You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Facebook linky about trail builders
The typical 'Waverley Beat' post gets about 12 replies. Currently over 700.
Seems like they poked the wasps nest. But to be honest their post is pretty low-handed.
How refreshing that most of the replies are supporting the trail builders 🙂
A few miseries are stopping a skatepark being built here, and guess what, they hate the very existence of anyone below retirement age.
people in surrey complaining everything is private, theres no pulic facilities and the council are skint? irony.
They are correct IMO
Digging trails on someones private land without permission is not on, it damages any attempts to get legal trails. It damages the image of our pastime.
Yep, got to agree with TJ, it's private land and the land owner is legally liable if someone gets hurt and they knew about the existence of the jumps. Its counter productive.
Seems like they poked the wasps nest. But to be honest their post is pretty low-handed.
Cant see the replies but why is it low handed? Seemed like a well written post to me, to try and raise awareness about an issue.
Shouldn’t be happening, private land and id be complaining to the police if somebody started digging holes in my back garden 🤣 not to mention what would happen if somebody stacked it. Its not just a bit of cheeky riding through someones wood is it.
They are correct IMO
Digging trails on someones private land without permission is not on, it damages any attempts to get legal trails. It damages the image of our pastime.
Which is all well and good if you live somewhere with access to plenty of legal trail networks, or are lucky enough to own a car that can transport you to them. If you're a teenager in the crowded south east of England where legal trails are thin on the ground and you don't own a T5 you might have a different view.
I agree in principle. Dialogue, consent and enlightened landowners working with volunteer builders is the ideal. But those enlightened landowners aren't always that common and kids don't always have the contacts or nouse to do things legally. But at the end of the day engaging with them instead of trashing the trails and boasting about it on social media would have been better. It's youngsters, riding bikes and getting exercise and not getting into serious mischief. Damned if they do and damned if they don't.
That opening post does the police no favours whatsoever and has probably alienated a lot of kids where there was an opportunity to work with them, earn their respect and nudge them towards doing things properly.
people in surrey complaining everything is private, theres no pulic facilities and the council are skint? irony.
Hello Mr judgmental!
What @blokeuptheroad said 100%
Petulant post, especially the 'what if they came and dug up your garden' nonsense. Like that's remotely the same thing but it shows the level of thinking prevalent within the force. The 'guess what thats going too' line also really brings the down the post and makes it obvious they are enjoying spoiling other peoples fun rather than simply upholding the law.
Engagement has always been shown to work miracles in these situations - rather than p!ss all over the local youth why not use this as an opportunity to build a rapport and maybe they might see a bit of a drop in other more serious issues in the neighbourhood
Let's not forget that if nobody dared build illegal trails decades ago we wouldn't be in our current privileged position. Being able to access so many official and not-quite-so-official trails in the present is built on the efforts of many folk in the past who did exactly this kind of work out in the woods.
My point exactly @blokeuptheroad!
Over a thousand replies now. The majority critical of the tone of the post. Just a massive PR disaster.
Had it been a supportive post it would have had about a dozen comments i suspect.
Hambledon is less than 3 miles to s4p, so hardly no dirt jumps in the area that kids can use. A cheeky trail is very different to a great big dirt jump with a trench dug in to the ground. Agree that it would be far more helpful to get the local council to provide land and support to build a pump track and bike park rather than just telling kids off
Now, I am sure some people will say " leave them alone, while they are doing this they are not causing other issues"
1) What "other issues" are they insinuating that cyclists might cyclists be causing?
2) Note "I" not "we". That isn't Surrey Police collectively or even Waverley Police, that's some random pleb who's naively been given control of their Facebook account.
how would you like it
... as demonstrated by the professional use of language here.
How did all the land become private in the first place?
@sharkattack I recommend The Book of Trespass by Nick Hayes. Not only will it more than answer your question but its full of fantastic art as well.
Those woods aren't someone's back garden. Think it's about time landowners had to justify why random bits of woodland are private and inaccessible. That said, I can see why those jumps could be dangerous and how that sort of digging is taking the piss without permission. But ultimately, can't believe the police don't have more important things to do. If it was a stolen bike, dangerous driving, dangerous dog, threats of violence, houses that stink of weed, they'd still be sat in their office firing spitballs at each other (maybe not in covid times). Obviously written by someone with a negative attitude towards cycling.
Lockdown has shown that there's not enough public space and not enough options for people to recreate outside.
What do you expect people to do?
Additionally, it's nice to see the police respond quickly to a bit of digging but if a bike gets stolen....
50% of UK land is owned by less than 1% of the population... we are going to see more of this.
Engagement works two ways.
As for illegal trailbuilders creating our pastime - utter pish. In the UK it started by people cycling on bridleways many years before the word mountainbike was thought of.
Sure if its a bit of plantation forestry and you are subtle there is little harm or if its just a rake the leaves type trail OK but digging jumps and pits - its bang out of order and the entitlement in those defending this is breathtaking
Pretty poorly worded post that, especially considering the times we are living in and what a load of bobbins it is currently being a teenager.
But a question to those that might know to either quash or confirm the urban myth......If I was a landowner and discovered that and did nothing about it then a third party rider (or maybe even the digger) hurt themselves am I liable in law currently? 2nd scenario; if I came across that, discovered who dug it, then gave them after the fact permission to keep it does that change my liability? Lastly, if I am liable what would the insurance likely cost me to cover it?
I guess answers to above might change how much sympathy I might have for the landowner - but regardless the post was very poorly worded.
reported for hate speach.
As for illegal trailbuilders creating our pastime – utter pish. In the UK it started by people cycling on bridleways many years before the word mountainbike was thought of.
Access to swathes of the English countryside occurred because of trespass.
its bang out of order and the entitlement in those defending this is breathtaking
Breathtaking? Really? It's empathy, not entitlement. I don't think I am "entitled" to build jumps on private land, nor would I do so. But then I'm a middle aged bloke with disposable income lucky enough to be surrounded by legal trails and the ability to travel to others.
But I can understand why kids with nowhere to ride might be tempted to. It's not ideal and I'm not condoning it, but I can understand why they do it and I'm honest enough to admit were I in that position I might be tempted to do the same.
I totally get why private land owners can get a bit miffed with diggers and dirtjump****ers can be the worst, especially if litter and antisocial behaviour is part and parcel though there is no evidence of that on the included photos.
There isn't enough information about the location or history in the post to make an informed comment really, but it's a shame that any engagement that may or may not have happened has failed, and once again some cheeky tykes have been moved on back to square one because every inch of this little island is "owned" by someone.
However you cut it though, is way outweighed by how much of a PR disaster this has turned into, so I'm currently just enjoying some community bobbies getting a ribbing. Bet they're wishing they had kept their mouths shut with this one
Those woods aren’t someone’s back garden. Think it’s about time landowners had to justify why random bits of woodland are private and inaccessible
Why?
Do you want them to chop the trees down to stop kids digging a jump park?
As for the Access argument. Passing through access is one thing, digging is totally different. It's comparable to the MXers who smash gates and fences down to access areas.
Local council could and should be quietly diverting these kids to their land and away from conflict. Plenty do on the quiet.
Access to swathes of the English countryside occurred because of trespass.
For people on foot, passing through, definitely not equipped with spades etc
For people on foot, passing through, definitely not equipped with spades etc
I'm pretty sure that mass trespass would've caused some damage.
Why?
Because huge areas of the countryside are off limits to the public in this country for no sensible good reason, just centuries old elitist selfishness. And I don't mean to build dirt jumps like above, just access would be nice.
Do you want them to chop the trees down to stop kids digging a jump park?
Not entirely sure what you're saying there but chopping trees down to block trails and jumps doesn't work, is a lazy way of trying to sort things out and is bad for both the environment and the land owner's business harvesting trees, if that's what they do. What's needed is engagement.
Take nothing but photos. leave nothing but footprints
Why isn’t it muddy, that’s all I want to know.
@tjagain.. strangely just watched the documentary on the Everest clean up where narrator mentioned that quote. Nice one.
It damages the image of our pastime.
Oh do behave, If you think for a minute that folk see you trundling along with your missus on the back of a tandem and immediately think of kids building ramps in a wood, your GP needs to reduce your dose.
But a question to those that might know to either quash or confirm the urban myth……If I was a landowner and discovered that and did nothing about it then a third party rider (or maybe even the digger) hurt themselves am I liable in law currently?
I believe its the Occupiers Liability Act. Someone gets hurt on your land, even if they are trespassing, and you can be liable. Seem to recall the legislation Links to cases of trespassers on railway lines.
Someone who did the insurance exams this century may be more up to date and show this has changed.
There's a happy medium with access and responsibility. I have sympathy with both sides, but you can't build all the fun and then not take responsibility for any injury or possible environmental damage you may cause. Not if you're an adult with a brain.
Take nothing but photos. leave nothing but footprints
@tjagain.. strangely just watched the documentary on the Everest clean up where narrator mentioned that quote. Nice one.
It is a lovely quote isn't it?. Pretty much total ballcocks when applied to the life of any single human on the planet though. Look around you.
entitlement in those defending this is breathtaking
I don't think it comes from a sense of entitlement, rather a sense of injustice that...
50% of UK land is owned by less than 1% of the population
...and there are so many parts of the land that you can't legally go and respectfully enjoy.
Is it just an assumption that it's kids? I'm very impressed if so, but suspect adults are involved.
There's a world of difference between open access (which we should have south of the border) and digging massive jumps. Without knowing the site there could be a myriad of reasons the land owner doesn't want it dug up, environmental considerations, is it a commercial tree crop, could be used for other commercial purposes that aren't compatible with big holes in the ground.
Then as said above repeatedly there's the legal obligations of the land owner, you may not agree with the way the law is worded but thats the legislation.
All that crap about kids having nothing to do, so what, same applies to thousands of kids, they don't go and dig up the local urban park, or is that ok as well.
TJs use of the word entitled here to describe some of the attitudes displayed is bang on. This is not a cycling issue it's one of trespass and more importantly criminal damage.
As Stumpy says - down south you should have right to roam same as we do up here. Open access to most land
This would give you the right to ride your bike so long as you did no damage
It would not give you the right to dig jumps,
As Stumpy says – down south you should have right to roam same as we do up here. Open access to most land
This would give you the right to ride your bike so long as you did no damage
It would not give you the right to dig jumps,
But who gives the landowner the right to refuse me access to land they 'own' but quite obviously don't need/use? And don't give me the 'back garden' argument because that's BS and suggests you might be part of this 'Waverley beat' or whatever these knuckles call themselves
enjoying spoiling other peoples fun
Which plays well to the gallery....
How did all the land become private in the first place?
A question that the vested interests will avoid answering at all costs.
Take nothing but photos. leave nothing but footprints
I thought it was 'take nothing but memories'?
Quite a few landowners would get the arse if you were there taking photos too.
Not for any reason other than the inbuilt desire to exclude others from 'their' land.
English law is shit on access. You should have access to all land SO LONG AS YOU DO NOT DAMAGE same as in scotland.
this does not give you the right to build jumps. You do not have the right to build jumps in Scotland
I'm with TJ on this.
Always conflicted on these topics, on the one hand I want better access. On the other hand I want what little natural space there is to not sustain further damage and for other users to experience that natural space without it being a play park.
Oh do behave, If you think for a minute that folk see you trundling along with your missus on the back of a tandem and immediately think of kids building ramps in a wood, your GP needs to reduce your dose.
@nickc wins the internet today.
For people on foot, passing through, definitely not equipped with spades etc
the law has been challenged I think one case was a vindictive land owner who prosecuted a woman pushing a pram on a footpath and the other a man protesting with a placard while stood still on a footpath, the last one is interesting as he wasn’t “passing through” And he was using to footpath solely to protest. Both cases found for the public not the landowners.
I think there needs to be a update to the law about access, but stuff has been dug in woods before and will do again, the sky will not fall in because of it
But who gives the landowner the right to refuse me access to land they ‘own’ but quite obviously don’t need/use?
you are kidding right?
land laws are daft, espececially where the area isn't frequested by the land owner, or not specifally for commercial operations, however
Without knowing the site there could be a myriad of reasons the land owner doesn’t want it dug up, environmental considerations
i lost all respect for this argument after the devestation up on leith hill this year (and years gone past in the quarry- remember the endangered newts that were unaffected by hovering JCB's)
very good point made about S4P up there - it's a 3, 4 mile ride away from Hambledon to S4P dirt jumps at Milford. Free to ride, loads of jumps there from kiddie rollers to doubles that keep pros happy, and they always need some work done. Whoever build these could have spent half their digging time sprucing up the jumps at S4P, making it better for everyone rather than the few that know about theirs, then spent more time riding.
The point about land access isn't relevant in this case either, it's common land, open access from what I've read (there's a few different woods round Hambledon, don't know which one's called Hambledon Common - it's not named on the map that way)
The problem with the post is the total tone-deafness of it. Should have led with the point about discovery, liability for injury and the inevitability of them being flattened, then pointed out the "world class" dirt jump spot a few miles up the road. Not much to argue with.
Instead they lead with heavy handed finger-wagging and got everyone's backs up. "someone's shifted some dirt around in a wood, big woop. Why didn't you care when my house got burgled?" Fair comment.
I used to be very opposed to cheeky digging but my views have mellowed somewhat, esp after speaking to some lads digging in the woods adjacent to the local golf course in lockdown 1. They were really dedicated, very polite and made a really good job of it. They had tried to speak to the clerk of the course, and he’d basically said ‘keep your heads down and don’t damage the course and we’ll look the other way’. They had a great time, but of course not long after the course reopened (briefly) it was all destroyed.
I do have some sympathy with the landowners, esp on the liability issues, but really the law just needs to be challenged in this respect. My problem with the police is they should have better things to do, catching bike thieves for a start off. Once they start doing the job they should be doing, then they can start looking for other things to do...
I too am conflicted on this.
However that FB Post is a massive PR disaster for the local police in Waverley. For a community police page it shows a complete lack of judgement in knowing your crowd and zero effort in actual community policing which should always be about engaging with your community to prevent crime.
I believe its the Occupiers Liability Act. Someone gets hurt on your land, even if they are trespassing, and you can be liable.
That's for the case where you've set booby traps or made the site actively dangerous (dug a mine shaft or something). The liability act is there to protect someone who innocently ends up on the land by mistake and is hurt through no fault of their own.
Re Occupiers' Liability: The following cites a number of cases that just go to show it isn't straightforward. Have a look at the section on 'Allurement' especially (jumps would presumably be attractive to kids).
(There may well also be workplace related laws that would apply to agricultural land & commercial forestry.)
How did all the land become private in the first place?
You'll have to blame Mrs Windsor and her predecessors for that, a lot of the land was granted to lords for their services. I ride through Sandringham and there's a lot of land I can't ride on because apparently it belongs to them, their poor racehorses need miles and miles of land as they need peace and quiet. ****s!
I believe its the Occupiers Liability Act. Someone gets hurt on your land, even if they are trespassing, and you can be liable. Seem to recall the legislation Links to cases of trespassers on railway lines.
Someone who did the insurance exams this century may be more up to date and show this has changed.
There’s a happy medium with access and responsibility. I have sympathy with both sides, but you can’t build all the fun and then not take responsibility for any injury or possible environmental damage you may cause. Not if you’re an adult with a brain.
That’s for the case where you’ve set booby traps or made the site actively dangerous (dug a mine shaft or something). The liability act is there to protect someone who innocently ends up on the land by mistake and is hurt through no fault of their own.
But what happens if the jumps becomes known about by other members of the public who had no part in the digging and the diggers are unknown? If an accident happens and the land owner was previously aware of a potentially dangerous jump and did nothing about it - are they then the person most likely to be looked to for damages? Is it any different to finding an old uncovered well on your land and doing nothing about it?
edit - thanks Tillydog.
That Jolley v Sutton case is arguably very similar to a jumps situation. A boat abandoned by someone else not the land owner. But the allurement to a child considered foreseeable and after a couple of appeals upheld by the house of lords. So a child comes across jumps you knew were there and did nothing about looks like it could give you as a land owner a significant headache.
You should have access to all land SO LONG AS YOU DO NOT DAMAGE same as in scotland.
Damage or improvement....
TBF building like that is probably a bit too much without any permission, but the FB post by the rozzers is bloody stupid "....well guess what, they're going too..." may as well just be going "...ner, ner, na, ner, ner, we've spoilt someones fun..."
Damage!
there are several issues being conflated here
1) land access - does England need updated land access laws to allow greater access - obviously yes. Its archeaic and elitists as it stands
2) Trail digging - not acceptable without proper permissions. Ok I have mellowed a bit on this so if its plantation and the trail digging is minimal it has little harm attached but thats not what this is
Right to roam is not right to dig trails
3) community engagement - this works both ways. a local example to me - a bit of urban woodland. The rangers tried to get engagement with the MTBers - including giving permission to build in two locations. the MTBers continued to build inappropriately including jumps on badger setts and using concrete to anchor boulders.
Engagement works both ways. Did these builders try to engage?
I live local to this area and the Car park at Rodborough (for S4P) is rammed almost every day at the moment from about 10am. Particularly busy over half term and now during the afternoons once the online schooling finishes. This will have been built by a bunch of local lads who want some fun in the woods nearby without having to ride jump bikes 3 miles to S4P to share it with hoardes of others during lockdown.
In my view Waverley police have shown a poor lack of judgement - no need to post on social media which is only going to provoke (as it has). The woods around Hambledon are criss-crossed with bridlepaths and footpaths and it isn't always clear what is public access and what is not as the fencing is sometimes poorly maintained or non-existent. They probably didn't even realise they were trespassing. Although from a legal perspective (like it or not) the landowner has no obligation to allow this, I think they could have been a bit more sensitive to the circumstances. It's not quite the same as saying "I'll pop over to your garden with a spade and see how you like it". Those jumps look pretty well developed (quite impressive actually) so it has taken a while for them to be spotted. Seems a real shame to be so heavy handed on kids showing some initiative, getting outside and doing something healthy.
But who gives the landowner the right to refuse me access to land they ‘own’ but quite obviously don’t need/use? And don’t give me the ‘back garden’ argument because that’s BS and suggests you might be part of this ‘Waverley beat’ or whatever these knuckles call themselves
(and many similar comments from others)
Because it's theirs. Since when has "using" or "needing" been a requirement for owning things in this country? Plenty have people have a spare bedroom sitting empty or a car that they only use to pop to the shops once a fortnight. Shall we help ourselves to those too? If the "back garden argument is BS" then how would you define when a 'garden' becomes 'land'?
Sure, land access rights here are antiquated and rubbish, a throwback to the class system which needs revising. No doubt a lot of land should really be returned to the public or at least made open access. But that doesn't justify rocking up with a mini excavator. We can argue whether land ownership is fair until the cows come home but "he's got a lot of land so he should give us some" is little more than jealousy, that's how burglars justify theft to themselves. Why not lobby the councils to buy some of it back? A small hike in council tax to pay for new facilities sounds worthwhile to me.
If the “back garden argument is BS” then how would you define when a ‘garden’ becomes ‘land’?
Do you really need a definition?
I've been told I wasn't allowed to ride across an open mountain side up near the Brecon Beacons because I might disturb the sheep. (From a bloke in a 4x4, on a 3m wide gravelled access track.) Maybe there should have been a sign up saying 'BEWARE - GARDEN'
I too am cautious and err on the 'it is private land, show some respect'.
Both sides need to show some Rule No.1 awareness.
So many trailbuilders seem to move on from a sliver of dirt quietly behind a row of trees in a quiet corner.
We had a trail locally totally hidden with a line of jumps. Never bothered about for years and years - until lockdown this spring when the entrances were widened and signposted off the main walking trail, the jumps were added to in height and number, a suitable 'den' was built and littered with rubbish and a number of trees (dead and live) chopped down to do all this. The landowner called the police, rightly.
We have another area now dug up for a jump park - the diggers without permission put them in, ripping through roots (dead trees time), digging up swathes of bluebells (the protected ones), clearing one of the most fungal rich areas I have seen of all the mycorrhizae and leaving a scar of imported crates and pallets too - all in a SSI. The main digger would not reason, had plans for all sorts - but has now abandoned the dig after a few months and moved onto another, even more public and sensitive area.
I am *totally* for trails, riding etc. But I feel the art of trail creation has become a near cult, with the focus on the digging of the most awesomz trail possible, with hoofing big jumps Red Bull Rampage stylee, and a total disregard for land ownership, environmental or social concerns.
In this case the police are right in my view - and yet we (that is the royal We of mountainbiking, particularly local trail builders) should work with land owners and managers, not just go ahead and build.
Because it’s theirs
That massively over simplifies a complex issue
Since when has “using” or “needing” been a requirement for owning things in this country?
Quite a while. There is plenty of history of it well within UK law. Prescriptive easement, adverse possession, compulsory purchase
The bootlicking is so strong in this thread.
I say round up the land owners and drop them in the sea.
I say round up the land owners and drop them in the sea.
With a fence around them to show which bits of the sea floor they own.
I love a good landowner me. Who's lucky emough to have this fine specimen representing them in the famously egalitarian House
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Drax
That massively over simplifies a complex issue
So does this.....
The bootlicking is so strong in this thread.
I say round up the land owners and drop them in the sea.
Not all landowners would fit within the 'landed gentry' qualification. Not all are quaffing port while the serfs do the grunt work. And of course unless you propose some sort of free for all right to purchase from one individual to another it would end up in state hands for our general benefit. That would still not end up with the individual doing what the hell they liked on it with the added benefit of our collective taxes having to pay for it's potential liability and upkeep. Sometimes I think you need to be careful what you wish for.
"it would end up in state hands for our general benefit. That would still not end up with the individual doing what the hell they liked on it with the added benefit of our collective taxes having to pay for it’s potential liability and upkeep. Sometimes I think you need to be careful what you wish for."
I wish for this.
However I think you will find the taxpayer already pays millions to these landowners in the form of various subsidies and other ex gratia payments without any benefit at all to local communities
Not all landowners would fit within the ‘landed gentry’ qualification
They literally do...
I get the "get orf moi laaand" bit I really do, and recently stuck my nose into a local bit of woodland where trails that had been there for years had been suddenly fenced off, Now, the landowner wasn't really interested in discussion, and wanted it stopped, but...he'd done nothing about the trails for years and years and had allowed the situation to mature to the point where just sticking some fencing up and expecting folk to just go away was the worst sort of head in the sand type of behavior, and obviously did nothing to stop it, which in turn made him more bitter...Added to the fact that it was in reality a scrubby bit of unmanaged derelict woodland on a 45 deg slope that was infested with squirrel, that it was obvious he was doing it out of spite.
These folk sometimes don't help themselves.
Going back to the OP, the bit that rankles is the police crowing about chasing some kids off private land at the behest of the landowner. Most folk live on urban estates rather than country estates and may have experienced a rather less enthusiastic response to theft or property damage.
I love a good landowner me. Who’s lucky emough to have this fine specimen representing them in the famously egalitarian House
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Drax/blockquote >
Blimey. worth a spin through to the last para. 15,000+ acres in the UK, plus the sugar plantation in Barbados. Earnt through the deaths of 30,000 slaves over 200 years. He claims he doesn't have any responsibility for "something that happened 300 or 400 years ago", which may be true, but he still owns all of the proceeds.
Certainly puts some lads digging in the woods in perspective. Wouldn't be surprised if some of the anger is fueled by a year of being told to follow rules by people who don't follow them, who are also shoveling billions of public money into Tory (landing owning) mates' pockets, while the same people stuff up brexit to the detriment of most of the country, on the back of 10 years of austerity.
That^ might seem OTT, but there's more behind the vitriol than whether or not some jumps should get knocked down.
They literally do…
They literally don't and it's pretty ignorant to think so.
I am looking out of my temporary wfh office across to a small holding. Sandy, my neighbour, owns it after buying the land about 15 years ago and ploughing his savings into building a house. He's in his 70's now as is his wife. He's worked on the land all his life and his wife worked as a classroom assistant. They supplement their pensions by using part of the house as a small guest house and Sandy works the land - partly for income and partly because it is what makes him happy. A supersized veg garden and some sheep. Probably about 5 acres of usable land. Behind the fields is about the same again of scrubby natural woodland. Steep ground full of silver birch and scots pine. He manages it gently, pulling out the odd tree for the stove but otherwise leaving it be for nature to do it's thing and act as a weather break for the house and fields.
I know how much the whole setup cost him. Down south he'd have struggled to buy the semi most folk here take for granted. They are far from penniless but they are certainly are not wealthy. Just honest hard working folk.
So - 10 acres. That makes him a land owner in my book. But you think they deserve the 'gentry' suffix too apparently? They would be very amused you think so.
With a fence around them to show which bits of the sea floor they own
The queen owns all of it. You couldn't make this stuff up.
Very sad that England probably won't see access like Scotland in my lifetime, if ever. Far too many people obsessed with partitioning off bits of land for themselves and keeping others out. Never been to any other country where there are so many fences, walls, hedges and rules on access.
Same thing happened here in the summer (although no police involved) Link
To be fair they only took out the dirt jumps that had grown lasty year and there's still plenty of unofficial tracks around, but still upset plenty of people
They literally don’t and it’s pretty ignorant to think so.
splitting hairs. Landowners are landowners, whether they're bare-arsed hill-famers scratching a living or Red Be-trousered ex of Eton (or the other place). They lump everyone who strays onto their property into the same category, so I shall return the favour...
splitting hairs. Landowners are landowners, whether they’re bare-arsed hill-famers scratching a living or Red Be-trousered ex of Eton (or the other place). They lump everyone who strays onto their property into the same category, so I shall return the favour…
What an utterly massive and ridiculous generalisation.
edit: and as my mum used to say, two wrongs don't make a right. Rule No.1 time.
Just some figures which may be useful for this thread:
Using our much higher assumptions, 5.9% of the UK is built on and 2.5% is what might be called green urban - parks and gardens, golf courses and sports pitches. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41901297#:~:text=Using%20our%20much%20higher%20assumptions,landscape%20anywhere%20in%20the%20UK.
Overall, British golf courses are calculated to cover 1,256 sq km, an area roughly equivalent to the whole of Greater Manchester and, according to some estimates, just a little smaller than all the land covered by housing.
The % of the UK golf covers is a little vague, but seems to vary from 2-6% depending on who wants to make a point. Golf courses actually cover more land than the total built up area.
And in terms of landed toffs quaffing their port...
For the 8 per cent of British land that grouse moors use, they contribute one job for every 6.5 square kilometres. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-scourge-of-the-grouse-moor
1.4%
He calculates that the land under the ownership of the royal family amounts to 1.4% of England. This includes the Crown Estate, the Queen's personal estate at Sandringham, Norfolk, and the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, which provide income to members of the family.
splitting hairs
No, just calling you out as a fool.
Sweeping statements is where the problem is here and you appear to be as guilty of it as anyone.
Don't get me wrong, there is plenty wrong with the way some land found it's ownership, is managed and is used. I look the opposite direction and see a large grouse moor owned by a local estate. Untold unpleasantness both to those who stray on to the land and to wildlife. But anyone who lumps Sandy and the Laird into one 'they' and thinks they can pre-empt the response they might receive from one because they have a vouge awareness of the reputation of the other just doesn't know what they are talking about.
Has any landowner ever been successfully prosecuted for an injury that happened to a cyclist on their land? (None on the link to legal precedents posted above.) If it hasn't happened I'm inclined to think it won't, and that notional liability is just an excuse to keep folks out.
What an utterly massive and ridiculous generalisation.
Yes, I've often found that most Landowners assume the worst of people...
No, just calling you out as a fool.
Given that you don' know me, and this is just a chat forum aren't you guilty of doing exactly the same thing?
My experience of landowners is overwhelmingly that they shout first and shout second and threaten third...whether they own 2 acres of large garden or 2000 acres of Scottish Highland. I shall continue to treat as I find I'm afraid.
Sandy, my neighbour, owns it after buying the land about 15 years ago and ploughing his savings into building a house. He’s in his 70’s .......................................
So – 10 acres. That makes him a land owner in my book. But you think they deserve the ‘gentry’ suffix too apparently? They would be very amused you think so.
All of this is completely irrelevant because you haven't told us what Sandy thinks about people who walk through his scrubby few acres.
The problem with having big chips on both shoulders is that sometimes they end up acting as blinkers.
We're not talking about Scottish style access rights here, which I fully support. We're talking about people wanting to build potentially dangerous trail features on someone else's property and leaving the someone else to deal with the costs and liabilities.
I also bitterly resent that at several points since 1066 my ancestors made some incorrect choices about dynastic wars, breeding partners, education, inventions and sheer hard work, but just because I don't own a few hundred acres to build my own ramps and jumps doesn't mean I should just go and build my own wherever I like.
often found that most Landowners
Source?
I also bitterly resent that at several points since 1066 my ancestors made some incorrect choices about dynastic wars
Mine too the bastards...what can you do
Source?
me, just now