Bottlebank said:
Well Trinkhopping certainly doesn't appear on the list of included activities (which does exist BTW),
Could you provide a link to this list? I am aware of several lists made by Natural England and thought they all had a caveat as to not being comprehensive. The act contains no list of included activities. And I thought the Minister made it clear that the definition was left open so any activity could be included provided it did not go against the prohibitions.
The legislators did consider caving as it is mentioned in the analysis of responses to the consultation paper. I quote "Responses were mixed on whether a new right of access should extend to cyclists, horse riders, climbers, cavers and canoeists." taken from the analysis of Proposal 15 which can be seen using this link
http://web.archive.org/web/20000208084449/http:/www.wildlife-countryside.detr.gov.uk/access/analysis/index.htm. (Thanks to who ever it was for that suggestion.) But as it appears that having sent a 'pro CRoW covers caving' message, the legislators then got an 'anti CRoW covers caving' message, it is of little surprise that they then gave little further thought to making the topic explicitly clear.
bograt said:
I would like to see a study of the historical reasons for many of the current access controls,
Interesting that there has not been much response to this suggestion, maybe too much to hide?
I think it will be one of the consequential actions of the Working Group.
Lastly, in the interests of keeping this thread polite, I am going to try and avoid responding to comments which appear to ignore one or more of my prior postings and just state a contrary position. I am going to assume the commenter has read them and concluded they are not persuasive. But I have sympathy with Graham when unnecessary side swipes appear. Can we please keep this thread on topic?