Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Keep off my land! Landowner wins right to bar ramblers from Dartmoor's tallest Tor
Mail Online ^ | 21st September 2011 | Lee Moran

Posted on 09/21/2011 5:33:17 PM PDT by Charlespg

Ramblers and climbers have been banned from one of Dartmoor's most historic sites.

The beautiful Vixen Tor has been closed off for good after landowner Mary Alford won an eight-year battle to keep walkers off her land.

Her victory comes after a fight which included two planning inquiries and a series of mass trespasses to protest against the Tor's closure.

(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; Outdoors
KEYWORDS: disrupters; england; madhouse; trespass; trolls; uk; zot
Right to Roam?

what the blinking blue blazes is the right to roam?

No wonder England is turning into a third world toilet

1 posted on 09/21/2011 5:33:21 PM PDT by Charlespg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Charlespg

Ah. I had to read the article to understand what the headline meant.


2 posted on 09/21/2011 5:36:50 PM PDT by SuzyQue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Charlespg

3 posted on 09/21/2011 5:37:17 PM PDT by struggle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Charlespg
But they are so innocent looking!:

I could see banning Pacers...

4 posted on 09/21/2011 5:40:05 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (California: Making Texas more Conservative one voter at a time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Charlespg

So you can't park your Rambler there.
5 posted on 09/21/2011 5:40:11 PM PDT by Fiji Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
I could see banning Pacers

Aren't those the ones that look kind of like pregnant Gremlins?

6 posted on 09/21/2011 5:43:12 PM PDT by Allegra (Hey! Stop looking at my tagline like that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Allegra
Aren't those the ones that look kind of like pregnant Gremlins?

That is a great description:


7 posted on 09/21/2011 5:47:51 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (California: Making Texas more Conservative one voter at a time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Charlespg

Get that Rambler off my lawn!

8 posted on 09/21/2011 5:49:16 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (California: Making Texas more Conservative one voter at a time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Charlespg
Probably because the Ramblers are a little bit different:

The Rayne Bo Ramblers

9 posted on 09/21/2011 5:50:03 PM PDT by Squeeky ("Truth is so rare that it is delightful to tell it. " Emily Dickinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
sometimes its waste of time to post here

It was about property rights in england and the so called right to roam law

can some english freeper tell what the hell the right to roam is

10 posted on 09/21/2011 5:58:49 PM PDT by Charlespg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: struggle

LOL! Nobody around here will get your joke...


11 posted on 09/21/2011 6:05:02 PM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Charlespg
I have no doubt that the Fernworthy people will burn her in effigy to-night.

Mr. niteowl77

12 posted on 09/21/2011 6:07:16 PM PDT by niteowl77 ("Romneycare," he said as he turned and walked away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Charlespg

Google still works...

In England, after a polarised debate about the merits, rights and benefits of private landowners and public recreation, in 2000 the Government legislated to introduce a limited right to roam, without compensation for landowners. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 was gradually implemented from 2000 onwards to give the general public the conditional right to walk in certain areas of the English and Welsh countryside: principally downland, moorland, heathland and coastal land.

Traditionally the public could walk on established public footpaths and bridleways, on common land and on the foreshore, and land owners could prevent access to other areas (or charge a fee for access).

Angling interests successfully lobbied for the exclusion of rivers in England and Wales from CROW, leaving other river users such as swimmers and canoeists with access restricted to less than 2% of navigable water. The British Canoe Union is running the Rivers Access Campaign, to highlight the level of restrictions the public face in gaining access to inland waterways in England and Wales.

The new rights were introduced region by region through England and Wales, with completion in 2005. Maps showing accessible areas have been produced.

Access to the Countryside or the ‘right to roam’

http://www.ramblers.org.uk/freedom/righttoroam/countryside_access
The Ramblers campaigned for many years for a legal right of access on foot to some of the wildest and most dramatic landscapes in England and Wales. This legal right - or right to roam - was provided by The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.


13 posted on 09/21/2011 6:24:56 PM PDT by TSgt (When in the Course of human events...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: stormer

>>LOL! Nobody around here will get your joke...

Well you did! Lol


14 posted on 09/21/2011 6:27:02 PM PDT by struggle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: struggle

Yeah, but I’m not normal...


15 posted on 09/21/2011 6:42:26 PM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: struggle

Dartmoor, not Johnson.


16 posted on 09/21/2011 6:45:19 PM PDT by WorkingClassFilth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Charlespg

It’s like our right of way laws. An established trail [20yrs] becomes a public right of way. I wonder if their adverse possession laws are that much stronger than ours. I know much of our civil code is based on English common law but don’t know how far it goes.Answers??


17 posted on 09/21/2011 6:53:31 PM PDT by WePledge (Ich werde fur immer ein Hollenhund werden. Semper Fidelis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Allegra

Garthmobile, I think
;^)


18 posted on 09/21/2011 9:29:08 PM PDT by Bikkuri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: struggle
>>LOL! Nobody around here will get your joke...

I got it too.
19 posted on 09/21/2011 9:40:20 PM PDT by grateful
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Charlespg

In the US, you can go anywhere you like in the wilderness because it is not owned by anybody, or at the very least is public land, i.e. you have access to walk/camp as you see fit. Correct?

In Britain, we have no wilderness because it is so small (about the size of the state of Oregon), and every bit of land is owned by somebody. The larger areas of open ground, moorland, heathland, lakes and mountains, are all owned by somebody. It used to be at their jurisdiction whether you could walk through it. The Right To Roam gave ramblers the right to enter private land on certain specified footpaths, as long as they didn’t set up camp. Ultimately this is a good law. These areas of land, although owned by somebody, are usually in the back of beyond. It’s not as if you’re walking through their house.


20 posted on 09/22/2011 5:11:11 AM PDT by Mitch86
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mitch86
"It’s not as if you’re walking through their house."

And who gets to make that determination? If you allow them on your property and someone is hurt, who are they going to sue? If you allow them on your property, what's to stop them from coming right up to the house, or even inside if you're not home?

It seems to me that I've read some articles from Britain where someone has left their home to have it renovated or remodeled, or even just for a short three or four day trip, and have come back to find squatters living inside the house.

Private property is private property. No one has a right to be on my property unless I say so ... and the good thing about Texas is that, after dark, I can defend my property with lethal force if need be.

21 posted on 09/22/2011 5:19:19 AM PDT by BlueLancer (Secede?! Y'all better just be thankful we don't invade ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BlueLancer
If you allow them on your property and someone is hurt, who are they going to sue?

Lancer, the answer to this is right in the article and is the very heart of the land-owner's reason to close of the area.

"She said she wanted to seal off the area because she was worried about insurance claims."

She was obviously worried about climbers falling off the rock formation and then suing her for their injuries.

22 posted on 09/22/2011 5:36:10 AM PDT by commish (Freedom tastes sweetest to those who have fought to preserve it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BlueLancer

With respect, squatters rights and the right to roam are two entirely different matters.

” If you allow them on your property, what’s to stop them from coming right up to the house, or even inside if you’re not home?”

The fact that the people who own this land do not live there. Nobody lives there. It’s moorland. Or heathland. Empty and desolate. You are confusing landowners with homeowners.

The Right To Roam is one of the few pieces of government legislation I can get behind.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/664820.stm
A BBC news article from 11 years ago, contemporary to the passing of the act, detailing what it means.


23 posted on 09/22/2011 5:50:18 AM PDT by Mitch86
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mitch86
"With respect, squatters rights and the right to roam are two entirely different matters. The fact that the people who own this land do not live there. Nobody lives there. It’s moorland. Or heathland. Empty and desolate. You are confusing landowners with homeowners."

Got it ... thanks.

But I must say that I still see private property as just that. If they'll let me buy property around Yellowstone or Yosemite and I want to build a fence or wall to keep people out, that should be my right.

Let the government .. either local, "state", or national .. buy the property and they can leave it as open as they want to.

24 posted on 09/22/2011 5:56:10 AM PDT by BlueLancer (Secede?! Y'all better just be thankful we don't invade ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Mitch86
To continue ...

I support the Civil War Preservation Society who buys tracts of land near Civil War battlesites to preserve them from further development or other uses of the property.

If the so-called Ramblers want to use the property, let them pay to support the purchase of the property for "rambling" use.

But, again, thanks for the link to the description of the Right to Roam legislation. Very enlightening.

25 posted on 09/22/2011 6:00:52 AM PDT by BlueLancer (Secede?! Y'all better just be thankful we don't invade ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: BlueLancer

If you fancy a little further reading, you should google the Kinder Scout mass trespass of 1932. A fascinating story, and one that led to the creation of Britain’s national parks in 1949.

It’s hard to believe for me, born much later, that before 1949 a pleasant stroll in the country would have left me breaking the law. Incredible really.


26 posted on 09/22/2011 10:25:11 AM PDT by Mitch86
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: BlueLancer

http://kindertrespass.com/index.asp?ID=36


27 posted on 09/22/2011 10:26:44 AM PDT by Mitch86
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Mitch86
Again, thank you for the link. It's very interesting, although I would note that it seems that much of the earlier "misbehavior" was organized and carried out by socialists and communists. In my mind, not exactly the greatest base to build a movement upon. But, I guess, in those days ...

But, now, that still doesn't change the fact that, if the government feels that it's so important to give access to this land for wanderers and ramblers, let the government buy that land from the owners and open it up.

My guess is that they'd rather have the landowners maintain ownership so that they can keep hitting them with land taxes for it, while forcing them to allow access to their property. I guess if the government bought it, they would be the ones forced to maintain it and would either be spending money on it or requiring access fees from the wanderers and ramblers.

If I had the money, I would live to purchase a great acreage and then just let it go wild. But it would be mine and, if I wanted to bar access to it, I should be able to do so.

28 posted on 09/22/2011 10:34:46 AM PDT by BlueLancer (Secede?! Y'all better just be thankful we don't invade ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: BlueLancer

“live” = “love”


29 posted on 09/22/2011 10:36:01 AM PDT by BlueLancer (Secede?! Y'all better just be thankful we don't invade ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BlueLancer

For the areas that became national parks, this is what has happened. They are all owned by a charitable organisation called the ‘National Trust’ which is non-governmental, not-for-profit and run largely on donations and volunteering. Which i’m sure you’ll agree is pretty great.

For this particular case, in Dartmoor national park (which by the way is absolutely incredible countryside), is a strange one. The land in question was sold to the lady in 2003. Ultimately I can’t argue with her decision to fence it off then. I would question why the National Trust felt the need to sell it to her in the first place though.

It’s also sad that this is due to fear litigation. I find that the saddest part of all.


30 posted on 09/22/2011 10:46:22 AM PDT by Mitch86
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Mitch86

Agreed to all ...


31 posted on 09/22/2011 11:10:47 AM PDT by BlueLancer (Secede?! Y'all better just be thankful we don't invade ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: stormer; struggle
LOL! Nobody around here will get your joke...

I did! :-)

32 posted on 09/22/2011 11:13:41 AM PDT by COBOL2Java (Obama is the least qualified guy in whatever room he walks into.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Charlespg
The beautiful Vixen Tor has been closed off for good...

Dr. Egon Spengler: "Vinz, you said before you were waiting for a sign. What sign are you waiting for?"

Louis: "Gozer the Traveler. He will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldrini, the traveler came as a large and moving Tor!"


33 posted on 09/22/2011 11:40:41 AM PDT by COBOL2Java (Obama is the least qualified guy in whatever room he walks into.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mitch86
a pleasant stroll in the country would have left me breaking the law. Incredible really.

It's things like this that make it obvious to me why we are over here and you are over there. A pleasant stroll in the country isn't a human right. But if you have no place of your own to stroll, what is so difficult about asking permission first? I hike a lot on other's land and I've always asked permission first. I've only been refused once. It's just common courtesy.

34 posted on 09/26/2011 9:33:28 AM PDT by jboot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: jboot

If the landowner is the Duke of Devonshire, and the land you want to walk on is the Derbyshire peak district, are you supposed to drive the 300 miles to ask?

As Woody Guthrie once sang; “this land is your land, this land is my land”. Which country was he from again?

Anyway, this is folly to hypothesise about because there are now well established rights of way and public footpaths (what you might call trails) criss-crossing the land, and have been for 60 years.


35 posted on 09/26/2011 9:55:53 AM PDT by Mitch86
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: niteowl77

Well, they were such litterbugs...

“And I’ve closed the wood where the Fernworthy folk used to picnic. These infernal people seem to think that there are no rights of property, and that they can swarm where they like with their papers and their bottles.”


36 posted on 09/26/2011 10:08:59 AM PDT by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mitch86
When I can't contact the landowner, I hike someplace else. It's that simple. Safer that way, too. Some folks aren't friendly, some are too friendly and others have "interesting" hobbies. Especially in remote places.

Woodie Guthrie was a flea-bitten hippie. I could not care less about his socialistic view of preperty rights. It doesn't comport with any laws over here, anyway. Most jurisdictions take a dim view of trespassing, and rights of way disputes require the courts. You can't just claim that you have a right of way that you've used for so-an-so number of years; you have to prove it. The landowner is permitted to rebut your claim, and in most states all he has to do is note the display of a "no trespassing" sign to win.

37 posted on 09/26/2011 10:17:05 AM PDT by jboot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
Thanks for the hearty laugh. :-)
38 posted on 09/26/2011 10:23:02 AM PDT by verity (The Obama Administration is a Criminal Enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BlueLancer
it seems that much of the earlier "misbehavior" was organized and carried out by socialists and communists.

Aye, there's the rub. Like every scheme of the european socialists, this one will eventually cross the pond. Be wary. Right now the American left is largely urban and could not give a fig for rambles in the countryside. This will change in a hurry if the urban cores become too crowded or less liveable.

39 posted on 09/26/2011 10:29:18 AM PDT by jboot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson