Jump to content

The right to roam


Max Power
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have climbed Carraghyn on many an occasion and this strikes a chord with me. I think this sets a dangerous precedent and should be urgently resolved. I do however sympathise with landowners who suffer from the thoughtlessness of some ramblers who litter the paths, leave gates open and release their dogs on livestock!

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=61381&headline=Hillwalker demands the right to roam&sectionIs=NEWS&searchyear=2021 

Edited by Max Power
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Three thoughts:

1. If there has been long established access, I would have thought that this would have created a right of way simply by continuous use (a right of way doesn't necessarily have to have an official footpath sign on it)

2. "Trespassers will be prosecuted" is nonsense - it is not a criminal offence but a civil matter between the landowner and the alleged trespasser

3. Do we know who owns this land?  According to the online comments on IOM Today someone thinks it's a wealthy Scandanavian.  The MF private investigators are usually good at this sort of thing...   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, BallaDoc said:

Three thoughts:

1. If there has been long established access, I would have thought that this would have created a right of way simply by continuous use (a right of way doesn't necessarily have to have an official footpath sign on it)

2. "Trespassers will be prosecuted" is nonsense - it is not a criminal offence but a civil matter between the landowner and the alleged trespasser

3. Do we know who owns this land?  According to the online comments on IOM Today someone thinks it's a wealthy Scandanavian.  The MF private investigators are usually good at this sort of thing...   

BallaDoc, never assume Manx law is the same as in England.

1. Rambling, in gross, walking anywhere and everywhere, is not the same as a right of way. Right of Way goes from A to B via an identifiable route. In England there was no right to ramble, or even by dedication, in gross. Ramblage rights are statutory. However ramblage in gross exists in the IOM by dedication, on Douglas Head. But never been claimed by continuous use.

2. In IOM trespass on farmland, open land, has been a criminal offence since the 1700’s. There’s a case in 1980 when Eddie Garside argued that it didn’t apply to a house and garden. He was correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, John Wright said:

BallaDoc, never assume Manx law is the same as in England.

1. Rambling, in gross, walking anywhere and everywhere, is not the same as a right of way. Right of Way goes from A to B via an identifiable route. In England there was no right to ramble, or even by dedication, in gross. Ramblage rights are statutory. However ramblage in gross exists in the IOM by dedication, on Douglas Head. But never been claimed by continuous use.

2. In IOM trespass on farmland, open land, has been a criminal offence since the 1700’s. There’s a case in 1980 when Eddie Garside argued that it didn’t apply to a house and garden. He was correct.

I take your point about Manx law being different from English law so I stand corrected there.  However, the article says:

"... paths to the summit are well established ..."

so wouldn't that satisfy the test of going from A to B via an identifiable route?  If there is a track going up to the summit, I would rather use that anyway than try to "ramble" through knee deep heather.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, BallaDoc said:

I take your point about Manx law being different from English law so I stand corrected there.  However, the article says:

"... paths to the summit are well established ..."

so wouldn't that satisfy the test of going from A to B via an identifiable route?  If there is a track going up to the summit, I would rather use that anyway than try to "ramble" through knee deep heather.

Sounds as though there is more than one path. 21 years usage of a particular route may be difficult. Paths on hills tend to move, divert, over time, with usage, ruts, wear and tear, mud. But a right of way still different to a right of ramblage ( or way ) in gross. 

A right of way, rather than a public right of way, is attached to and for the benefit of a piece of land ( the dominant tenement - the right owner ) over a second piece of land ( the servient tenement - the land subject to the right )

Method of establishing PROW aren’t quite the same as for ordinary rights of way.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mimi, Marchioness of Queensbury closed a footpath in Peel*. Got some stick for that. Fo Halloo days though. 

Plenty of other examples. Other than the boy Clarkson, the rich boys usually win, they know or rather get to know the rich lawyers and the deemsters.

 

 

ETA:

Court case and won by the Marchioness on Appeal as it was deemed that the footpath had erm, ceased to be. Highway and Transport Board were not happy with the handling of the case.

Edited by Barlow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

at the end of the day the powers that be can't he bothered to maintain things so it is easier to shut them off than face being sued for allowing access to somewhere that could be dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Max is right if enforceable it does set a very dangerous precedent and shouldn't be allowed.

That said I've always been of the opinion that if you want to walk somewhere then just do it, what are they going to do?

The worst that's ever happened to me doing this is someone came up to us and asked us to leave. When I asked why they said because it's private land, when I asked if that was the only reason they said yes, I politely declined and carried on. They did nothing. 

As long as you're doing no harm what are they going to do? 

I wouldn't walk near anybody's house or anything or climb fences in a field or anything,  but an upland track just crack on, if anyone objects then that's their problem. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Pipsqueak said:

at the end of the day the powers that be can't he bothered to maintain things so it is easier to shut them off than face being sued for allowing access to somewhere that could be dangerous.

Very poor excuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Pipsqueak said:

at the end of the day the powers that be can't he bothered to maintain things so it is easier to shut them off than face being sued for allowing access to somewhere that could be dangerous.

What relevance has that got to do with this topic, or anything posted so far?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Chris C said:

Max is right if enforceable it does set a very dangerous precedent and shouldn't be allowed.

That said I've always been of the opinion that if you want to walk somewhere then just do it, what are they going to do?

The worst that's ever happened to me doing this is someone came up to us and asked us to leave. When I asked why they said because it's private land, when I asked if that was the only reason they said yes, I politely declined and carried on. They did nothing. 

What else did you expect they may have done,? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

What relevance has that got to do with this topic, or anything posted so far?

paths not fit for purpose being closed rather than maintained , its not like there could be a privacy issue up the hills. i guess it needs ascertaining why the pathways are being closed if it hasn't been already and i just don't why, others may.  i can understand not wanting dogs among sheep but no need to ban humanity.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...