were directed to camp sites further down the
>>>>glen, in the case of Sligachan a camp site was created near the hotel.
>>>>In both cases the roadside camping stopped and the problem went away. As
>>>>roadside camping is not a right under the access legislation it could be
>>>>stopped.
>>>
>>>Where does "roadside camping" stop and "wild camping" begin in your
>>>view?
>>
>>I've already said that but here it is again: wild camping is when you
>>can only take what you can carry on your back. If you're a few minutes
>>from a car it's not wild camping.
>>
>
>Where is that in the access code?

Page 115, Wild Camping.

"This type of camping is lightweight, done in small numbers and only for
two or three nights in any one place. ........ help to avoid causing
problems for local people and land managers by not camping in enclosed
fields of crops or farm animals and by keeping well away from buildings,
roads or historic structures."

I would be quite happy if the Code was amended to state clearly that
roadside camping is not wild camping.

No mention of your criteria. I thought not.

I never said my criteria was in the access code but I think the code's
definition is pretty close to mine. I think that this is one area where
the code could be made clearer.

So how about answering the question above?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>
>>Wild camping also means minimum impact and leaving no obvious sign
>>you've been there.
>
>No it doesn't . It means camping outside of designated campsites.

Wild camping means camping in wild places, away from roads and
buildings.

Well away from roads can be in a field a few yards from a road.

No, that is close to a road. Note what the code says "keeping well away
from ... roads".

How far is "well away"?

So if someone wild camps near a road they should be told to move ?

Most small estates are near roads.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>
>
>Why not walk from home?

I often do.

Why not do it all the time?

Because I want to visit different places.

And sponge on other peoples' facilities.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>
>>>
>>>I drive, but I don't drive hundreds of miles to walk.
>>
>>So driving is okay for your activities, whatever they are, but not for
>>walking?
>
>But people can walk from home if the want that type of recreation.

Many do. It depends where you live though. If I lived in a big city I
wouldn't walk from home.

Why not?

Because I want to walk in wild places and natural surroundings and not
in an urban environment.

But there wasn't a problem about walking in wild places before the
Land Reform Act. There were many places you could walk without any
problem whatsoever.

Quoted message said:

As it is, I live in the country but I would not
want to deprive city dwellers of the right to walk in the countryside.

See above.

Quoted message said:

snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>People walk everywhere. Haven't you noticed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I never said people didn't. I said that most people go walking in the
>>>>>>Highlands and Southern Uplands, which in terms of the access legislation
>>>>>>they do.
>>>>>
>>>>>Rubbish. Most people walk in easily accessed places like Loch
>>>>>Lomondside.
>>>>
>>>>Much of Loch Lomond is in the Highlands.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>Not as most people would see it.
>>
>>Then most people are wrong because geographically it is. The Highland
>>Boundary Fault runs across the southern end of Loch Lomond. All the land
>>and the loch to the north are in the Highlands.
>
>I know that.

So you know that most of the area is part of the Highlands.

Yes but only in geographical terms. Most visitors don't regard Loch
Lomond as the Highlands.

They are still walking in the Highlands there whether they think it's
the Highlands or not. I have no idea whether most visitors think they're
in the Highlands or not. How do you know?

Because it's regarded as Glasgow's playground first and foremost and
significantly different types of users and abusers are at each others
throats.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>>
>>>>>It is well known that in this area crime and vandalism has increased
>>>>>significantly since the Land Reform Act and the National Park was
>>>>>introduced. The Convenor of the NP is on record as saying that he
>>>>>would not take his young daughter to certain parts of the Park because
>>>>>of the problem.
>>>>
>>>>"It is well known" is meaningless. It's not well known to me. Where is
>>>>the evidence?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Do a search of the Herald.
>>
>>It's up to you to produce evidence of your claims.
>
>Do your own research.

I don't need to. You've made a claim. I've asked you to back it up. You
don't. My conclusion is that's because you can't.

You're conclusion is wrong.

Provide some evidence then.

Read the papers.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>
>>>>Also, are you saying the existence of the National Park is a cause of
>>>>crime and vandalism?
>>>
>>>Yes, it has increased significantly since the inauguration of the NP.
>>
>>That's not the same as saying the NP is the cause.
>
>It encourages more scum.

How do you define "scum" and how does the NP encourage whoever they are?

Those involved in antisocial behaviour.

And do you think calling people "scum" is going to help them change
their behaviour?

How would you change their behaviour? All efforts to change human
behaviour by persuasion in recent times have failed.

Quoted message said:

I think landowners who restrict access are involved in
anti-social behaviour but I would rather try and talk to them than
insult them.

They are merely exercising their right of privacy - which is a basic
human right.

Quoted message said:

Also, why should the creation of a national park encourage those
involved in anti-social behaviour?

Because it is marketed as a playground for all and is a destructive
influence on the countryside environment.

Quoted message said:

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?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Why do you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I lock my doors at night due to the very remote chance that I might be
>>>>>>burgled. That has nothing to do with access.
>>>>>
>>>>>As you live in a remote place it has everything to do with access.
>>>>
>>>>IWhat has it to do with access?
>>>
>>>A lot.
>>>
>>>>Do you think burglars are likely to
>>>>think they can't burgle somewhere because they have no rights of access
>>>>to the land around it?
>>>>
>>>
>>>They can masquerade as walkers and be unchallenged due to the access
>>>rights.
>>
>>Burglars tend to approach places when no one is around or can see them.
>
>Exactly. Country properties.

Mostly urban houses at night. There's not much burglary in the
countryside. And burglars are not going to approach anywhere where
there's someone who can see them, access rights or not.

They're more likely to be seen by others in the city. Haven't you
seen the latest CCTV figures?

Yes. I've also seen the latest crime figures. Crime in general is going
down. And most crime takes place in cities, despite CCTV

Because there's a greater density of people.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>>Also there is no right of access to the immediate environs of houses.
>>Most houses gave gates, fences and gardens, which remain private.
>
>Many in the country don't.

Most of the ones I see do.

What evidence do you have of that? Very few country houses I know
have gates and fences that stop entry.

I didn't say they stopped entry. Most gates are unlocked and most fences
can be easily scaled. But they create a boundary round a house inside
which is private property.

Very few country houses I know have gates and fences.

And if they do the Ramblers object.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>
>>>
>>>>I also used to lock my doors when I lived in a town. I was burgled
>>>>several times when living in towns.
>>>
>>>Sure. and it's the same people that are being invited out into the
>>>countryside.
>>
>>There is no evidence for this.
>
>Are you saying only honest people access the countryside?

No.

Good. You're getting there.

Getting where?

Acknowledging crime in the countryside.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But the number of dishonest people committing crimes in the
countryside is low. And some of those live in the countryside already.

What evidence do you have of this in percentage terms relating to
population etc?

I have no idea what the percentage terms are.

Thought not. so you've no evidence.

Quoted message said:

But when I read my local
paper most of the crimes it reports, other than speeding, have been
carried out by local people. Very few people seem to bother to visit
remote areas to commit crimes.

What about areas that are not "remote" but in the countryside?

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 Fri, 1 Jun 2007 23:13:56 +0100, Chris Townsend
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>>You were using that presumption as part of your argument, which is
>>>>advocating it.
>>>
>>>Presuming and advocating are different. To presume something is not to
>>>advocate it.
>>
>>It is if it's used within an argument promoting or opposing something.
>
>It isn't and I wasn't promoting or opposing anything, simply stating
>what I presumed happened. I was not saying I was for or against what I
>presumed.

No. you were using a presumption to favout your argument.

How was I doing this (hint, I wasn't)?

Of course you were. A presumption is an interpretation of what might
happen based on your own thoughts. In this case making a
"presumption" on a personal bias to boost your argument when you had
no evidence to show that was the case. Therefore it was part of your
advocacy.

The presumption I made didn't in any way boost my argument. It doesn't
matter in the slightest whether my presumption was correct or not.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

snip

Quoted message said:

>
>True. But not everywhere which is why the access legislation was needed
>and is something to be proud of.

But it's not "everywhere"in France. And as Europeans perhaps owners
of properties should have the same human rights as others under the
articles that were discussed in the early part of this thread. If
not,why not?

I would like to see access rights as in Scotland in other countries.

I would like to see it the other way around.

I know. You are an authoritarian in favour of restricting freedom and
dictating to people.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

However as I don't live in other countries it's up to the people in
those countries to fight for their right to access.

And those who oppose it to fight for their human rights.

Restricting access is not a human right. Freedom of access to the
countryside is a human right.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

snip

Quoted message said:

>>>
>>>Having access often means there are more people about.
>>
>>Not at all. And no-gooders will pick where and when there aren't.
>
>As they did before the access legislation. It makes no difference.

But they could be sent packing before the access legislation as
suspicious. Now all they have to say is they are walkers.

They couldn't actually as there was no law of trespass in Scotland. If
people did damage they could be asked to leave, which is still the case.

If they'd no legitimate reason to be there it could be construed they
were acting suspiciously and told to leave.

Being in the countryside for its own sake is a legitimate reason for
being there.

Quoted message said:

Also, walking is
damaging.

So you're opposed to walking/ You'd prefer people to sit at home all the
time?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

snip

Quoted message said:

>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>There are more signs than ever now. To keep people out of private
>>>>driveways
>>>
>>>Private driveways aren't part of the access legislation. I'm talking
>>>about the sort of notices that say "deer stalking, access forbidden",
>>>"high-powered rifles in use year round" and the like.
>>
>>They still prevent access.
>
>And they are now illegal and so disappearing. There is much discussion
>on signs at present.
>
>They don't prevent access anyway. Many of us just ignore them.

So what happens if someone gets shot?

The person who shot them should be prosecuted and jailed.

Not if it was an accident.

Yes if it was an accident, as with cars.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But no one has
ever been shot as far as I know. Mostly these notices are intended to
intimidate.

Quoted message said:

So what are the Health and Safety implications of removing these
notices?

There are none. The notices are illegal under the Land Reform Act. Many
have come down or been reworded already.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There's a few who are
>>>>>>>selfish but they are a small minority.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If that's the case why not let the few have their privacy and let the
>>>>>>rest welcome them?
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't believe in rewarding selfishness. There's also a matter of
>>>>>principle. If only a few people break a law it doesn't mean they should
>>>>>be ignored.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So like I said in one of my letters, it's the politics of envy born of
>>>>the Ramblers communist party origins. You just can't bear to see
>>>>anyone have anything you haven't.
>>>
>>>Now you're just talking rubbish.
>>
>>Not at all. It come through loud and clear. And are you saying that
>>Ramblers didn't come from communist origins?
>
>I'm not concerned with the Ramblers origins as I'm not speaking on their
>behalf or representing them in any way. It's rubbish because the
>politics of envy, whatever that is, has nothing to do with access.

It has very much to do with it.

What has it to do with it? A right of access is having the right to
enjoy the countryside, which is a right everyone should have. Nothing to
do with envy.

There are plenty of places for people to enjoy the countryside and
always has been,

Such as Loch Lomondside.

Quoted message said:

without encroaching on other peoples' enclosed
property.

No one is talking about encroaching on enclosed property as long as the
property is not extensive. However enclosing large tracts of land
without providing a means of access is not permissible.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>and
>the statement "you just can't bear to see anyone have anything you
>haven't" is just laughable.

Not at all. On the other hand, I don't care how wealthy people are.
If they have the money to buy an estate it should be theirs to decide
whether they want public access or not.

No they shouldn't and thankfully they don't.

Why should people invest in property for other people to use?

If they choose to invest in property knowing people will use it that's
their choice. They don't have to buy it. Some landowners encourage
access and provide facilities that earn them money. The Rothiemurchus
Estate in the Cairngorms is a good example of this.

Quoted message said:

If the government want public access they should provide it by buying
the properties with owners consent.

I'd be in favour of that, as long as the prices were reasonable. It
doesn't have to be central government or even government at all, just
bodies in favour of access and conservation. I'm in favour of community
buy-outs, of which there have been several in recent years, and
ownership by conservation bodies like the RSPB, NTS and JMT, who have
all bought more land in recent years.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>However it is clear you can't bear to see
>people having access.

OI don't agree with the sponging walking fraternity who pay nothing to
upkeep where they walk.

Well, walkers contribute a vast amount to the economy of countryside
area.

What evidence do you have of that and what do they contribute to the
maintenance of the ground they walk on?

Http://www.snh.org.uk/trends/trends_notes/pdf/Access%20and%20recreation/R
ecreation%20in%20the%20uplands.pdf

"Mountain-based recreation is economically important to many
communities, both within and outwith the main tourist season. Between
January and March it may comprise more than 80% of tourism-related
income. In 1996, it was calculated that mountaineers spent a total of
£148.9 million in the Highlands and Islands Enterprise area, generating
about 3,950 jobs (Highlands and Islands Enterprise, 1996)."

There are other studies.

Quoted message said:

Week-end walkers and wild campers spend virtually nothing.

How do you know? The figures suggest the opposite.

Quoted message said:

Ramblers drive to their walking location, carry their provisions in
their little knapsacks, do their walking, return to their cars, and
drive home. They contribute virtually nothing to the countryside and
sponge off it.

This is simply ignorant prejudice on your part. Walkers are in fact
essential to the economy of rural areas.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's why so many places organise walking festivals and advertise
their areas for walking. They want to attract walkers.

On other peoples' land without contributing a thing to its
maintenance.

Grants are given to landowners for maintenance, grants for paths,
woodland restoration and more. That's apart from all the contributions
give to conservation organisations whose whole reason for existing is to
maintain and restore land.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The conservation organisations who conserve, maintain and improve many
areas are mostly supported by walkers too.

Grant suckers.

The people who are conserving the countryside. You'd rather see it
destroyed I presume. These organisations are packed with volunteers who
give up their time and expertise.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>However I don't think there are any major access problems at present so
>>>>>it isn't a big issue.
>>>>
>>>>There are two significant challenges I know of at present.
>>>
>>>Which are?
>>
>>Read the papers.
>
>I do. I know of one access challenge, which I wouldn't describe as
>significant, though I do hope access rights are established.

What happens if they're not?

I would hope there would be an appeal and the case would continue until
they were established.

What happens if they win on appeal and access is denied?

We'll have to wait and see. The campaign for access would continue. I'm
not directly involved in it so I don't know what those who are would do.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

snip

Quoted message said:

>>>>>
>>>>>Of course I could be wrong. But I doubt. Everything is moving towards
>>>>>greater access and freedom and there are no signs of movement in the
>>>>>other direction.
>>>>
>>>>That's debatable.
>>>
>>>What examples of a movement to restricting access are there?
>>
>>What examples are there of a movement towards greater access?
>
>The access legislation. Since when there has been work on creating core
>paths, access forums to ensure access is available, work to revise the
>Outdoor Access Code, public meetings to promote access. All these are
>promoting greater access.

The revision of the access code could reduce access.

Unlikely from the meetings I've attended and the information I've seen
submitted. The likelihood is that some grey areas will be clarified.

A human rights challenge to maintain privacy, if successful, might
undermine the whole Land Reform Act. What would happen then?

I can't imagine that happening. If it did I would hope the Scottish
Executive would ignore the ruling and maintain the Land Reform Act.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>If I owned a large estate I would have no problem with it.

What if you owned a 40 acre estate which was mostly garden ground?
That can't be determined as "large".

Sounds pretty large to me. This is covered in sections 3.13 to 3.17 of
the access code.

Not large at all and any part of that likely to be infested with
walkers could be an infringement of privacy.

Your use of the word "infested" shows your prejudice and hatred.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, the camping by a car park isn't wild camping and
>>>>>>>isn't allowed for in the access law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Where does the line away from a car park exist? If they camp in a
>>>>>>field adjacent to a car park that's wild camping.
>>>>>
>>>>>I would say that if you can carry heavy camping gear to a site it's not
>>>>>wild camping. Wild camping is when you can only take what you can carry
>>>>>on your back.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You're avoiding the issue.
>>>
>>>No, I'm stating what the issue is. Roadside camping is not wild camping.
>>
>>So what's the difference in your view?
>
>I've stated it twice.

No you haven't. You've stated the difference between a site and wild
camping.

Three times now.

Quoted message said:

So, what's the difference between roadside camping and wild camping in
your view?

"I would say that if you can carry heavy camping gear to a site it's not
wild camping. Wild camping is when you can only take what you can carry
on your back."

Don't you understand that?

I understand perfectly that you are not answering the question. I am
not asking about "sites". I'm asking what is the difference between
roadside camping and wild camping?

Oh I see. You don't understand the word "site". By it I mean somewhere
someone camps, not an organised paying site. I'll reword it.

I would say that if you can carry heavy camping gear to a place to camp
it's not wild camping. Wild camping is when you can only take what you
can carry on your back."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>"I would say that if you can carry heavy camping gear to a site it's not
>wild camping. Wild camping is when you can only take what you can carry
>on your back."

See above.

>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>This isn't a new problem.
>>>>
>>>>You admit it's a "problem". So it should be stopped.
>>>>
>>>>>It existed long before the access legislation.
>>>>
>>>>So it should be stopped.
>>>
>>>And below I outlined how it can and has been stopped.
>>>>
>>>>>There used to be roadside camping in Glencoe near the old NTS visitor
>>>>>centre and on Skye near the Sligachan Hotel. The numbers grew so great
>>>>>that there were problems so both areas were closed to camping - in the
>>>>>case of Glencoe people were directed to camp sites further down the
>>>>>glen, in the case of Sligachan a camp site was created near the hotel.
>>>>>In both cases the roadside camping stopped and the problem went away. As
>>>>>roadside camping is not a right under the access legislation it could be
>>>>>stopped.
>>>>
>>>>Where does "roadside camping" stop and "wild camping" begin in your
>>>>view?
>>>
>>>I've already said that but here it is again: wild camping is when you
>>>can only take what you can carry on your back. If you're a few minutes
>>>from a car it's not wild camping.
>>>
>>
>>Where is that in the access code?
>
>Page 115, Wild Camping.
>
>"This type of camping is lightweight, done in small numbers and only for
>two or three nights in any one place. ........ help to avoid causing
>problems for local people and land managers by not camping in enclosed
>fields of crops or farm animals and by keeping well away from buildings,
>roads or historic structures."
>
>I would be quite happy if the Code was amended to state clearly that
>roadside camping is not wild camping.
>
>
No mention of your criteria. I thought not.

I never said my criteria was in the access code but I think the code's
definition is pretty close to mine. I think that this is one area where
the code could be made clearer.

So how about answering the question above?

I have answered it. That's the closest the access code comes to what I'm
saying.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>
>>
>>>Wild camping also means minimum impact and leaving no obvious sign
>>>you've been there.
>>
>>No it doesn't . It means camping outside of designated campsites.
>
>Wild camping means camping in wild places, away from roads and
>buildings.

Well away from roads can be in a field a few yards from a road.

No, that is close to a road. Note what the code says "keeping well away
from ... roads".

How far is "well away"?

Farther than you can carry heavy car camping gear. I'd say at least 1/4
mile.

Quoted message said:

So if someone wild camps near a road they should be told to move ?

If the owner wants them to yes. Many owners aren't bothered about it.

In areas where roadside camping is prevalent and perhaps becoming a
problem I think an organised site should be set up, where people pay to
camp and facilities are provided, as was done at Sligachan on Skye.

Quoted message said:

Most small estates are near roads.

In which case it's up to the owners whether people camp there or not.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>
>>
>>Why not walk from home?
>
>I often do.

Why not do it all the time?

Because I want to visit different places.

And sponge on other peoples' facilities.

Do you think all tourism is sponging? Do you think no one should ever
travel?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>I drive, but I don't drive hundreds of miles to walk.
>>>
>>>So driving is okay for your activities, whatever they are, but not for
>>>walking?
>>
>>But people can walk from home if the want that type of recreation.
>
>Many do. It depends where you live though. If I lived in a big city I
>wouldn't walk from home.

Why not?

Because I want to walk in wild places and natural surroundings and not
in an urban environment.

But there wasn't a problem about walking in wild places before the
Land Reform Act. There were many places you could walk without any
problem whatsoever.

I think the benefits of the Land Reform Act will be felt mostly in
lowland areas with the core path programme. I think too it gives people
more confidence to walk in wild places knowing they have a legal right
to do so. And it provides a means for dealing with access problems in
those few areas where they do occur.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As it is, I live in the country but I would not
want to deprive city dwellers of the right to walk in the countryside.

See above.

Quoted message said:

snip

Quoted message said:

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>People walk everywhere. Haven't you noticed?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I never said people didn't. I said that most people go walking in the
>>>>>>>Highlands and Southern Uplands, which in terms of the access
>>>>>>>legislation
>>>>>>>they do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Rubbish. Most people walk in easily accessed places like Loch
>>>>>>Lomondside.
>>>>>
>>>>>Much of Loch Lomond is in the Highlands.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not as most people would see it.
>>>
>>>Then most people are wrong because geographically it is. The Highland
>>>Boundary Fault runs across the southern end of Loch Lomond. All the land
>>>and the loch to the north are in the Highlands.
>>
>>I know that.
>
>So you know that most of the area is part of the Highlands.

Yes but only in geographical terms. Most visitors don't regard Loch
Lomond as the Highlands.

They are still walking in the Highlands there whether they think it's
the Highlands or not. I have no idea whether most visitors think they're
in the Highlands or not. How do you know?

Because it's regarded as Glasgow's playground first and foremost and
significantly different types of users and abusers are at each others
throats.

Being regarded as Glasgow's playground (which it has been since at least
the 1930s) doesn't mean people don't regard it as the Highlands.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>>>
>>>>>>It is well known that in this area crime and vandalism has increased
>>>>>>significantly since the Land Reform Act and the National Park was
>>>>>>introduced. The Convenor of the NP is on record as saying that he
>>>>>>would not take his young daughter to certain parts of the Park because
>>>>>>of the problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>"It is well known" is meaningless. It's not well known to me. Where is
>>>>>the evidence?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Do a search of the Herald.
>>>
>>>It's up to you to produce evidence of your claims.
>>
>>Do your own research.
>
>I don't need to. You've made a claim. I've asked you to back it up. You
>don't. My conclusion is that's because you can't.

You're conclusion is wrong.

Provide some evidence then.

Read the papers.

Your usual response when you have no evidence to provide.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>
>>>>>Also, are you saying the existence of the National Park is a cause of
>>>>>crime and vandalism?
>>>>
>>>>Yes, it has increased significantly since the inauguration of the NP.
>>>
>>>That's not the same as saying the NP is the cause.
>>
>>It encourages more scum.
>
>How do you define "scum" and how does the NP encourage whoever they are?

Those involved in antisocial behaviour.

And do you think calling people "scum" is going to help them change
their behaviour?

How would you change their behaviour?

Education.

Quoted message said:

All efforts to change human
behaviour by persuasion in recent times have failed.

I disagree. I presume you have evidence for this claim. Or do you
believe people's behaviour is set at birth and people can be divided
into fixed groups?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think landowners who restrict access are involved in
anti-social behaviour but I would rather try and talk to them than
insult them.

They are merely exercising their right of privacy - which is a basic
human right.

Keeping large areas closed to access is nothing to do with privacy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Also, why should the creation of a national park encourage those
involved in anti-social behaviour?

Because it is marketed as a playground for all and is a destructive
influence on the countryside environment.

Is it marketed as a playground? I'm not that familiar with the Loch
Lomond NP.

Quoted message said:

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?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Why do you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I lock my doors at night due to the very remote chance that I might be
>>>>>>>burgled. That has nothing to do with access.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As you live in a remote place it has everything to do with access.
>>>>>
>>>>>IWhat has it to do with access?
>>>>
>>>>A lot.
>>>>
>>>>>Do you think burglars are likely to
>>>>>think they can't burgle somewhere because they have no rights of access
>>>>>to the land around it?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>They can masquerade as walkers and be unchallenged due to the access
>>>>rights.
>>>
>>>Burglars tend to approach places when no one is around or can see them.
>>
>>Exactly. Country properties.
>
>Mostly urban houses at night. There's not much burglary in the
>countryside. And burglars are not going to approach anywhere where
>there's someone who can see them, access rights or not.

They're more likely to be seen by others in the city. Haven't you
seen the latest CCTV figures?

Yes. I've also seen the latest crime figures. Crime in general is going
down. And most crime takes place in cities, despite CCTV

Because there's a greater density of people.

Of course.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>
>>>Also there is no right of access to the immediate environs of houses.
>>>Most houses gave gates, fences and gardens, which remain private.
>>
>>Many in the country don't.
>
>Most of the ones I see do.

What evidence do you have of that? Very few country houses I know
have gates and fences that stop entry.

I didn't say they stopped entry. Most gates are unlocked and most fences
can be easily scaled. But they create a boundary round a house inside
which is private property.

Very few country houses I know have gates and fences.

Most of the ones round here do, for the areas immediately surrounding
the houses.

Quoted message said:

And if they do the Ramblers object.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>I also used to lock my doors when I lived in a town. I was burgled
>>>>>several times when living in towns.
>>>>
>>>>Sure. and it's the same people that are being invited out into the
>>>>countryside.
>>>
>>>There is no evidence for this.
>>
>>Are you saying only honest people access the countryside?
>
>No.

Good. You're getting there.

Getting where?

Acknowledging crime in the countryside.

I never denied it. I've just said it isn't a big problem.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>But the number of dishonest people committing crimes in the
>countryside is low. And some of those live in the countryside already.
>

What evidence do you have of this in percentage terms relating to
population etc?

I have no idea what the percentage terms are.

Thought not. so you've no evidence.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2003/05/17154/22010

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/12/20379/48077

The above is for the whole of Scotland. Note that is says that
housebreaking has significantly declined.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But when I read my local
paper most of the crimes it reports, other than speeding, have been
carried out by local people. Very few people seem to bother to visit
remote areas to commit crimes.

What about areas that are not "remote" but in the countryside?

Such as? I would assume, without checking figures, that some crimes
would be carried out by those from nearby towns.

--
Chris Townsend

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

Chris Townsend said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The conservation organisations who conserve, maintain and improve many
areas are mostly supported by walkers too.

Grant suckers.

The people who are conserving the countryside. You'd rather see it
destroyed I presume. These organisations are packed with volunteers who
give up their time and expertise.

It's just that Angus doesn't approve of these organisations. He's the
one who keeps banging on about the CON in conservation and he is
obviously the only person who actually knows anything about it.

Either that or he's just a troll. Hmm, I wonder which?

Quoted message said:

Your use of the word "infested" shows your prejudice and hatred.

Yes, he dislikes us because we smell, don't pay our way and are all
apparently communists.

Roy.

In message <[email hidden]>, Roy
<roy@somedomainsomewhere.?.invalid> writes

Quoted message said:

Chris Townsend said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> The conservation organisations who conserve, maintain and improve many
> areas are mostly supported by walkers too.

Grant suckers.

The people who are conserving the countryside. You'd rather see it
destroyed I presume. These organisations are packed with volunteers
who give up their time and expertise.

It's just that Angus doesn't approve of these organisations. He's the
one who keeps banging on about the CON in conservation and he is
obviously the only person who actually knows anything about it.

Either that or he's just a troll. Hmm, I wonder which?

I don't think he's just a troll. I think he's serious about all this.
Just look at the websites he references.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Your use of the word "infested" shows your prejudice and hatred.

Yes, he dislikes us because we smell, don't pay our way and are all
apparently communists.

Yes, he seems to prefer the landowning fraternity even though he's
opposed to hunting, not something most walkers do. I guess he's envious
and would like a big estate of his own he could fence to keep walkers
out.
--
Chris Townsend

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

On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 14:59:38 +0100, Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere>

Quoted message said:

Chris Townsend said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> The conservation organisations who conserve, maintain and improve many
> areas are mostly supported by walkers too.

Grant suckers.

The people who are conserving the countryside. You'd rather see it
destroyed I presume. These organisations are packed with volunteers who
give up their time and expertise.

It's just that Angus doesn't approve of these organisations.

A fair observation.

Quoted message said:

He's the
one who keeps banging on about the CON in conservation and he is
obviously the only person who actually knows anything about it.

What do they actually conserve?

Quoted message said:

Either that or he's just a troll. Hmm, I wonder which?

Quoted message said:

Your use of the word "infested" shows your prejudice and hatred.

Yes, he dislikes us because we smell, don't pay our way and are all
apparently communists.

Roy.

Perhaps you don't smell but walkers certainly don't pay for their
recreation like others have to do and the Ramblers are born of the
Manchester Communist Party.

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]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
The people who are conserving the countryside. You'd rather see it
destroyed I presume. These organisations are packed with volunteers
who give up their time and expertise.

It's just that Angus doesn't approve of these organisations. He's the
one who keeps banging on about the CON in conservation and he is
obviously the only person who actually knows anything about it.

Either that or he's just a troll. Hmm, I wonder which?

I don't think he's just a troll. I think he's serious about all this.
Just look at the websites he references.

Well Troll or Fool. Take your pick.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Your use of the word "infested" shows your prejudice and hatred.

Yes, he dislikes us because we smell, don't pay our way and are all
apparently communists.

Yes, he seems to prefer the landowning fraternity even though he's
opposed to hunting, not something most walkers do.

Yes I thought that a little odd. He's clearly brown-tonguing someone.

Roy.