Governmental review of access to land in Wales

[graham]

It's simple, really. if you have been elected as club secretary, then the presumption must surely be that you can act as representative of your club, especially as a recipient for information. This would most certainly not 'commit' the club to any form of action but would, on the other hand enable its members to form views as to how it might wish to act, corporately.

You are quite right. I do not know the members of your club - indeed I do not know you. What I do know are the rules by which committees work. One of those rules is that if someone is elected and is seen to act ultra vires then you vote him out. Another is that an executive officer (broadly Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer) is  allowed to act in the name of the body in limited but easily understood ways.

You do understand this, partially, as you seem to accept that your chairman was able to authorise you to write on behalf of your club to gather information. In most organisations and clubs this would be a given. Or did the Chairman have to convene a meeting to decide on whether you could do that?

 

[Ian Adams]

You missed this then;

Regardless, I considered it polite, etiquette and proper to first garner the consent of the club.

Will you now please stop the personal attacks ?

Ian

 

[graham]

You missed this then;

Regardless, I considered it polite, etiquette and proper to first garner the consent of the club.

But you didn't, did you. You asked the chairman.

Will you now please stop the personal attacks ?

Ian

Haven't made any, have just been discussing underlying theory behind how committees operate.

 

[Ian Adams]

But you didn't, did you. You asked the chairman.

.... Who does have a mandate to make decisions for the club that do not require a committee vote.

Now, will you please stop making trouble, deliberately steering this thread away from it's raison d'etre and stop the personal attacks.

Ian

 

[graham]

Given that the raison d'etre of this thread has been amply fulfilled by robjones very informative post Yesterday at 09:16:45 pm, there is probably no need for anyone to post in it any more.

As for the 'personal attacks' I was discussing procedure not personality. Don't be so sensitive.

 

[NigR]

Given that the raison d'etre of this thread has been amply fulfilled by robjones very informative post Yesterday at 09:16:45 pm, there is probably no need for anyone to post in it any more.

Yes, this is what you would like isn't it?

Tough, because it is not what you are going to get!

 

[graham]

Given that the raison d'etre of this thread has been amply fulfilled by robjones very informative post Yesterday at 09:16:45 pm, there is probably no need for anyone to post in it any more.

Yes, this is what you would like isn't it?

Tough, because it is not what you are going to get!

If you have anything informative to add to what robjones said then I'll read it.

Seriously doubt that, though.

Have a nice day.

 

[Rhys]

[gmod]This thread is going no where and has descended into nonsense. Please try to keep on topic and be polite. You have been warned.[/gmod]

 

[bubba]

[gmod]We've had a number of complaints regarding users' conduct within this topic which is why it has been locked.

Please play nice and be civil on this site.

This is a discussion forum. Disagreement is inevitable and tempers can run hot, but please try to conduct yourself in a respectful manner.[/gmod]

The topic will probably be unlocked when everyone has had a few deep breaths

 

[Rhys]

[gmod]I am now unlocking this thread. If you wish to continue posting here, please could ALL of you try to behave like adults. Pursuing pedantic, tit for tat arguments is not constructive and winds people up. Equally, coming in with all guns blazing and name calling also winds people up. Try to keep it calm and constructive. If things descend into the gutter again, formal warnings and bans will follow.[/gmod]

 

[Dave Tyson]

It seems the British Mountaineering Council are pushing their agenda for greater access and getting some publicity for there action. I haven't seen any corresponding push from cavers. Canoe Wales is also pushing and the landowners, anglers etc are trying to marshal opposition.  It strikes me we need to start pushing hard NOW...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-25806593

Dave

 

[hoehlenforscher]

Yes, we need to start pushing hard now... to stop this nonsense. Last time I looked we did not have a communist state and people were allowed to work hard and to buy private property that belonged to them. Why is some ones back garden any more sacred than my fields? Fields bought and paid for by generations of hard work and sacrifice by my family. Fields where I still spend my life nurturing and caring for the fauna and flora to make a living to feed my family and pay my bills. Why should everyone have a "right to ride bikes and horses and quad bikes (if they claim they are disabled) anywhere they please across my land. Please tell me that? The BMC talks about responsible access. If that is all they want then negotiate access on a case by case basis. Because one thing is for sure, if this becomes law then there will be an awful lot of irresponsible access that we as farmers will have absolutely no way of stopping.

 

[graham]

Yes, we need to start pushing hard now... to stop this nonsense. Last time I looked we did not have a communist state and people were allowed to work hard and to buy private property that belonged to them. Why is some ones back garden any more sacred than my fields? Fields bought and paid for by generations of hard work and sacrifice by my family. Fields where I still spend my life nurturing and caring for the fauna and flora to make a living to feed my family and pay my bills. Why should everyone have a "right to ride bikes and horses and quad bikes (if they claim they are disabled) anywhere they please across my land. Please tell me that? The BMC talks about responsible access. If that is all they want then negotiate access on a case by case basis. Because one thing is for sure, if this becomes law then there will be an awful lot of irresponsible access that we as farmers will have absolutely no way of stopping.

Case by case, yes. What's wrong with that?

 

[RobinGriffiths]

Depends how far you go.  Enclosure created the landless working class. And see where that got us. Benefit Street for one.

 

[hoehlenforscher]

Yes, we need to start pushing hard now... to stop this nonsense. Last time I looked we did not have a communist state and people were allowed to work hard and to buy private property that belonged to them. Why is some ones back garden any more sacred than my fields? Fields bought and paid for by generations of hard work and sacrifice by my family. Fields where I still spend my life nurturing and caring for the fauna and flora to make a living to feed my family and pay my bills. Why should everyone have a "right to ride bikes and horses and quad bikes (if they claim they are disabled) anywhere they please across my land. Please tell me that? The BMC talks about responsible access. If that is all they want then negotiate access on a case by case basis. Because one thing is for sure, if this becomes law then there will be an awful lot of irresponsible access that we as farmers will have absolutely no way of stopping.

Case by case, yes. What's wrong with that?

Nothing Graham. The proposal though is to allow unfettered access for cycling, horse riding, canoeing, camping etc on all land, enclosed or otherwise unless it is within the curtilage of a building or is covered with cultivated crops. Now I cultivate grass as a crop to feed my animals but I bet that will not count. We already have problems with national park visitors walking through hay meadows, leaving gates open, allowing animals to mix or stray, costing us days of extra work each year, gates and fencing damaged by people climbing over them rather than walking a few metres more to use a stile. Let's face it, we live in a country with responsible members of the public are, unfortunately, in the minority.

"Enclosure created the landless working class", That is as maybe, but if a servant girl and an itinerant ploughman (my grandparents) can scrimp and save and work hard to buy a farm, then so could any other member of the working classes have done had they wanted to.

 

[Hughie]

Yes, we need to start pushing hard now... to stop this nonsense. Last time I looked we did not have a communist state and people were allowed to work hard and to buy private property that belonged to them. Why is some ones back garden any more sacred than my fields? Fields bought and paid for by generations of hard work and sacrifice by my family. Fields where I still spend my life nurturing and caring for the fauna and flora to make a living to feed my family and pay my bills. Why should everyone have a "right to ride bikes and horses and quad bikes (if they claim they are disabled) anywhere they please across my land. Please tell me that? The BMC talks about responsible access. If that is all they want then negotiate access on a case by case basis. Because one thing is for sure, if this becomes law then there will be an awful lot of irresponsible access that we as farmers will have absolutely no way of stopping.

Good points well made, Mark. I sympathise with you regarding these Welsh proposals and sincerely hope our English counterparts don't follow suit.

Case by case, yes. What's wrong with that?

Nothing Graham. The proposal though is to allow unfettered access for cycling, horse riding, canoeing, camping etc on all land, enclosed or otherwise unless it is within the curtilage of a building or is covered with cultivated crops. Now I cultivate grass as a crop to feed my animals but I bet that will not count. We already have problems with national park visitors walking through hay meadows, leaving gates open, allowing animals to mix or stray, costing us days of extra work each year, gates and fencing damaged by people climbing over them rather than walking a few metres more to use a stile. Let's face it, we live in a country with responsible members of the public are, unfortunately, in the minority.

"Enclosure created the landless working class", That is as maybe, but if a servant girl and an itinerant ploughman (my grandparents) can scrimp and save and work hard to buy a farm, then so could any other member of the working classes have done had they wanted to.

 

[graham]

This is, interestingly, moving away from the original topic, but the politics behind it remains the same.

The enclosure acts certainly did contribute greatly to the creation of a landless working class; no matter how hard some people worked, you  cannot buy a farm where there are no farms for sale. Many of the large estates were created specifically by depopulating land and using it for purposes other than farming.

It is probably symptomatic of how power structures in the UK as a whole have changed that a strong move to 'open up' the countryside, once the domain of the super-rich, at a time when urban open spaces are being ever more closed down and 'privatised'. A high street belongs to everyone, a shopping mall belongs to a corporation who will attempt to control and limit what happens there. Corporations rather than country landowners are where the power rests now.

I have some sympathy with both sides on the original topic; some members of the general public including some cavers are not going to treat land that they might have open access to sympathetically and kindly. Some landowners cannot be trusted to curate their own slice of the world carefully, either. (And as an aside, anyone who agrees with anything that Owen Paterson says about countryside management should not be allowed out without a minder).

 

[matterry]

Does the government not pay landowners subsidies with public money? Does this investment by the public not afford some right to the use of the land they are subsidising?

 

[hoehlenforscher]

No more than saying nurses, doctors, policemen, soldiers, politicians etc are paid from the public purse so the public should have free access to their property too? It was bought by public money after all!

 

[bograt]

Does the government not pay landowners subsidies with public money? Does this investment by the public not afford some right to the use of the land they are subsidising?

Does the public not want food WAY below the cost of production?