The Right to Roam
“They must have moved Snaefell again…”
I must confess that I often find myself feeling like a stranger in a strange land, and never more so that when confronted by the curious institution of “rambling”. As far as I can tell, this consists primarily of groups of well-equipped “townies”, who apparently feel it’s their “right” to wander across farmers’ crops on their way to some distant horizon.
As a man who is heavily predisposed to indolence and torpor, I find the idea of wandering across muddy ground fighting off midges and stinging nettles a curious concept for a pleasurable pastime. I’m a huge fan of the countryside, but I believe it is best enjoyed from the air-conditioned comfort of orthopaedically-designed seats, perhaps with some Mozart adding aural colour to the experience. However, to each his own, live and let live and all that.
But I can’t really fathom the central aspect of the ramblers’ creed — the idea that you are allowed to go wherever you want. I am naturally very careful about other people’s property, whether goods or land and I wouldn’t dream of trolling across some farmer’s cabbages unless I was in a really precarious situation. The concept of marching across someone’s pastures or fields with my head held high, “because it’s my right, innit?” is completely alien to me.
I have heard all sorts of (what are, to me, anyway) spurious justifications involving the Enclosure and ideas that seem to be grounded in nothing but ludicrous envy to me. I don’t generally see farmers traipsing through “towny” gardens of a weekend, nor do farmers appear to have any particular interest in trolling across their lands for “fun”. It seems a somewhat one-sided deal to me.
So I’d be pleased to hear a sensible justification for the idea that someone who has paid for exclusive use of a piece of land is not allowed exclusive use of that land.
August 11, 2010 at 21:49
-
Sorry to appear boring, but the original allegation (comment 6) was that
William and his merry men half-inched the land from (implied) free Anglo
Saxons. Daedalus Parrot has a kind response which includes “…researches also
demonstrated how, in 1066, at the time of King Edward the confessor
- August 10, 2010 at 22:28
-
“Mostly this can be traced back to some Frenchman in 1066 subverting the
Common Law by force, and plunging 90% of the population into
servitude.”
What exactly was the situation with land ownership in
Anglo-Saxia before that Frenchman (Norman?) came to visit?
- August 11, 2010 at 05:34
-
Now that’s a big topic Peter, and time precludes a proper answer…
- August 11, 2010 at 11:10
-
Funny you should ask that. There was an unusually (for the BBC)
fascinating doumentary on BBC2 last night about the Domesday book.
You can watch it on that interweb thingy here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00sj8fc/Domesday/
The writer/presenter is Dr Stephen Baxter who is a medieval historian
from Kings College, London. He has been doing much research into the
contents, background and processes involved in the Domesday book.
His documentary revealed that, before 1066, England was one of the most
stable and prosperous states in Europe with a reliable currency, respected
legal system and a well run state bureaucracy. His researches also
demonstrated how, in 1066, at the time of King Edward the confessor’s death,
English land was owned by a wide range of Anglo Saxon classes from rich
earls to lowly, but free, farmers.
The Domesday inquisitors systematically recorded who owned all land in
most of England in the two years of 1066 and 1086.
These records showed that the vast majority of English lands switched
from Anglo-Saxon ownership in 1066 to Norman ownership at the time of the
Domesday inquests in 1086.
Apparently there was widespread crookedneess and bullying by local Norman
officials in most shires which resulted in the majority of Anglo Saxon
landowners being robbed of the legal ownership of their land. Most
Anglo-Saxons were turfed out or forced to work as dependent tenants for the
new Norman “owner”.
Baxter’s narrative exhibits a subtle and justifiable outrage at the
wholesale theft by the Norman usurpers. Again, unusual for the BBC, a
programme that shows sympathy for the English.
- August 11, 2010 at 16:02
-
“before 1066, England was one of the most stable and prosperous states
in Europe with a reliable currency, respected legal system and a well run
state bureaucracy”
A lot has changed in 900 years.
- August 10, 2010 at 21:58
-
The last time some ramblers came round the convent claiming a right to roam
the Abbess set her Rhodesian Ridgebacks on them, and when they ran for it gave
then both barrels with her twelve bore shotgun.
Sister Eva Longoria
- August 10, 2010 at 20:54
-
I’m intrigued Thaddeus.
Do you stumble across an amusing piccie, & compose an article around
it?
Or, do you write your piece, then hunt for a complementary photo?
Either way, they’re excellent matches!
- August 10, 2010 at 20:37
-
Sad really, when you think of it, in the last century thousands laid down
their life in two world wars for their country, only to be told that it wasn’t
theirs to wander around in by some poncy farmer landowner type.
You know
who can lay down their life the next time.
- August 11, 2010 at 15:59
-
Go on Wullie – how many people died for their country and then afterwards
got shouted at for walking across a farmer’s field?
Be a bloody miracle, that would.
- August 10, 2010 at 19:40
-
Rights of way are marked on Ordnance Survey maps and are frequently also
marked by signposts and/or “Waymarks”.
There is very little that you cannot
see from following recognised footpaths and those who deliberately walk
through crops are just vandals. Most ramblers do not: the large majority are
law-abiding, sticking to the footpath unless they get hopelessly lost and it
is wrong to tar them with the same brush as the “right to roam” fanatics –
conversely, please debunk any claims by the vandals that they have the support
of all ramblers or the Ramblers Association. [I am not a member of the RA
because I cannot, in comfort, walk slowly enough]
- August 10, 2010 at 13:32
-
Having spent many a happy hour tramping through the fields, valleys and
hills of the Peak District, I appreciate the immense pleasure it brings and
the vistas gained after sweating up a hill are rewarding. There are many
townies who do the same – whatever their gear – simply because they love to
get away from the madness of their urban existence – and I can’t say I blame
them. For my part, I’m grateful that Wainwright and his contemporaries carried
out the Mass Trespass on Kinder Scout in the 30s; it wasn’t some Marxist
political point they were making against landowners – they simply wanted the
right to see the beauty of their own country.
- August 10, 2010 at 13:11
-
Most of the land in Scotland was stolen at the point of a sword or given
away by our betters in the 13th to 18th Century. Then it was fenced or walled
off so that the rabble couldn’t access it.
Then the rules changed. If
someone wanted to take the land back he could no longer get a gang together
and kill the owners and call himself the new laird.
This would result in
prison or hanging or deportation.
The land Reform Act was introduced and
‘right to roam’has opened up ancient paths and countryside that was denied for
centuries.
- August 10, 2010 at 19:55
-
The waysome Landowners get round it now is by putting a gate up, marking
it Private vehicle access only then quite often Walkers,Climbers et al have
a couple of hours walk before they get to the Mountain/Munro/Hill – crafty
…
There is a Website called “Who Owns Scotland”……depressing reading.
-
August 10, 2010 at 11:10
-
That situation is IMO one where no-one should have the right to
-
August 10, 2010 at 11:07
-
I deeply resent the fact that Sarbanes has been able to buy land
This was twenty years ago when Lord **** had pissed another shed load of
money at the Casino, and as a near neighbour asked if I wanted to buy some
land. Creditors pressing y’know
In the contract of sale was clearly a bridlepath across my new parcel, with
the obligation to maintain gates etc. That path was originally part of the
highway from Warwick to London, a neighbour sliced through the highway which
went through a deserted village (actually a land clearance for sheep- us
English had this centuries before the Scots) with a wooden fence breaking a
sixty mile ancient way. He was some nob head from the City, who pissed
everybody off, and insisted on his agricultual subsidies, and wanted to be
considered the Loard of the Manor. In the good old days we had pitchforks to
deal with the likes of him. We had not forgotten the 1640′s
I have since sold said land, and bought land in France, were the rules are
far more relaxed for all concerned.
- August 10, 2010 at 10:56
-
Public access over _legally_ established rights of way – fair
enough.
Right of access to farmers’ land where they are in receipt of
subsidies – arguable. Cooperation with the landowner/tenant is obviously the
best option.
But what about roaming over land that is agricultural in nature (eg a field
used for grazing/as a paddock) but is treated as an extension of a garden by
property owners who do not actively farm or receive subsidies? That situation
is IMO one where no-one should have the right to ‘roam’/trespass without
permission.
- August 10, 2010 at 10:35
-
Rights of way are important ancient public rights and in my view should be
preserved, but that is very much a different issue from the right to roam at
will.
A “smorgasbord” of opinion indeed!
Gildas the Monk
-
August 10, 2010 at 10:21
-
As always on Anna’s excellent board, we have the full range of opinions
!
As a fairly militant peasant, I deeply resent the fact that Sarbanes has
been able to buy land , whilst I feel ever more disposessed by the white
settlers pricing the locals out of the village.
Like Jim I understand that
the concept of the stewardship strip means that having everyone in the village
exercise their dog there, means that the concept of field cover and a wildlife
corridor will prove futile.
Hankey should clearly bugger off whence he
came, with the proviso that he is quite correct about the futility of giving
CAP money to lowland farmers – it should all go to upland farmers to save the
hills from further depopulation and habitat degradation.
Oh, and that means
the rest of you will have to pay more for your food, or take an interest in
stopping Tesco et al from posing obscene profits .
70 million people on an
island with a capacity for 25 million, was always going to end in tears.
-
August 10, 2010 at 09:58
-
Sarbanes Oxley – from where have you developed the term ‘contractual right’
in relation to ramblers?
- August 10, 2010 at 09:45
-
@CountHankey: as a land owner of fields with similar margins I would say a
couple of things: a) those field margins are there to encourage wildlife,
which won’t be around so much if you (and loads of other people) are walking
your dogs on it every day, and b) I could allow you permitted access onto my
land, but then after a few years of that, if I wished (for whatever reason, it
is my land after all) to stop you walking it, you’d probably get a bit p*ssed
off. “I’ve been doing this for years, I’m not stopping now” etc etc.
I had a case just recently. A man who had been walking his dog over my land
(no footpaths) for a number of years was asked to stop because I now have
horse riders using the land (who pay for access) and they were worried about
dogs running free and scaring their horses. He got very annoyed and basically
said he would continue anyway, whatever I said.
And thats the problem. You give someone an inch and they take a mile. Or if
you need to revoke the inch they cut up all p*ssy about it. Or you give
permission to one person, and everyone else thinks they can do the same. So my
experience is that its better to say no in the first instance, than court
trouble down the line.
And landowners regard their land in just the same way as a householder
regards their property. Its only a matter of scale. I get just as annoyed by
the mess people leave in my gateways (fly tipping all sorts of crap) as you
would if people chucked stuff over your garden fence.
Unfortunately in a small island of 60m people you cannot distinguish
between the ‘nice’ people who are polite and respectful of the land, and the
@rseh*les who treat it like a rubbish tip/sewer. So you have to try and reduce
access to the bare legal minimum (footpaths etc) in order to protect your
property and livelihood.
- August 10, 2010 at 09:32
-
I agree with Sarbanes Oxley – my dogs and I are grateful for the access and
fully respect the land owner, their crops and livestock.
However, our local pub is a mecca for townie ramblers and they are a
hilarious sight. They arrive in groups of at least 10 and and piss the
landlord off by ordering and paying individually, buying one sandwich each,
asking for tap water before requesting for a group discount.
Quite why there is always one person in each group with the dual-ski pole
walking stick arrangement I don’t know – particularly since the reason they
are drawn to our area, is because there is a canal that winds it’s way through
the country. Canal sides are, by necessity, flat.
- August 10,
2010 at 11:03
-
Your local isnt the Boatyard is it? I’ve had many a group, just like you
describe, in my pub days. They get so indignant when you charge them 25p for
a glass of tap water.
All paying individually and each one asking “What
crisps have you got?”. Look at the f&%$ing display!
-
August 10, 2010 at 08:43
-
I went out with a militant rambler for a while, and she was forever
traipsing across crops.
Well she had no respect for the land or the landowners livelihood, nor did
she have any contractual right to do so. However if the landowner had been in
receipt of X squillion of CAP money or set aside as was, walking the margins
of the field should present no problem. In warwickshire, set aside land had to
be on the margins and linked up, in neighbouring Northamptonshire, the farmers
took the money and had the set aside in the middle of a field. Its call having
you cake and eating it.
-
August 10, 2010 at 08:34
-
As somebody who indulges in this sort of activity either on foot or
horseback, and as a land owner, let me give you an insight.
As a land owner I have bought land with ancient bridleways and footpaths
across them. I knew that when I bought the land. It is part of the
commonwealth. In buying the land I contracted to maintain the gates and
footpaths/bridleways to ensure free passage. A huge amount of land owners buy
land aware of their contractual obligations, then proceed to string barbed
wire across bridlepaths (for many years when I rode everyday, I carried a pair
of wire snips to deal with these situations) . This is akin to you hurtling
round the M25 and being brought to a halt by a fence across the motorway by an
adjacent landowner wanting to graze his sheep on the central reservation
because it was ‘unused’ land.
The same landowners who indulge in this activity and shouting git orf my
land, are the same ones queing up for agricultural subsidies. My view has
always been the same no access no taxpayer subsidies, sunshine. Where there is
a contracted access you stick to the contract.Pacta sunt servanda.
As to the mountains and rivers, my view is who the hell had the right to
sell these in the first place. Mostly this can be traced back to some
Frenchman in 1066 subverting the Common Law by force, and plunging 90% of the
population into servitude. Mountains and uplands are marginal agriculturally
and are only maintained by taxpayer subsidy, again no access no subsidy. Men
have walked mountains since the time of Oetzi, they have fished the
rivers.
We are about the only country in Europe who has this territorial instinct,
my near neighbour has a thing that our shared access is ‘hers’ and gets very
territoral about who drives across the common parts, who parks there on the
basis that it is next to her house. Contractually it is not hers, she has no
deed of ownership, but still considers that it is ‘hers’. You will find the
Courts clogged every week with boundary and access disputes, with millions
being spent in legal fees.
Largely I think it is because people are living like rats in a trap
fighting for every square inch.
Saying that walking Snaefell is akin to walking across somebodies surbuban
garden is a bit of a nonsense. Besides I want to see the orginal title for the
sale of Snaefell, if it is in the name of some bloke called Guillaume the
Barstard he can feck right off.
- August 10,
2010 at 08:28
-
Have you considered asking Steve Gough? I hear he has some strong opinions
on rambling.
-
August 10, 2010 at 08:08
-
I live on the edge of a village, I also have a dog which I like walking it
helps me think and relax. Behind my house is a large field with a twenty foot
wide grass strip, unproductive land. I’m not allowed to walk on this as it’s
private land, so I have to use the country lane opposite, however from
November to April, this lane becomes a quagmire of mud and shite thanks to
farmers coming straight off the fields, so that rather then just getting wet
walking on the grass, my dog and myself get coated in crap. As for walking
through my garden, if the farmers taxes went to the upkeep of my property I’d
say they had a right but they don’t, but they’re happy to take my taxes thanks
to the CAP, I agree it is one-sided. As for walking through crops, the only
people I’ve seen doing that are farmers and their friends when out
shooting.
- August 10, 2010 at 08:14
- August 10, 2010 at 15:08
-
Can’t really agree with your logic:- Your taxes will help pay for the
upkeep of the households of those working in the public sector, and also of
the properties of those in receipt of any state benefits.
I think that suggesting (even by extrapolation) that your paying taxes
gives you right of access to and/or use of those properties is an even
bigger quagmire than the one you describe…
-
August 11, 2010 at 07:14
-
I stopped people walking their dogs over my land as they gave my cattle a
disease, (neospora canium) cost me 13 cows and calves,
Comments are closed.
{ 29 comments }