Please go visit www.righttoroam.org.uk/ You can buy the book mentioned here: uk.bookshop.org/p/books/wild-.... Massive thanks to Jon Moses for his time.
History is the most mysterious and hidden entity in GOD'S world. We know of the entity called the Antichrist. Almost a millennium ago, the monarchy was signed over to (not roam) but the geographic location of the same word. Look up the lecture from Walter Veith called beamable, sustainable princes. The series is restoring the reformation. You will find how the kingdom was, under great sufferance, signed over to roam (wink wink) Proof of the ownership claim of everything as well as everyone can be found in the R.C.Church "cannon Law" 333.3 Interestingly if you double that number you have the number of the Antichrist.
I trespass fairly regularly, although a lot of the landowners round here don't mind if you stick to the edges of fields. We never break anything to enter, never damage crops, never disturb livestock and never leave litter. And mostly we're sitting photographing wildlife under a camouflage net so you'd probably never even see us. Once got found by an estate manager while we were in private woods photographing fly agaric mushrooms. He'd seen our cars nearby and thought we might be poachers. Had a lovely chat and he gave me his phone number to let him know when we wanted to come back. It doesn't always have to end in confrontation.
Agree. We always tell people to be polite and look for the most positive outcome in any confrontation. Some landowners / estate managers / farmers take an enlightened view and you can have interesting and productive conversations. I've had several thoughtful conversations with gamekeepers once we've gotten over the initial disagreement.
@@jm0sesrtr we were parked up on a public road once when a gamekeeper drove up and asked what we were doing. We had every right do be there and didn't need to answer him, but we showed him our camera gear and explained we were photographing the local wildlife. He then told us where we might spot a goshalk, which was awesome, particularly because gamekeepers are often tarred with the brush of being anti bird of prey. 🙂
There is a right to roam in my back garden, I have a public foot path about 4 yards from the bottom of it. But due to a secondary 6' fence that's all they can get to. It's a 130 foot section of the path that follows the river Teme. I was out there 2 days ago with the edge trimmer cutting back the brambles and nettles for the walkers, I must get out there again when we next have a dry day because one of the stiles is a bit wobbly so needs to be repaired.
Sounds like you have the perfect spot to set up a snack box! They were one of the highlights of the C2C. And a nice little money earner I bet if the route is popular ;-)
Good of you to do some maintainence because lets be honest, a lot of the paths are in a horrendous state and are often unusable in winter, or summer for over growth or mud "both applicable to both seasons in the uk lol" and frankly given that we have had 30 plus years of government whinging about how fat we are, you'd think they'd make good paths we'd want to walk down without getting covered in shit, injured...or hell, even be able to park somewhere near to actually access them in the first place.
@@matthewbooth9265 I've reported other paths in the area that need maintenance on the Worcestershire portal. On it you can see all the reports and dates, and they have not done anything about them for years.
Moving to Scotland was a breath of fresh air in terms of access rights and I frequently feel hemmed in when I visit English countryside. That said, the population pressures are very different. Even in the more densely populated central belt we have significant amounts of countryside locally and huge swathes to explore to our north and south. My main hobby is natural history. Watching wildlife and observing and recording species as I find them. I'm not talking about the showy well-known mammals and birds that tend to draw nature lovers but vascular plants, mosses, insects and other invertebrates. The right to roam allows me to gingerly hop field fences (helps to be lanky) and delve into deans and gullies and other remote corners few ever visit. Often I will find something unusual and unnoticed living in these places. Sometimes what I find turns out to be the most northerly record for it and in that sense expands our knowledge of what that organism can endure (or perhaps how much climate change has affected things). I couldn't do this in England and that's a shame. Designated footpaths are probably enough for most but I'm glad of the right to roam allowing me to truly explore.
With the right to roam always comes responsibility. Respect for nature and wildlife, farming, forestry and privacy included. It works perfectly well here in Scandinavia and people tend to be more prone to taking care of their environment in general when they're allowed to take part of it.
Yes, but the English are not the Swedish. Our rural histories are different. Agricultural land in Sweden is just over 7% (2.7 million hectares), in England it's 70% (17.0 million hectares).
@@LoremIpsum1970 Yes, and forestry covers 70% of Sweden, that's 22.5 million hectares compared to 0.25 million hectares in England... However, the responsibilities that comes with the right to roam includes that you don't trample around in fields and destroy the crops as well as not destroying the forest, so your comparison is pretty irrelevant.
@@Balkongodlaren Not irrelevant at all, just how many Swedes spend time in your agricultural areas? I don't think I've ever seen a video showing anyone enjoying the right to roam in Swedish farmland. Is that a destination for many? Or do most go to the islands and forests where there's a much smaller population? Look forward to your answers. One thing you have to realise is we haven't got a generation that's been exposed to the countryside, or taught how to conduct themselves when they are there.
Yep because we're not allowed in these places, when we find ourselves there, the rebel is already active. I remember as a teen roaming and we'd cause trouble cause we knew we weren't meant to be there. Maybe treat people with more respect and they'll be more respectful
I would argue that an access island creates a implied right of access across surrounding land. As long as you follow the rules about using gates, not causing damage etc I'd say you were fine.
Always take an OS map with you where you can validate a PF . Keep dogs on a lead in sensitive areas and where there is live stock, keep calm if a landowner approach’s you . Remember if the police are called the chances are they will not know the law or rights but having a map showing clearly where you are and why you have justification to walk/ access a certain area and show that you haven’t done anything to damage land or wildlife. Unfortunately there are just as many irresponsible members of the public accessing land as there are responsible members of the public.
If they called it "The right to Responsible Access" rather than "The Right To Roam" I think there would be more farmers willing to go along with it however the term "Responsible Access" would need to be spelled out in the law!
It's a fair point but right to roam is the colloquial expression we've used for hundreds of years and realistically it's how it gets discussed in the media etc. What we're calling for is, in fact, a right of responsible access - as per Scotland.
@@pwhitewick The term "right" is the problem. It's from entirely different (combative) legal system (like USA) which grants absolute legal rights instead of UK's typical legal framework which grants freedom to e.g. trespass conditional on meeting terms that do not violate another's "rights". Nobody has any 'rights' without their respective 'responsibilities'. Nobody has the right to roam regardless of making it legal you immediately take away someone else's rights under false pretences. Like other sports and recreational activities people will have to be licenced, pay access fees and fines etc and access rights legally bought and paid for.
In Scotland it is called that and the rules are very clear. This is still not enough, however, for some visitors who seem to think that they can go wherever they want.
Large swathes of the British public are unfortunately not responsible enough to leave an area as they found it. This aggravates me deeply because if they were, the landed gentry sat in the house of lords might be more open to change. Litter dropping needs tackling first. Then land access.
Hi Paul, What an excellent video, very well presented. Jon made the case for right to roam very well, it really is absurd to have these islands. I note from one of the other comments that each clip was done in one take, he must have been a joy to interview All the best!!
I was watching a Wildlife rehab video, releasing raptors (falcons etc that have been rescued and then rehab are now able to be released back to the wild). A good point was the gentleman who runs this encourages volunteers to assist in the running of the organisation but then when a release is to occur they have a chance to do the actual release under supervision. He encourages the people to be there so that they are now aware and feel involved - thus becoming more emotive about these birds and their welfare.
Yes I think this is exactly the right attitude: bring people in, make them part of the solution rather than a "problem" to be managed. That's very much what Wild Service is about.
I live in Edale, Peak District. We had the big infamous mass trespass in the 30's that is considered the moment the public sympathy changed to start supporting the right to roam.
We have enough footpaths here in England for the majority of ramblers or walkers etc. In my case there are footpaths across our land that are are pain at times as I cannot fence for stock without erecting signs etc. and despite what the man said, liability is an issue. There is a well marked on an old map in one of our fields: has it been filled in, capped, open or disused, how deep, etc. are the insurers questions. As we have not been able to locate it, the insureres tried to quadrupple our premiums. We already had to take down a 200+ year old Pear Tree as a footpath passed near to it and it was deemed a liability. It is the 'right-to-roam' warriors (townies) that I object to - only had to deal with a couple over the years - they seem to take 'right-to-roam' as meaning they can go anywhere they want with their dogs running loose. Ramblers occasionally stray as it can be difficult sometimes to follow paths, and I have no objection to these people. It will be the few that ruin it for the majority. Regards from Somerset.
Insurance companies always want to push things for no reason. I feel for you. Above all, though, every other point you raise, we do cover in this video. Dogs, liability education, and reform. Finally, there is absolutely no reason any court would agree that a 200 year old pear tree needs removal.
I agree there's a difference between what the law states and how insurers may interpret it (or, you might argue: exploit it). As I say in the video, we're proposing that is addressed as part of access reform. The people you're describing - going anywhere with dogs etc - aren't 'right to roamers' though, they're people who either don't understand the current access laws, or don't care. Reform means creating a clearer, more legitimate access model that can be easily communicated to the public and places a greater emphasis on the responsibility of access users. It will predominantly affect those who *do* care what the law is. It will also create more political interest in interventions around dogs. That can only help with irresponsible access.
Meanwhile, in northern Ireland there is basically zero access to the countryside. Since moving here from England Ive come to regard the countryside as something people drive past as they travel from town to town. Visible only from a window.
That’s a really odd situation in Ireland. By the way the most Northerly point of "Southern Ireland" is further north than Northern Ireland. Please call it Ireland or the Republic of Ireland.
@@JD-yz9kr Yes I'm aware of this footpath and a few others. Either you've never lived in england and don't understand the sheer number of footpaths in comparison to NI... ....or you live outside NI and don't understand the situation in NI.
Thank you. Scotland has shown what works, let’s learn from it and come up with a sensible way forward that provides rights, but also expects responsibilities!
Scotland doesn't work, it's all theoretical but has no teeth, landowners by and large do what they like. Recently "rewilding" has resulted in huge areas of land blocked off by high fences with very occasional gates which could be locked at any time.
Excellent video, counters all the concerns really well and explains why we need the Right to Roam responsibly. One small inaccuracy from the presenter - trespass is not illegal, and you are not breaking the law to get to an Access Island or if you step off the path. In fact trespass is a civil matter, not illegal, not a matter for the police.
We wonder why the youth of today are disengaged and unpatriotic, well perhaps that's because they own no part of this country, and they are allowed no access to this country, it is therefore no wonder, that they feel no connection to this country. It's vital for the future of our nation and nationality, that everyone is allowed to roam, and connect with this land, and to feel connected with the United Kingdom.
You are kidding? Public footpaths and commons provide fantastic access to the countryside. Try walking across farmland anywhere else you'll soon appreciate how the British are intimately connected with their landscape. In most Commonwealth countries, and the US private land is private. A lot of Australians cannot understand walking across farmland, they are so conditioned to drive to an "attraction" read a sign, then drive on.
Few years back I was at my aunts house and a couple broke into her garden (hopped over a 6ft fence and unlocked the gate) they said they had the right to roam in her garden and showed a map with a public path from over 100 years ago (the area is sadly all built up now) and started arguing that my aunt shouldn't have her gate locked.
The best place to start is more education for all ages about respecting the environment especially taking kids in schools out into nature and teaching them there, whilst this is more difficult for innercity schools, it's possibly even more important for the kids to get them outside into nature and the correct funding should be given to it!
I can see this from both sides, the main problem will be a minority who have no regard for anything, we see this on the banks of the Thames were an increasingly expanding group leave rubbish on moorings. The result being that the landowners rightly refuse access to these areas at the expense of all of us.
I had a local hunt try to access a neighbouring field by going up through my back lane...I refused and they got very nasty! Needless to say that arguing with a retired former RUC Officer who was armed was not their best course of action!
Great vid, as is all of your content. I've found problems even with the green lines on OS, most recently the Dog Rose Ramble in west London where it goes over West London Golf Centre.
Jon Moses is an eloquent and knowledgeable advocate who sets a perfect tone for engagement. I'd love to see a "General Right of Responsible Access" in Ireland at some point. Show us how it's done well and maybe we'll eventually follow.
I've had people get insanely angry at me for trespassing before, in once instance I was threatened with being shot. We really do need right to roam in England.
Did you ever think why they might be so angry? I have saved for 15 years to buy my own little private woodland. Somewhere I can take my son to camp and be a part of nature. I planned to have wild flowers, bee hives, hedgehog houses and try and help the red squirrel population. But its infuriating to just have bags of dog crap left hanging on trees and people just vandalise everything we create. Fuc* the right to roam. I'm building 2.5 meter fences next.
This issue isn't high on my agenda Paul, but I very much respect your passion for the subject. Your videos have helped me to understand the key points. I suspect a "right to roam" law is some way off.
Let's be realistic and get our priorities right. On the whole, this is not a considerate, sensible, or law-abiding country, sadly. Denmark (for example) by comparison, is. Changes will have to be by stages. Some suggestions: 1) Give highway authorities enough money to maintain Rights of Way. Volunteers are great, but they cannot enforce anti-cropping laws. 2) Give government backing to a user-preference upgrade to ROWs and Access Land. Give landowners small payments for locally important new routes, to make the network better, and enforce access points onto Access Islands, where sensible, instead of leaving it to 'consultation'. 3) Pass a law on dog control, with serious penalties. To avoid alienating dog-walkers (who are a huge proportion of path-users), make this legislation part of a universal updated country code. 4) Only then, once this has all been shown to actually work - consider wider Right-to-Roam legislation. We have fresh reports of farmers in Scotland illegally barring access. If consensus does not there, what hope in England?
Agree with RoW protection being central to this. Wider access rights create powerful incentives to maintain and expanding the existing network, as it becomes a tool of access management rather than an imposition. I don't think there's anything innate to English people which makes them less considerate, sensible or law-abiding. It's a question of culture, education, and legitimacy. Scandinavians have a different relationship to land because rights of access have long been enshrined in their culture.
I believe we should respect other people's property. I also believe we should be able to experience nature and enjoy the scenery. I don't believe in forcing anyone to allow access. The biggest thing I believe here is nature should never be molested and treated with the greatest respect. Maybe some landowners can designate a portion for roaming. Maybe even grant permission when someone inquires. Rules must be in place to save and protect the nature we are simply stewards of.
I have always believed that there should be a public right of way for a person to walk or roam along the ocean / beach or along a river. I am not talking about heavy equipment, I mean if someone wants to walk, tent camp within so many feet of a ocean beach, lake or river it should be permitted. and it should be a right that is above law.
Just discovered this channel. I’ve also noticed areas that were once free to roam and are now shut off. I’ve never been one to be restricted by a sign tbh. Nevertheless, you should look into Hopwas woods in Tamworth! A very historic woodland, dating back to the 16th century - probably older - yet now owned, apparently, by a quarry company and complete shut off to the public!!!!! 🤬 pisses me off!!!!
I think given the huge mileage of footpaths and rights of way we already have you don’t need more access. And I have always understood that in this country in order to sue for trespass you had to show damage
Trespass is a civil matter unless damage or obstruction of lawful activity occurs, yes. And civil damages would be contingent on proof of damage, as you say. There are lots of reasons why people need more access rights than those currently extended by the RoW network (which is better understood as a form of access infrastructure rather than the foundation of access rights themselves). If you google our campaign you'll find many stories which are testament to that (not least the recent Cirencester Park debacle). I guess the obvious point is that if what we had was enough we wouldn't have to have a campaign in the first place and/or nobody would be interested in supporting it.
Australia likes to fashion its identity on rebelious mischievous people living "out bush", the Jolly Swagman, Crocodile Dundee, the films "The Sundonwers" and "The Man from Snowy River". Tresspassing here though is a criminal offence, except in state government forestry areas, and national parks. Even then, people are not infrequently charged an entry fee into national parks, and dogs are definitely banned. So Australia is probably the most suburban society I have ever lived in. People just don't leave their cars, and when they do go to rural areas the closest they get to experience anything but forest is along a prescribed path. It's terrible, the government and landowners have corralled us into experiencing the world as a mosaic of protected private feifdoms. Those government owned areas where you might roam off the beaten track are often monotonous blands nowhere places. I really miss the English countryside.
I'd say 99.9% of walkers care for their surroundings and, if given the chance, would be responsible visitors to the huge swathes of land not currently accessible in England. Fly tipping and the vast quantities of crap thrown out of car and truck (truck drivers seem to specialise in chucking out bottles of piss) windows that you see along the road sides is vastly greater in quantity and impact. The A14 has recently been 'upgraded' near me and just one small area where the construction crews parked up has been swamped by their discarded food wrappers/drinks cans and general shit - literally a mountain of it.
react @ 1.02: ( that view at the beginning :O :O) And Jon M. : "(...) pretty much a full time Access campaigner now" Ahaha Good one Moses. xD Looking forward to learn and discover a lot in this already visibly precious share of your time, great work! thank you! 💚 @6.02: +/- "(..) Bring back the human to Nature so it can (re?) become Its Protector. (..)" LOVE. 💚
A right to roam doesn't mean everyone will be walking on private property. It will still be a tiny tiny proportion who will doing any roaming. Many people who walk and hike do so very very occasionally and only in fair weather and when the planets align just right. So whilst the numbers might sound large when quoted at being in the tens of thousands, when spread out over the whole country, the most likely thing that will happen is that every person roaming will hardly ever see another person. Take for example the coast to coast walk in the north. Thousands walk each year, with many coming from overseas, but in videos I've seen of people doing the walk they hardly ever see anyone else except at meeting points such as villages where other tourists (non walkers) will be.
I want to engage my MP on the issue of access, especially public access land that receives grants but cannot practically be accessed. What a good one-pager to point him to?
The royals share their land up in Scotland! Ive even watched a UA-cam video some bike enthusiasts made when they stumbled on King Charles who was out for a walk on his land and they had a wonderful conversation with each other...... This is how it should be 🙂 Great vid Paul 🙂 Thank you.
His answer on ‘Responsibility’ in relation to roaming on other people’s land was, in fact, no answer at all. He completely veered off the essential point - will people be responsible, what happens when they (inevitably) are not, how can it be enforced, how can landowners be recompensed etc - talking glibly instead about such nebulous subjects as ‘deeper ecological relationships’, ‘agents of ecological change’, ‘citizen science’ etc etc. This is a really fundamental question. And if all one of the chief proponents can do is (deliberately) avoid the question, then (deliberately) talk about something else instead it is pretty alarming, because he obviously has NO answer to the question…
You’re right, he needs to be clear about supporting landowners in prosecuting people who by ignorance or intent, trash the land. Commit to that and the right to roam can move forward.
I don't think it's glib: those deeper responsibilities induced by long-standing access have been essential where I live. My point is that we always talk about responsibility as an admonition not a positive potential, which is a bit sad. Remember, the people who care what the access laws are (with all the responsible behaviour it entails) are the people excluded by the current system. The people who don't care now won't care then. So it becomes a question of resourcing cultural change through education and though the creation of a more legitimate access system. None of that is impossible, we just don't try. I'm not against landowners being compensated for any disregard they experience.
@@jm0sesrtr The main point I’m making is that instead of an honest response, we got underhand evasion & deliberate deflection. Not what is expected from a reliable spokesman, but very much the sort of routine delivered by glib politicians…
@@jm0sesrtr The main point I’m making is rather than a straight honest response with concrete proposals, we got deliberate evasion & deflection instead. And as we are talking about real things in the real world and not metaphysical concepts, his replies were way too nebulous & vague. As well as evasive. Not what is expected from an honest & reliable spokesman, more like somebody who has something to hide, very much the sort of routine delivered by glib politicians. And as for your suggestion of ‘education’ how long is that going to take (and how much will it cost) and when will the end result be delivered? At best, not for a very long time, if at all. Meanwhile, access is being pressed for right now…
In the states if you own an area of land that’s surrounded by other land owners that have to allow you a “right of way” to get to it. Same could happen there too these “islands” of land.
. Do you know Jesus Christ can set you free from sins and save you from hell today Jesus Christ is the only hope in this world no other gods will lead you to heaven There is no security or hope with out Jesus Christ in this world come and repent of all sins today Today is the day of salvation come to the loving savior Today repent and do not go to hell Come to Jesus Christ today Jesus Christ is only way to heaven Repent and follow him today seek his heart Jesus Christ can fill the emptiness he can fill the void Heaven and hell is real cone to the loving savior today Today is the day of salvation tomorrow might be to late come to the loving savior today Romans 6.23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. John 3:16-21 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. Mark 1.15 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Hebrews 11:6 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Jesus
The problem is that the small minority will trash things. It is always the minority that ruin it. I grew up in the countryside. The unwritten rule was you never took your dog into a field.
I'm curious as to the numbers that have an active desire, the time, and the means to 'roam', and that then act on this desire, and with what frequency? What does the demand-side for 'roaming' actually look like? I'm curious because, where i live, the opportunities to 'connect with nature' are extensive, but uptake is pretty minimal. I'm also somewhat skeptical of the idea that facilitating access leads to people developing some sort of enhanced appreciation for, and a more caring disposition toward, the 'natural world' - the history (ancient and modern) of humans having access to 'natural' environments seems to support this skepticism. I do, however, get the political significance of this concept - it comes across to me as being much about benefiting people and rather less about just leaving what little remains of 'nature' alone.
Well we can't argue it both ways: if people won't take up the right then no harm done. But we can't therefore argue they shouldn't have the right because it will unleash carnage on the countryside. As to connection equalling protection: there is no one working in conservation today who hasn't first had fundamental, perhaps faltering, perhaps amateurish encounters with the natural world. Those experiences are formative. No, access alone doesn't immediately create knowledge etc - there is other work to be done - but it is its precondition. I live next to the River Wye which is one of the few near-fully accessible rivers in the country. It's impossible to imagine the current campaign resisting its degradation (being caused, as usual, by industrial agricultural practices and the water companies) without that long-standing relationship between people and their river.
I think a bit of thought needs to be put into the meaning behind trespass. Trespass means to do a wrong on to another. It is commonly used to mean going on private property without authorisation. But that's just one use of it. It would be worth going back to the root of trespass such as it's use in the Bible. When trespass becomes doing a wrong onto another, then trespass is more about denying the owner of the property the ability to use their land as they wish. So an empty field overgrown with weeds is not being used by the owner, so walking on it is not denying the owner anything. Camping on it for a night probably wouldn't either. Long term camping however could be a problem. Many people equate trespass to putting one foot one foot past some imaginary line and will descend to using force and violence because of the encroachment onto "their" land. Even when it's not a private residential property but some carpark used by a business and with not even a hedge to protect it. The land that is the access to a security gate off a road designed to allow trucks to wait for the the gates to open without blocking the main road is also seen by many as private property that no one is allowed to walk on. Well if they are using a camera they get triggered. But dog walkers and joggers and cyclists are never challenged. Just search UA-cam for "auditor" and "PINAC" (Photography Is Not A Crime). But going on the access roadway is not trespass, even if told to get off it, as so long as traffic is not being hindered, then there is no effect on the owner or user of the land. Another point is around aggravated trespass which is the criminal act as opposed to normal trespass which is a civil matter. With normal, civil trespass the owner can only sue for damages. Or get a very expensive injunction to keep certain people off the land. With an injunction, then it becomes contempt of court to break it, and then it becomes a criminal matter and the police can act. With civil trespass police are not lawfully allowed to do anything other than keep the peace. See how travellers are handled to understand it. Another point around aggravated trespass is that it can only occur when there are people using it. Case law has set out that an empty corn field being damaged by anti-GM protesters was not aggravated trespass. It still was criminal damage, but not aggravated trespass because the farmer was not in the field, nor anyone working in it. So if case law defines aggravated trespass as requiring people to be present to be hindered in their activity, then it could logically be said to be the equivalent with civil trespass. An empty field, obviously not being used for crop and just laid out for pasture can't be said to being trespassed if someone just walks across it. Just some random thoughts and opinions and points to pass on to Jon.
It's a nice idea. Completely unworkable. By his own admission, there are half a doxen other pieces of legislation that need to be reformed, just to allow a general right to roam. Liability law. The landowner has to warn of "unreasonable and unpredictable hazards". Who decides what these are? The landowner? HSE? Farmers are already buried in paperwork. Do you think they have the time and inclination to have to do annual risk assessments just so people can walk on his land? There's way too much common sense, or compliance to the law, being read into the general public. I live across from some cattle pasture that has a public footpath crossing it. The majority of people release their dogs before even checking to see whether the field is being grazed that day. I've already seen one idiot in these comments complain that they were mobbed by "uncontrolled" cows. What does he want? All farm animals to be tethered to a spot so he can walk across someone else's land? There's also this notion that land ownership is someohow bad. Let's get a couple of things straight. There are two basic types of rural land; agricultural and wilderness. In the case of the former, with the exception of a few agro-giants, it's owned by farmers who are mortgaged to the eyeballs. That debt passes from generation to generation. In the latter case, it's wildeness for good reason. It can't be farmed, except possibly by some hill sheep. Some of that land (actually a huge amount of the entire country) has little monetary value but contains some of the least ecologically stable areas in the country - heather uplands, marshland, peat bogs and the like . The fact that access is restricted allows it to remain stable. If you want to see what happens when there's a huge upsurge in people accessing the land, take a look at place like the High Peak. Years of people walking wherever they like have damaged much of the peat bog. In order to stop that, a lot of money has been spent on creating paths, which people still don't stick to. Someone else has suggested that people should pass some form of test before they can own a dog. Here's an idea. Why not make the right to roam a licensed activity? Before you can go wherever you weant, you have to prove that you are competent to do so. It won't stop people breaking the law - take driving a car as an example, but it will force people living in cities to educate themselves on rural life before they destroy it. How about changing the name? It's not a RIGHT to roam, it's a PRIVILEGE.
It's essentially one piece of primary legislation (replacing / reworking CRoW - already in operation in Scotland with far fewer governmental resources at its disposal) and then dog reform, which needs to happen anyway. Entirely achievable. As I point out in the video, 50% of England is owned by less than 1% of people. Well over a third of all land is still owned by the aristocracy. No, not all landowners are in that position, but many are - and its their influence which have long predominated in the countryside. Most uplands already have access under CRoW - not to any great detriment if we trust the studies Natural England conducted following its implementation (some caveats for dogs etc as discussed in the video). Marshland is naturally defensive, as are most healthy habitats. The idea that peat bog has been destroyed by walkers when it has been subjected to draining and burning by landowners for generations isn't plausible. If you want less pressure on existing CRoW areas then the answer is more access not less, and then legitimate targeted exclusions where it's justified.
Agreed, it is one of these cases where the majority want something but the people in charge aren't interested since they are the landowners. A large grassroots movement is the only way to get something like this accepted.
It seems to me that the UK should better adopt some of the concepts used in the USA. Outside of parkland many localities have publicly owned and maintained trails across private land. Some are abandoned railroad right of ways or utility right of ways, some are tax deductible gifts from the landowner, some are obtained via a forced sale at market price, and some are just sections of the public road marked as connecting trails. The result is that I can walk out my back gate to a former RR right of way and from there access more miles of trail, paved, graded and single track than you could walk in a year. As a counterpoint, a family ranch of about 400 acres, with grazing leases on adjacent public and private land, abutted a couple of public trails and fire roads. There was a constant problem with malicious trespass. Fences cut, gates left open, cattle shot or killed and butchered in the field, motorcyclists on dirt bikes and fires. Almost all wildfires in this area are human caused and fire does not respect fence lines. You may say rowdy barbaric Americans, but from what I can see in the news the UK now has its own sizeable population of barbarians, and it will by government effort find its way onto the byways and trails of the UK. People who kill cook and eat swans in park, will not respect your back yard fence or a farmer's crop or livestock.
We already have footpaths and bridleways! We are very proud of our footpath network here in the UK. Hard won and campaigned for. I've never lived anywhere that didn't have paths from my house across fields. Lucky me! Morons are everywhere seemingly.... Some farmers just put up fences to keep people on the path if they've had trouble with dogs etc. Expensive , though! Come to the UK and check it out!
Interesting. I believe in the personal right to roam and my experience in Sweden was eye opening as to how well this works in general. We do need a bunch more education so that people do take responsibility in the immediate term when accessing land. Too often people tend to agree with rules but then seem to think they are excluded somehow. I also think your guest gave a bit of a hand pass to dog owners on this one. My personal view is that they should always be on a leash regardless of where they are in public. And don’t carry those plastic bags. Carry a small trowel. Dig a little hole and bury it when your dog takes a crap.
The difference in Scotland is that the population density is massively less outside the central belt, which makes the right to access manageable. The same is not true for the the vast majority of England, nor Scandinavia which is cited as a model too. To not recognise this lends doubt to how objective the presenters are being here. And part of the reason Scotland went that way is that there wasnt the same extensive network of formal footpaths as there are in England. I say this as someone who has spent their life half in England and half in Scotland. Ive owned land but dont now, am a user like everyone else.
It's not about the overall density - it's the distribution. As you say, most Scots live in the Central Belt and the Scottish 'right of responsible access' starts the moment you leave the outskirts of Glasgow or Edinburgh. There was already customary access in the highlands prior to the passage of the Land Reform Act, so its innovation was to enshrine those rights and expand them to exactly those places which are most comparable to England: the outskirts of populated towns and cities, and lowland Scotland (where farming practices are not dissimilar). You're right that England has a better path network than Scotland, and no one would argue such access infrastructure isn't important (hence the need for Core Paths as part of the LRA), but that simply means we have a head-start. Wider statutory rights protect land from arbitrary exclusion and allows us to create a more logical, connected path network.
All for it, as long as it's not locked up by the gRumblers association with the exclusion of horse riders and mountain bikers, we all know they love the right to roam but not for anyone else!!!
As a Swede I come at this whole "right to roam" with different eyes. However, I also think a lot of people have a rather skewed perspective of the right to roam in Scandinavia. Like yes, in general one do have the right to walk almost anywhere. Exceptions being industrial sites, mines, farmed fields, gardens, military areas, railway tracks, motorways and a fair few more places. The core philosophy is to not destroy. So don't break branches on trees and bushes, don't damage vegetation in general or even the geology, don't destroy property, don't leave garbage behind, don't disturb nature as in wild animals and so forth. The most destructive thing one can do is collect 1 handful of hazelnuts a day along one's journey, and set up a tent for 1 night. In general one isn't allowed to tent within proximity to a house, nor in a garden, or within reasonable visible distance. (A distance that depending on the location can be very very far.) And only set up fires in designated fireplaces, anywhere else is generally not legal. And most importantly, don't damage the geology, so no fires on the exposed bedrock or other rocks in general. (also good to check with the authorities regarding the current wildfire risk, since if it is high enough (as it often is) then you can't really have a fire at all. And yes, we are very particular about or granite geology, smoothly ice polished rock doesn't grow on trees.) One can also pick wild berries and mushrooms, but don't arrive with 10+ friends to make a profit on blueberries or such. Even picking for personal use has its legal limitation. Since whatever one does isn't allowed to meaningfully impact other people's ability to enjoy their right to roam as well. Since everyone is allowed to pick berries, then you can't pick so many that there isn't a meaningful amount left for others to enjoy. This general philosophy is more or less the foundation of Allemansrätten or the Scandinavian right to roam, the foundation is simple, "leave nature as close to undisturbed as you can."
All you said is true except "but don't arrive with 10+ friends to make a profit on blueberries or such. Even picking for personal use has its legal limitation". This is still an issue and has not been proven in court yet. Every year, particularly in the north of Sweden, berry picking companies fly in 5000-6000 pickers from Thailand to pick berries for profit on others peoples land, this I think should be changed in Sweden. But the angry farmers of England is just strange, why be so mad if someone take a stroll across your land. But as someone mentioned, how to treat the land and "freedom to roam/allemansrätten" is taught from a very early age in Sweden.
@@watchmobiletvnow It is true that it hasn't really been legally established where the line in the sand is. But the foundation of the law is still that one can't meaningfully impact the environment. Large scale berry picking is debatable how much it meaningfully impacts the environment. Now, if one sweeps through an area picking every single berry in the process, then that obviously meaningfully impacts other people's ability to pick berries in that area. Ie, breaking this law. (one can't argue that "people can go elsewhere." since that is a meaningful impact to have to go somewhere else.) But what if one picks half the berries? There is still half left for other people. Except, if others also picks half, it won't take particularly long before practically all berries are gone. So half is likely still a noticeable impact. If one only picks a few in each square meter, then it likely isn't particularly noticeable that one even were there. It is simply debatable. However, a lot of people use tools to pick berries, especially those doing it as a profession, greatly speeding up the process. Is this acceptable by law? Hand picking berries is fairly slow and easy to argue that it doesn't impact other people's ability to also pick berries. (I can pick a kg of blueberries in around 2-3 hours with this process, more than I personally need.) While anyone using the "proper" tool can completely empty a sizable area in an hour. (Then here is me being annoyed... And reading various articles on the subject makes me ponder if people at large are already not following allemansrätten. Since everyone seems to only talk about how to most efficiently pick every single berry and quickly remove any leafs and stems that got torn along for the ride. Btw, isn't the foundation of the law "inte bryta grenar", surely that also applies to berry bushes? If one needs to filter these out after picking, then one hasn't really followed Allemansrätten to start with in my opinion. And picking all berries is obviously having a meaningful impact for other people so that too isn't in accordance to the law in my opinion.) In the end. I see it as somewhat logical to draw the line at the tool as a simple solution. Want to use a berry picker then you need the landowner's permission to use it. Otherwise pick by hand. And I know a lot of Swedes will consider my conclusion as ridiculously harsh. But read what I have written and ponder, is it okay to pick all the berries? Does it matter if it is you who do it, your friend, neighbor, or someone from Thiland? I say no, picking the majority of the berries is picking too many berries. And stop ripping apart the bushes... (I also think this comment has gotten needlessly long. But apparently berry picking is a highly debatable subject.)
@@todayonthebench I would have no problem if they picked berries for profit on state owned land, like SCA, Svea Skog, but picking berries for profit (companies hiring 1000s of people) on non state landowner land without consent is kind of weird. This was never a problem before, the industry has grown a lot in a few years, I think it a 2-3 billion SEK industry in the consumer end of things. Before people picked berries for personal use and to sell to get some extra money during summer. Now it an industry. On my 100 hektar almost all blueberries got picked by companies in a few days, kind of sucks. If they asked for consent I would not even mind having pickers on the land but picking "my" berries before me and my family have picked anything is plain wrong. But I think this will change...
@@watchmobiletvnow I personally have just as much of a problem with industrial scale picking on state owned land. (Mainly since I live nearby such a forest) But the core philosophy of the law is still "No major impact on the environment." and clean picking the forests is a major impact on the environment and therefore isn't legal. Now, the law is hard to enforce in practice. And landowners have a hard time going after the pickers and the companies behind them. (since the law requires one to be more specific than "berry pickers took everything.") But regardless. If you have issues with berry pickers on your land to the point that you and your family can't pick any berries growing on your property, then the ones picking aren't following the law and you do have grounds to take legal action.
Exactly. It's not a Right to Roam. In Scotland we have a Right to Responsible Access. It's really bad marketing and 'ask' to keep calling it a Right to Roam
as a small farm owner i work eally hard to keep crops growing well. they dont grow well when people walk across them. my farm is inbetween 2 villages and has 2 footpath on eather side that do join up in about a mile walk from whee they last joined. people often walk up our field to get from 1 path to another and have dogs running loos at same time. i put polite sighns telling people to plese keep to the foot paths and keep dogs on leads but people have riped them out. the fields are my garden that i take time and spend money on looking after and it is really annoying when people walk across it for no readon. also other farmers can have wiled cattle that they keep in a field away from foot paths but if people go there cos of the ""right to roam" they could let dangerous cattle out or get killed them. farmes alleady get prosecuted for having dangeous cattle where there are footpaths
I know how you feel, we have a track which goes to fields and our back entrance to the property. Farm vehicles are always damaging Hedges, fencing etc. We even caught the farmer cutting down protected trees on our land which is actually illegal. In Essex the farmers are 99% entitled wankers.
I'm curious about this bit - "farmes alleady get prosecuted for having dangeous cattle where there are footpaths". Is it correct, do you know of any cases or have sources? I've come across plenty of cattle in my walks, although I don't know if they were considered dangerous cattle. I thought that the walker has to avoid harm to the livestock or crops in the field, not the other way round.
@@Macbobob i know of farmes getting fined for having bulls in field without a sighn and farmers that have had cows and calves in fields that have chased people in the field potecting thee calves. also farmers been told by councils they have to repair gates and stiles. anothe thing i have come across is farmers been told they cant have stiles and needs kissing gates in to fields but with cattle kissing gates get damaged and pushed ove from cattle rubing against them making it easy for them to escape then the farme getting fined by the council when the cattle escape on to a main road evan tho its because of the kissing gate failing
Well done Paul. Excellent video which needed making. There’s so much nonsense talked about the right to roam, often by landowners implacably opposed to it. Jon Moses is a great communicator and puts the case in an empathetic and reasoned way. I thought I knew a lot about the CROW Act 2000 but he taught me something today.
I agree from what I've seen on this channel that there are access rights that need fixing, that's obvious. I'd say farming and rural communities have enough on their plates without a mass influx of townies. So - just how much land are they suggesting we need access to for our 'wellbeing' as this is how it's being sold on their website? We currently have the right to 8% of the land, opening up other areas won't necessarily mean less overcrowding or that many more people will leave the cities looking to enjoy nature, it could just increase rural tourism from overseas. Worst case is you may end up with what's happened in other parts of the world that now see overtourism in selfie-scenic areas, to the point that access is now being restricted by lottery and prebooking, hint - people go to places that are popular to be seen at not just because they're open for access. I can see the countryside is going to end up like Cornwall in the Summer, that'll make the working natives happy (along with all the wild camping...and the rise in Lyme and TBE cases). With 70% of England being farmland, do farmers get a say in this? The 'Normans' btw do have freeholds on 30 to 47% of all the land (as 17% is unaccounted for so 'assumed; to be theirs), so almost half a Yoake, then. How do you convince the remaining near 50% to comply, especially the 18% owned by companies and 17% by 'new money'? Reading their website, is there no currently fashionable issue not mentioned? Like a modern-day Digger movement crossed with Post-war Lebensreform, it also covers Anti-establishmentism, Anti-game shooting, Anti-National Trust, Colonialism, Slavery, Diversity and Inclusivity, Mental Health and Wellness...all by promoting a romanticised view of a rural life that we've lost (reading too much Edward Thomas me thinkst). Were we ever really 'connected' to Natures since we were hunter gathers? That seems like such a middle-class, Guardian view. Rural life was a hard one for the majority and since the Celts arrived we have always managed the Natural environment to serve our needs, not the other way around. Essentially, this is just a CC and environmental agenda, and nothing more.
You should rejoice @wout123100 That exalting one man above another is not something any of us should do. Furthermore it's actually sin to do so. Bible. Romans 2:1,11 [1]Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. [11]For there is no respect of persons with God. Bible. Ephesians 6:9 [9]And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him. Bible. Colossians 3:25 [25]But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons. Bible. James 2:1,8-9 [1]My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. [8]If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: [9]But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are ( reproved see Definition) of the law as transgressors. Merriam-Webster's definition of "reprove": www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reprove
At 7:38 and 8:40 you somewhat dodged the question of livestock. In order to be taken seriously, it is important for right-to-roam advocates to actively take a stand that protects the farm animals. Letting a dog loose in a field with sheep or cows, lambs or calfs, or bothering such animals in a way that gets you, or them, injured, should be treated as serious property crimes.
It's middle-class, eco-loon policy masquerading as a wellness campaign, I was half expecting to see Chris Packham at some point. You need to read what's on their website. We've had the Countr(side) Code since 1951, item 3 of 10 "Keep dogs under proper control", if that hasn't worked in all those years since, I don't believe the assurances given here. You're not going to educate all the masses of people they want in the countryside and a lot of bad things will happen. Last thing you need is even more townies...yes, I was brought up in a country village 🤣
The problem here is not the right to walk across a field, but dogs. Any right to roam should exclude dogs, as they cause enormous harm to nature, wildlife, and livestock. Try looking up the number of sheep and cows killed by dogs every year.
We have much more right to roam here in Scotland thanks to the Land Reform act. It is underpined with responsibility and care of the environment. I hope England gets the same.
we have had the right to roam since at least 1320 declaration of Arbroath etc. The land reform act was a labour con. Why should anyone need permission to roam in their own country . The powers that be are quick enough to conscript you to go and fight for the land that you are not allowed to roam on.
Having the right, doesn't mean many more will exercise that right as this is being sold to the English population. It would be interesting to see just how many more of the Scottish population now venture into the countryside these days and what actual positive effect that has had on mental health and wellbeing in Scotland. Surely there must have been at least one study done on this!
But then it's terrible, only can walk or ride a bloody bike. We want proper public land for recreational activities like is seen in the rest of the world.
Don't we have the Countryside Code to tell people how to behave when out walking? Is this reluctance for the right to roam across all land owners, or is it just a few ? A great video btw, highlighting the issues in the difference in Scottish law and English law.
I'm in Scotland and there are new paths being built where I am. The Crieff - Muthill cycle path is a three mile path that will soon link the two places. It uses a farm track, a new path using the fenced off edge of a field that grows crops, and stretches of a minor road. Together with the Crieff - Comrie path (7 miles) and the Loch Earn Railway Path this will create about 25 miles of an almost car free cycle path, linking Lochearnhead to Muthill. More paths could be made in lots of other places by using the fenced off edges of fields, as the farmer would only lose a small percentage of the total area of each field. All at the right price to the farmer, of course!
Bike racetracks are not paths. All the money is going into converting paths into bike racetracks, none into actual paths so there is a net loss. Who wants to walk with the continual "ting ting" which whatever they say really means "get out of my way". One of the good aspects of the current English legislation is they are not allowed on many paths, make sure any new right to roam doesn't erode this.
I don't think it's as easy as just allowing right to roam. I bought my farm 20 years ago and will be still paying for it for many years to come. My experience of the public just using a footpath on my land is regular left with litter, dog excrement and damaged fences and gates left open. Keeping stock and growing has enormous investment and this is where is goes wrong. I have had animals abort by being chased by dogs, another animal eating rubbish left and vets required and gates left open with animals getting onto the road. My farm is my livelihood and business but making it public has enormous consequences. Hay making last year could have ended in tragedy where a couple were picnicking in the field and had air pods on and didn't hear my tractor/grass cutter. We do have organised visits to the farm but people freely entering would be difficult and would also be a security risk where we have extensive machines and valuable products on site. I think the ability to walk the country is very idyllic and I'm sure lots of people will do that with respect. We do use guns to control vermin and that bothers me enormously if a mistake occurred.
Not all the public act like you say. You can not restrict access because of a few bad apples. Please try not to be too selfish, it is not just about how much profit you make. It is about enjoyment of the land. The last time I checked, most famers had nice big houses and expensive land rovers. You are not getting my sympathy.
As someone fortunate enough to have been brought up in a rural area the idea of leaving gates ajar, breaking fences, damaging crops and letting the dogs run wild (especially in Spring) just never occurs to me.
I understand your point of view, and I respect what you say, but when you look at just how much of the country is inaccessible to the people it is upsetting and ultimately unhealthy for body and mind, it feels like a wealth inequality, only those that are more affluent get the opportunity to experience nature, it creates anger. I don't have a solution, but I would suggest that a destination is made between working farms and land that is owned by the 8% that simply cut off because their family own it and they don't like peasants.
@@MrLeighmanit's people like you and your ignorant attitude that makes farmers keep people off the land. Majority of farmers don't own their houses as they are a part of the farm tenancy they pay silly amounts of rent for. It's also the farmers who spend hundreds of hours working the land so it's actually accessible. It only takes 1 bad apple with a dog and a farmer can lose thousands of £ worth of lambs in 10 minutes and any profit for the year. You can't just simply re grow a lamb in 5 minutes. You lose a lamb then that's months of work lost. You don't have to give farmers your sympathy but don't cry and moan when farmers and landowners don't have sympathy for you either when you have nowhere to walk in the countryside because we don't want you and your ignorant city mind. And everyone knows your attitude would be the complete opposite if it was your garden that people are throwing little in, leaving dog poo in and letting their dogs run wild while they attack your family pets and kill them. You would lose your mind.
I read a book written by a man who walked the English coastline from somewhere down in Essex up to near Hull. It was a sort spiritual pilgrimage for him. The only part of his coastline walk that was cut off by stout strong wire fences and big signs saying "No entry - Private Property " was a stretch of land in Essex that was the private estate of that great Socialist and Man of the People MP Tony Benn. Our walking guy had to do a long inland journey around it. Definitely No Access there.
Every non landowner likes the idea of right to roam but in my experience hardly anyone wants to go off the established paths unless lost. Off path walking is tough because of bogs, streams and undergrowth. Striding freely over the land is a lovely egalitarian dream but in practice very few will want to do it.
If that's the case, why worry about it? I agree that many people use paths in practice. But default rights of access provide a statutory basis which helps support the path network: it removes the incentive to 'disappear' or obstruct paths, because they become a means of access management, it encourages the creation of new paths, it helps make the path network more connected, and it frees people to go off-path where it's appropriate and they have their own reasons for doing so. It's also worth noting that access reform is also about things like e.g. the ability to swim in reservoirs and rivers, or stopping very wealthy landowners removing people's rights to wild camp on Dartmoor, or aristocrats to take away a whole town's most important green space at a whim...
Perhaps the time, effort and money would be better spent protecting, improving and extending the existing path network, and creating new routes. This would benefit far more people than the tiny number who would want to struggle through brambles, waist high heather and gorse.
@@jamesthomas4841spread of diseases like foot and mouth is a very good reason. Along with every soft city dweller who twists their ankle and wants to take the landowner to court because they haven't smoothed the ground for them.
@kieranb7047 Curently Foot and Mouth outbreaks leads to the temporay closure of rights of way the same would apply to any extended right of access. As for the risk of being sued for a twisted ankle I suggest you watch the video a bit more carefully 😉
I think that dogs (or more accurately, dog owners) are a big problem. I'm been hiking the length and breath of the South Downs for decades, but when walking along the SDW you know when you're coming close to a car park because of the increase in dog poo left on the path (despite the bins). Sheep-worrying is also a big issue. Also littering, and increasingly the lighting of fires. People are very often, I'm very sad to say, destructive, unthinking, and selfish. For example, damage was caused to land at the Devil's Dyke by an illegal rave that will take years and millions of pounds to recover. There's a lot that can be done to vastly improve Britain's natural environment: less intensive farming; rewilding; stopping sewage entering rivers; and so on - but a 'right to roam', in my opinion, would be another backward step. No matter how well intentioned, you just can't trust people to be responsible. I would say that the rights of flora and fauna to exist trump any perceived rights of people to disturb their environments. After all, there are already 140,000 miles of footpaths in the UK - that's more than five-and-a-half times the length of the equator. If you have a specific want or need to go somewhere out of bounds please just politely talk to the landowner and ask permission. You'll be surprised how understanding they can be. And before anyone asks; I am not a land owner myself, or associated with anyone who is. I'm just someone who is genuinely worried about nature, and what we collectively are doing to it.
Dog ownership needs to change, full stop. But the right to roam works here in Scotland. Last year a local ranger told us they went out with an army of litter pickers to a frequented wild camping spot around a loch. They spent the entire day at it, and what did they find? A single, one, plastic bag that had blown on to the central island in the loch that they needed a kayak to retrieve. Here in Scotland, the right to roam is respected, and because of that, the majority of people respect the land in kind. The problem here is tourists not respecting the land, probably because they come from regions that don't educate on how to respect it, and irresponsible dog owners. Lets change dog ownership laws.
Great Vid and Damn right, it shouldn't be confrontational from the off, granted sometimes things are taken advantage of but god we're human, just bloody talk and be responsible and keep your dogs on a lead where needed and show damn respect - too many people, thinking they've got the right to rule everything!! Not in my world you don't!
An interesting video and it would be interesting to get the other side of the debate on roaming rights from the NFU. What does the NFU think about the fox hunting ban. The countryside is where we grow our food and food security comes first in my view.
Curious as what fox hunting, which is an archaic barbaric, cruel, and illegal activity, has to do with rights of way? It’s also worth noting that we grow less and less of our own food and import more and more, although food and biosecurity and animal welfare are key issues. We’ve all met the ‘get off my land’ brigade, enclosures act when they stole away common land from the common man.
@@daveswhite90 Do farmers need to keep fox numbers down and is fox hunting the way to do it? I would think that fox hunting must damage hedges and growing crops. It would be interesting to hear what the NFU has to say about all of this.
I own a tiny piece of land by a river. Never minded people using it. But last month someone came on picked all the bluebells and stole my kayak . Don't want to fence it but........
Mhm, the scottish Land Reform Act 2003 explicitly only allows you to roam as long as you follow its rules of respect. Disrupting the environment isn't permitted. The asshole who tore up all your bluebells would still be committing a crime under right to roam.
@EStewart573 wish I could pick and choose who came by but..... I won't fence it off as its a lovely little secret place I dreamed about finding when I had young children.
The UK have cultured plastering signs. The architectural damage is 100% with regards to buildings of public access - a total mess. The people even relates to any sign as laws. (In other forums I would argue why the UK is a Police State.) However, it is very refreshing witnessing Jon Moses in the battlefields of the rights of the people. As a Norwegian, hearing him argue of the more than a thousand years old Nordic rules of freedoms is refreshing. (Your battle is lost when seeing a sign in the fields stating “dis da private”.)
Having to state these things in such a way just underlines how bad the situation is. Everything the man is saying is sensible logic - why does it need to be explained? Because of people, people are not logical or sensible. That's how bad it is.
If you give right to roam, you will have a massive vehicular camping problem and particularly campervans and motorhomes have no regard for rare wild life in the Highlands of Scotland. Motorhomes do not have right to roam, but most owners think that are entitled to use them on other people's property. Before a right to roam is opened up, there needs to be promise of law enforcement against motorhomes camped on other people's property; and dumping human poo and rubbish and chemical toilets.
@@brettmeikle That is a very good question. In the US we don't have all the great old Roman roads or numerous canals or other historic routes to hike on. We do have some a few old rail lines to hike and bike on as well as a few canals, but most reverted back to private ownership. But it would be nice to have access to the historic sites we do that are on private property.
Even so, the US has a lot more public land than the UK. Only 8% of the UK's surface is publicly accessible, while in the US that figure is 28%. Granted, a lot of it is in the Rockies, but that still counts.
In my US state (NH) there is a presumed right to pass over unimproved land that is not fenced or legally posted every 300 feet around its perimeter. This has sometimes been called the "inherent right of trespass". My land is just under 50 acres, and although it does have a conservation easement that limits motorized vehicles I have no objection to people walking through my woods or following the brook. It is not posted.
Typical America, it's all down to your individual rights? So paths can appear and disappear depending on who owns it and their whims? The truth is no one should own land, it's totally mental that we allow it at all.
As someone who only hears about the US on telly, I'd be worried about accidentally trespassing and getting shot (I'm not black though so maybe I'd be fine in that case). Or perhaps that's just Florida 🤷
@@shyft09 There are far more guns than people in the US. In some states no permit is required to carry one, either openly or concealed. In some states even the mentally unstable can own or purchase a gun. However, if you stay off improved or posted land (obviously trespassing) and avoid unruly gatherings, that would improve the odds to avoid being shot by an armed crazy. Oh, and stay out of the woods during deer hunting season!
Please go visit www.righttoroam.org.uk/ You can buy the book mentioned here: uk.bookshop.org/p/books/wild-.... Massive thanks to Jon Moses for his time.
History is the most mysterious and hidden entity in GOD'S world.
We know of the entity called the Antichrist.
Almost a millennium ago, the monarchy was signed over to (not roam) but the geographic location of the same word.
Look up the lecture from Walter Veith called beamable, sustainable princes.
The series is restoring the reformation.
You will find how the kingdom was, under great sufferance, signed over to roam (wink wink)
Proof of the ownership claim of everything as well as everyone can be found in the R.C.Church "cannon Law"
333.3
Interestingly if you double that number you have the number of the Antichrist.
While you wait for laws to change in the UK, I'd recommend visiting Norway and enjoy our beautiful nature, and our right to roam.
It's on my todo list
Yes, I want to move to Norway. Will they let me live there? I am from England.
As fare as I've been told you can walk into a private garden in Norway if you got to pass though it
Erm, only 3% of Norway (1 million hectares) is farmland, in England it's 70% (17.0 million hectares).
Scotland has Right to Roam laws, this video is for England only.
I trespass fairly regularly, although a lot of the landowners round here don't mind if you stick to the edges of fields.
We never break anything to enter, never damage crops, never disturb livestock and never leave litter. And mostly we're sitting photographing wildlife under a camouflage net so you'd probably never even see us.
Once got found by an estate manager while we were in private woods photographing fly agaric mushrooms. He'd seen our cars nearby and thought we might be poachers. Had a lovely chat and he gave me his phone number to let him know when we wanted to come back.
It doesn't always have to end in confrontation.
Agree. We always tell people to be polite and look for the most positive outcome in any confrontation. Some landowners / estate managers / farmers take an enlightened view and you can have interesting and productive conversations. I've had several thoughtful conversations with gamekeepers once we've gotten over the initial disagreement.
@@jm0sesrtr we were parked up on a public road once when a gamekeeper drove up and asked what we were doing. We had every right do be there and didn't need to answer him, but we showed him our camera gear and explained we were photographing the local wildlife.
He then told us where we might spot a goshalk, which was awesome, particularly because gamekeepers are often tarred with the brush of being anti bird of prey.
🙂
To us from the Netherlands, the UK's public footpaths are one major asset. We wouldn't dream of doing anything but walk along.
There is a right to roam in my back garden, I have a public foot path about 4 yards from the bottom of it. But due to a secondary 6' fence that's all they can get to. It's a 130 foot section of the path that follows the river Teme. I was out there 2 days ago with the edge trimmer cutting back the brambles and nettles for the walkers, I must get out there again when we next have a dry day because one of the stiles is a bit wobbly so needs to be repaired.
Well done 👍
Sounds like you have the perfect spot to set up a snack box! They were one of the highlights of the C2C. And a nice little money earner I bet if the route is popular ;-)
A wee honesty box like they have on the first part of the West Highland way
Good of you to do some maintainence because lets be honest, a lot of the paths are in a horrendous state and are often unusable in winter, or summer for over growth or mud "both applicable to both seasons in the uk lol" and frankly given that we have had 30 plus years of government whinging about how fat we are, you'd think they'd make good paths we'd want to walk down without getting covered in shit, injured...or hell, even be able to park somewhere near to actually access them in the first place.
@@matthewbooth9265 I've reported other paths in the area that need maintenance on the Worcestershire portal. On it you can see all the reports and dates, and they have not done anything about them for years.
Absolutely! Normans out!
The right to roam freely in England and Wales is 1000 years overdue.
Moving to Scotland was a breath of fresh air in terms of access rights and I frequently feel hemmed in when I visit English countryside. That said, the population pressures are very different. Even in the more densely populated central belt we have significant amounts of countryside locally and huge swathes to explore to our north and south.
My main hobby is natural history. Watching wildlife and observing and recording species as I find them. I'm not talking about the showy well-known mammals and birds that tend to draw nature lovers but vascular plants, mosses, insects and other invertebrates. The right to roam allows me to gingerly hop field fences (helps to be lanky) and delve into deans and gullies and other remote corners few ever visit. Often I will find something unusual and unnoticed living in these places. Sometimes what I find turns out to be the most northerly record for it and in that sense expands our knowledge of what that organism can endure (or perhaps how much climate change has affected things). I couldn't do this in England and that's a shame. Designated footpaths are probably enough for most but I'm glad of the right to roam allowing me to truly explore.
With the right to roam always comes responsibility. Respect for nature and wildlife, farming, forestry and privacy included. It works perfectly well here in Scandinavia and people tend to be more prone to taking care of their environment in general when they're allowed to take part of it.
Yes, but the English are not the Swedish. Our rural histories are different. Agricultural land in Sweden is just over 7% (2.7 million hectares), in England it's 70% (17.0 million hectares).
@@LoremIpsum1970 Yes, and forestry covers 70% of Sweden, that's 22.5 million hectares compared to 0.25 million hectares in England... However, the responsibilities that comes with the right to roam includes that you don't trample around in fields and destroy the crops as well as not destroying the forest, so your comparison is pretty irrelevant.
@@Balkongodlaren Not irrelevant at all, just how many Swedes spend time in your agricultural areas? I don't think I've ever seen a video showing anyone enjoying the right to roam in Swedish farmland. Is that a destination for many? Or do most go to the islands and forests where there's a much smaller population? Look forward to your answers.
One thing you have to realise is we haven't got a generation that's been exposed to the countryside, or taught how to conduct themselves when they are there.
Yep because we're not allowed in these places, when we find ourselves there, the rebel is already active. I remember as a teen roaming and we'd cause trouble cause we knew we weren't meant to be there. Maybe treat people with more respect and they'll be more respectful
It also works well here in Scotland.
I would argue that an access island creates a implied right of access across surrounding land. As long as you follow the rules about using gates, not causing damage etc I'd say you were fine.
It's a grey area for sure.
@@pwhitewick Seemed to be pretty green to me, is my monitor setting wrong? :P
Ho ho ho!
Always take an OS map with you where you can validate a PF . Keep dogs on a lead in sensitive areas and where there is live stock, keep calm if a landowner approach’s you . Remember if the police are called the chances are they will not know the law or rights but having a map showing clearly where you are and why you have justification to walk/ access a certain area and show that you haven’t done anything to damage land or wildlife. Unfortunately there are just as many irresponsible members of the public accessing land as there are responsible members of the public.
@@stephennutkin2477 The police can only be called for criminal damage - not trespass to land. They won't attend, otherwise.
If they called it "The right to Responsible Access" rather than "The Right To Roam" I think there would be more farmers willing to go along with it however the term "Responsible Access" would need to be spelled out in the law!
Yup, I don't disagree. I think the Roam word has come from 300 years of history though.
It's a fair point but right to roam is the colloquial expression we've used for hundreds of years and realistically it's how it gets discussed in the media etc. What we're calling for is, in fact, a right of responsible access - as per Scotland.
@@pwhitewick The term "right" is the problem.
It's from entirely different (combative) legal system (like USA) which grants absolute legal rights instead of UK's typical legal framework which grants freedom to e.g. trespass conditional on meeting terms that do not violate another's "rights".
Nobody has any 'rights' without their respective 'responsibilities'.
Nobody has the right to roam regardless of making it legal you immediately take away someone else's rights under false pretences.
Like other sports and recreational activities people will have to be licenced, pay access fees and fines etc and access rights legally bought and paid for.
In Scotland it is called that and the rules are very clear. This is still not enough, however, for some visitors who seem to think that they can go wherever they want.
Large swathes of the British public are unfortunately not responsible enough to leave an area as they found it. This aggravates me deeply because if they were, the landed gentry sat in the house of lords might be more open to change. Litter dropping needs tackling first. Then land access.
Hi Paul, What an excellent video, very well presented. Jon made the case for right to roam very well, it really is absurd to have these islands. I note from one of the other comments that each clip was done in one take, he must have been a joy to interview
All the best!!
I live in Texas so idk how I got recommended this but it is super interesting. Thank you. ❤
Welcome!
Excellent presentation!
I was watching a Wildlife rehab video, releasing raptors (falcons etc that have been rescued and then rehab are now able to be released back to the wild). A good point was the gentleman who runs this encourages volunteers to assist in the running of the organisation but then when a release is to occur they have a chance to do the actual release under supervision. He encourages the people to be there so that they are now aware and feel involved - thus becoming more emotive about these birds and their welfare.
Yes I think this is exactly the right attitude: bring people in, make them part of the solution rather than a "problem" to be managed. That's very much what Wild Service is about.
I live in Edale, Peak District. We had the big infamous mass trespass in the 30's that is considered the moment the public sympathy changed to start supporting the right to roam.
Yep. And the gamekeepers came out in force. Sadly, most of the people who go in private land have no idea about conservation.
@@crazyferret9409 Please provide your evidence.
Lucky person!
We have enough footpaths here in England for the majority of ramblers or walkers etc. In my case there are footpaths across our land that are are pain at times as I cannot fence for stock without erecting signs etc. and despite what the man said, liability is an issue. There is a well marked on an old map in one of our fields: has it been filled in, capped, open or disused, how deep, etc. are the insurers questions. As we have not been able to locate it, the insureres tried to quadrupple our premiums. We already had to take down a 200+ year old Pear Tree as a footpath passed near to it and it was deemed a liability. It is the 'right-to-roam' warriors (townies) that I object to - only had to deal with a couple over the years - they seem to take 'right-to-roam' as meaning they can go anywhere they want with their dogs running loose. Ramblers occasionally stray as it can be difficult sometimes to follow paths, and I have no objection to these people. It will be the few that ruin it for the majority. Regards from Somerset.
Insurance companies always want to push things for no reason. I feel for you. Above all, though, every other point you raise, we do cover in this video. Dogs, liability education, and reform. Finally, there is absolutely no reason any court would agree that a 200 year old pear tree needs removal.
I agree there's a difference between what the law states and how insurers may interpret it (or, you might argue: exploit it). As I say in the video, we're proposing that is addressed as part of access reform. The people you're describing - going anywhere with dogs etc - aren't 'right to roamers' though, they're people who either don't understand the current access laws, or don't care. Reform means creating a clearer, more legitimate access model that can be easily communicated to the public and places a greater emphasis on the responsibility of access users. It will predominantly affect those who *do* care what the law is. It will also create more political interest in interventions around dogs. That can only help with irresponsible access.
Absolutely brilliant and vital video. Thanks Paul! And thanks to Jon Moses. Everything is just beautifully and clearly explained.
Meanwhile, in northern Ireland there is basically zero access to the countryside. Since moving here from England Ive come to regard the countryside as something people drive past as they travel from town to town. Visible only from a window.
I feel your frustration, having moved back to southern Ireland from England myself.
That said, the Mourne mountain's loop is very enjoyable.
The Ulster Way Footpath.
my friend moved from england to kilkenny. he says he misses the walks and miles of accessible countryside.
ireland is all locked up
That’s a really odd situation in Ireland. By the way the most Northerly point of "Southern Ireland" is further north than Northern Ireland. Please call it Ireland or the Republic of Ireland.
@@JD-yz9kr Yes I'm aware of this footpath and a few others. Either you've never lived in england and don't understand the sheer number of footpaths in comparison to NI... ....or you live outside NI and don't understand the situation in NI.
Thank you. Scotland has shown what works, let’s learn from it and come up with a sensible way forward that provides rights, but also expects responsibilities!
Scotland doesn't work, it's all theoretical but has no teeth, landowners by and large do what they like. Recently "rewilding" has resulted in huge areas of land blocked off by high fences with very occasional gates which could be locked at any time.
I have liability insurance as a member of the Irish mountaineering club and also have it when in the UK.
An excellent explanation of the problems and their solutions.
Timely video Paul. Any party proposing a Scottish style right to roam in England and Wales would get my vote.
Excellent video, counters all the concerns really well and explains why we need the Right to Roam responsibly. One small inaccuracy from the presenter - trespass is not illegal, and you are not breaking the law to get to an Access Island or if you step off the path. In fact trespass is a civil matter, not illegal, not a matter for the police.
We wonder why the youth of today are disengaged and unpatriotic, well perhaps that's because they own no part of this country, and they are allowed no access to this country, it is therefore no wonder, that they feel no connection to this country. It's vital for the future of our nation and nationality, that everyone is allowed to roam, and connect with this land, and to feel connected with the United Kingdom.
You are kidding? Public footpaths and commons provide fantastic access to the countryside. Try walking across farmland anywhere else you'll soon appreciate how the British are intimately connected with their landscape.
In most Commonwealth countries, and the US private land is private.
A lot of Australians cannot understand walking across farmland, they are so conditioned to drive to an "attraction" read a sign, then drive on.
Been roaming for 60 years, not stopping now.
👍
+1 when visiting England or Wales.
Excellent video. Please get Jon back on the show, sometime, he's great.
Few years back I was at my aunts house and a couple broke into her garden (hopped over a 6ft fence and unlocked the gate) they said they had the right to roam in her garden and showed a map with a public path from over 100 years ago (the area is sadly all built up now) and started arguing that my aunt shouldn't have her gate locked.
The best place to start is more education for all ages about respecting the environment especially taking kids in schools out into nature and teaching them there, whilst this is more difficult for innercity schools, it's possibly even more important for the kids to get them outside into nature and the correct funding should be given to it!
I can see this from both sides, the main problem will be a minority who have no regard for anything, we see this on the banks of the Thames were an increasingly expanding group leave rubbish on moorings. The result being that the landowners rightly refuse access to these areas at the expense of all of us.
I had a local hunt try to access a neighbouring field by going up through my back lane...I refused and they got very nasty! Needless to say that arguing with a retired former RUC Officer who was armed was not their best course of action!
Great vid, as is all of your content. I've found problems even with the green lines on OS, most recently the Dog Rose Ramble in west London where it goes over West London Golf Centre.
Jon Moses is an eloquent and knowledgeable advocate who sets a perfect tone for engagement.
I'd love to see a "General Right of Responsible Access" in Ireland at some point. Show us how it's done well and maybe we'll eventually follow.
Very important video! Owning land comes with responsibility, not exclusion!
Nobody has ever tried to stop me. I respect people not boundaries
Great video 🎬
I agree well said
I've had people get insanely angry at me for trespassing before, in once instance I was threatened with being shot. We really do need right to roam in England.
Right to shoot does not exist.
Trespassing in the UK is not a criminal offence. Threatening someone, however...
Did you ever think why they might be so angry? I have saved for 15 years to buy my own little private woodland. Somewhere I can take my son to camp and be a part of nature. I planned to have wild flowers, bee hives, hedgehog houses and try and help the red squirrel population.
But its infuriating to just have bags of dog crap left hanging on trees and people just vandalise everything we create. Fuc* the right to roam. I'm building 2.5 meter fences next.
@@kieranb7047 Well I'm not a vandal nor do I own a dog.
Not entirely true Tresspass can be a criminal offence in some circumstances
This issue isn't high on my agenda Paul, but I very much respect your passion for the subject. Your videos have helped me to understand the key points.
I suspect a "right to roam" law is some way off.
It may come sooner than you think ;-) (at least, some sort of access reform: we'll see!)
Let's be realistic and get our priorities right. On the whole, this is not a considerate, sensible, or law-abiding country, sadly. Denmark (for example) by comparison, is.
Changes will have to be by stages. Some suggestions:
1) Give highway authorities enough money to maintain Rights of Way. Volunteers are great, but they cannot enforce anti-cropping laws.
2) Give government backing to a user-preference upgrade to ROWs and Access Land. Give landowners small payments for locally important new routes, to make the network better, and enforce access points onto Access Islands, where sensible, instead of leaving it to 'consultation'.
3) Pass a law on dog control, with serious penalties. To avoid alienating dog-walkers (who are a huge proportion of path-users), make this legislation part of a universal updated country code.
4) Only then, once this has all been shown to actually work - consider wider Right-to-Roam legislation. We have fresh reports of farmers in Scotland illegally barring access. If consensus does not there, what hope in England?
Agree with RoW protection being central to this. Wider access rights create powerful incentives to maintain and expanding the existing network, as it becomes a tool of access management rather than an imposition.
I don't think there's anything innate to English people which makes them less considerate, sensible or law-abiding. It's a question of culture, education, and legitimacy. Scandinavians have a different relationship to land because rights of access have long been enshrined in their culture.
@@jm0sesrtr Obviously I agree with your views as an idealist. But I'm a local footpath officer, so realism takes over.
I believe we should respect other people's property. I also believe we should be able to experience nature and enjoy the scenery. I don't believe in forcing anyone to allow access. The biggest thing I believe here is nature should never be molested and treated with the greatest respect. Maybe some landowners can designate a portion for roaming. Maybe even grant permission when someone inquires. Rules must be in place to save and protect the nature we are simply stewards of.
I have always believed that there should be a public right of way for a person to walk or roam along the ocean / beach or along a river. I am not talking about heavy equipment, I mean if someone wants to walk, tent camp within so many feet of a ocean beach, lake or river it should be permitted. and it should be a right that is above law.
We need state land put aside for wild camping as well.
6:10 stream water's nice and clean. Now that's responsible...
2:57 What if you're a rich greedy land owner in a beautiful southern village, and your back garden is absurdly large?
Just discovered this channel. I’ve also noticed areas that were once free to roam and are now shut off. I’ve never been one to be restricted by a sign tbh. Nevertheless, you should look into Hopwas woods in Tamworth! A very historic woodland, dating back to the 16th century - probably older - yet now owned, apparently, by a quarry company and complete shut off to the public!!!!! 🤬 pisses me off!!!!
I think given the huge mileage of footpaths and rights of way we already have you don’t need more access. And I have always understood that in this country in order to sue for trespass you had to show damage
Trespass is a civil matter unless damage or obstruction of lawful activity occurs, yes. And civil damages would be contingent on proof of damage, as you say.
There are lots of reasons why people need more access rights than those currently extended by the RoW network (which is better understood as a form of access infrastructure rather than the foundation of access rights themselves). If you google our campaign you'll find many stories which are testament to that (not least the recent Cirencester Park debacle). I guess the obvious point is that if what we had was enough we wouldn't have to have a campaign in the first place and/or nobody would be interested in supporting it.
Australia likes to fashion its identity on rebelious mischievous people living "out bush", the Jolly Swagman, Crocodile Dundee, the films "The Sundonwers" and "The Man from Snowy River".
Tresspassing here though is a criminal offence, except in state government forestry areas, and national parks. Even then, people are not infrequently charged an entry fee into national parks, and dogs are definitely banned.
So Australia is probably the most suburban society I have ever lived in. People just don't leave their cars, and when they do go to rural areas the closest they get to experience anything but forest is along a prescribed path.
It's terrible, the government and landowners have corralled us into experiencing the world as a mosaic of protected private feifdoms.
Those government owned areas where you might roam off the beaten track are often monotonous blands nowhere places.
I really miss the English countryside.
I'd say 99.9% of walkers care for their surroundings and, if given the chance, would be responsible visitors to the huge swathes of land not currently accessible in England. Fly tipping and the vast quantities of crap thrown out of car and truck (truck drivers seem to specialise in chucking out bottles of piss) windows that you see along the road sides is vastly greater in quantity and impact. The A14 has recently been 'upgraded' near me and just one small area where the construction crews parked up has been swamped by their discarded food wrappers/drinks cans and general shit - literally a mountain of it.
The only thing I’d be worried about is how 🥧 🔑 would abuse a right to roam law and just ruin every field they set their caravans up in
react @ 1.02: ( that view at the beginning :O :O) And Jon M. : "(...) pretty much a full time Access campaigner now" Ahaha Good one Moses. xD
Looking forward to learn and discover a lot in this already visibly precious share of your time, great work! thank you! 💚
@6.02: +/- "(..) Bring back the human to Nature so it can (re?) become Its Protector. (..)" LOVE. 💚
A right to roam doesn't mean everyone will be walking on private property. It will still be a tiny tiny proportion who will doing any roaming. Many people who walk and hike do so very very occasionally and only in fair weather and when the planets align just right. So whilst the numbers might sound large when quoted at being in the tens of thousands, when spread out over the whole country, the most likely thing that will happen is that every person roaming will hardly ever see another person. Take for example the coast to coast walk in the north. Thousands walk each year, with many coming from overseas, but in videos I've seen of people doing the walk they hardly ever see anyone else except at meeting points such as villages where other tourists (non walkers) will be.
I want to engage my MP on the issue of access, especially public access land that receives grants but cannot practically be accessed. What a good one-pager to point him to?
The royals share their land up in Scotland! Ive even watched a UA-cam video some bike enthusiasts made when they stumbled on King Charles who was out for a walk on his land and they had a wonderful conversation with each other...... This is how it should be 🙂
Great vid Paul 🙂 Thank you.
His answer on ‘Responsibility’ in relation to roaming on other people’s land was, in fact, no answer at all.
He completely veered off the essential point - will people be responsible, what happens when they (inevitably) are not, how can it be enforced, how can landowners be recompensed etc - talking glibly instead about such nebulous subjects as ‘deeper ecological relationships’, ‘agents of ecological change’, ‘citizen science’ etc etc.
This is a really fundamental question. And if all one of the chief proponents can do is (deliberately) avoid the question, then (deliberately) talk about something else instead it is pretty alarming, because he obviously has NO answer to the question…
You’re right, he needs to be clear about supporting landowners in prosecuting people who by ignorance or intent, trash the land. Commit to that and the right to roam can move forward.
I don't think it's glib: those deeper responsibilities induced by long-standing access have been essential where I live. My point is that we always talk about responsibility as an admonition not a positive potential, which is a bit sad.
Remember, the people who care what the access laws are (with all the responsible behaviour it entails) are the people excluded by the current system. The people who don't care now won't care then. So it becomes a question of resourcing cultural change through education and though the creation of a more legitimate access system. None of that is impossible, we just don't try.
I'm not against landowners being compensated for any disregard they experience.
@@jm0sesrtr
The main point I’m making is that instead of an honest response, we got underhand evasion & deliberate deflection.
Not what is expected from a reliable spokesman, but very much the sort of routine delivered by glib politicians…
@@jm0sesrtr
The main point I’m making is rather than a straight honest response with concrete proposals, we got deliberate evasion & deflection instead.
And as we are talking about real things in the real world and not metaphysical concepts, his replies were way too nebulous & vague. As well as evasive.
Not what is expected from an honest & reliable spokesman, more like somebody who has something to hide, very much the sort of routine delivered by glib politicians.
And as for your suggestion of ‘education’ how long is that going to take (and how much will it cost) and when will the end result be delivered? At best, not for a very long time, if at all. Meanwhile, access is being pressed for right now…
All land is owned by the Crown. 'Landowners' just own the freehold title to that land.
How about beaches or coastel shorelines? Interesting.
In the states if you own an area of land that’s surrounded by other land owners that have to allow you a “right of way” to get to it. Same could happen there too these “islands” of land.
If you do not own the land , it is not yours to walk over .. so keep off and keep out ... show respect 😀
.
Do you know Jesus Christ can set you free from sins and save you from hell today
Jesus Christ is the only hope in this world no other gods will lead you to heaven
There is no security or hope with out Jesus Christ in this world come and repent of all sins today
Today is the day of salvation come to the loving savior Today repent and do not go to hell
Come to Jesus Christ today
Jesus Christ is only way to heaven
Repent and follow him today seek his heart Jesus Christ can fill the emptiness he can fill the void
Heaven and hell is real cone to the loving savior today
Today is the day of salvation tomorrow might be to late come to the loving savior today
Romans 6.23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
John 3:16-21
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Mark 1.15
15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Hebrews 11:6
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Jesus
The problem is that the small minority will trash things. It is always the minority that ruin it. I grew up in the countryside. The unwritten rule was you never took your dog into a field.
I'm curious as to the numbers that have an active desire, the time, and the means to 'roam', and that then act on this desire, and with what frequency? What does the demand-side for 'roaming' actually look like? I'm curious because, where i live, the opportunities to 'connect with nature' are extensive, but uptake is pretty minimal. I'm also somewhat skeptical of the idea that facilitating access leads to people developing some sort of enhanced appreciation for, and a more caring disposition toward, the 'natural world' - the history (ancient and modern) of humans having access to 'natural' environments seems to support this skepticism. I do, however, get the political significance of this concept - it comes across to me as being much about benefiting people and rather less about just leaving what little remains of 'nature' alone.
Well we can't argue it both ways: if people won't take up the right then no harm done. But we can't therefore argue they shouldn't have the right because it will unleash carnage on the countryside.
As to connection equalling protection: there is no one working in conservation today who hasn't first had fundamental, perhaps faltering, perhaps amateurish encounters with the natural world. Those experiences are formative. No, access alone doesn't immediately create knowledge etc - there is other work to be done - but it is its precondition.
I live next to the River Wye which is one of the few near-fully accessible rivers in the country. It's impossible to imagine the current campaign resisting its degradation (being caused, as usual, by industrial agricultural practices and the water companies) without that long-standing relationship between people and their river.
Interesting video but i do wish the camera angle didn't keep jumping about
All the camera angles during the interview, ingesting use of jump cuts
Just look at those "Clouds"
I think a bit of thought needs to be put into the meaning behind trespass. Trespass means to do a wrong on to another. It is commonly used to mean going on private property without authorisation. But that's just one use of it. It would be worth going back to the root of trespass such as it's use in the Bible.
When trespass becomes doing a wrong onto another, then trespass is more about denying the owner of the property the ability to use their land as they wish. So an empty field overgrown with weeds is not being used by the owner, so walking on it is not denying the owner anything. Camping on it for a night probably wouldn't either. Long term camping however could be a problem.
Many people equate trespass to putting one foot one foot past some imaginary line and will descend to using force and violence because of the encroachment onto "their" land. Even when it's not a private residential property but some carpark used by a business and with not even a hedge to protect it.
The land that is the access to a security gate off a road designed to allow trucks to wait for the the gates to open without blocking the main road is also seen by many as private property that no one is allowed to walk on. Well if they are using a camera they get triggered. But dog walkers and joggers and cyclists are never challenged. Just search UA-cam for "auditor" and "PINAC" (Photography Is Not A Crime). But going on the access roadway is not trespass, even if told to get off it, as so long as traffic is not being hindered, then there is no effect on the owner or user of the land.
Another point is around aggravated trespass which is the criminal act as opposed to normal trespass which is a civil matter. With normal, civil trespass the owner can only sue for damages. Or get a very expensive injunction to keep certain people off the land. With an injunction, then it becomes contempt of court to break it, and then it becomes a criminal matter and the police can act. With civil trespass police are not lawfully allowed to do anything other than keep the peace. See how travellers are handled to understand it.
Another point around aggravated trespass is that it can only occur when there are people using it. Case law has set out that an empty corn field being damaged by anti-GM protesters was not aggravated trespass. It still was criminal damage, but not aggravated trespass because the farmer was not in the field, nor anyone working in it. So if case law defines aggravated trespass as requiring people to be present to be hindered in their activity, then it could logically be said to be the equivalent with civil trespass. An empty field, obviously not being used for crop and just laid out for pasture can't be said to being trespassed if someone just walks across it.
Just some random thoughts and opinions and points to pass on to Jon.
So, if you really really really want to access these right to roam islands get a helicopter licence first.
Fair
The right to roam works in Scotland why not in England
It's a nice idea. Completely unworkable. By his own admission, there are half a doxen other pieces of legislation that need to be reformed, just to allow a general right to roam.
Liability law. The landowner has to warn of "unreasonable and unpredictable hazards". Who decides what these are? The landowner? HSE? Farmers are already buried in paperwork. Do you think they have the time and inclination to have to do annual risk assessments just so people can walk on his land?
There's way too much common sense, or compliance to the law, being read into the general public. I live across from some cattle pasture that has a public footpath crossing it. The majority of people release their dogs before even checking to see whether the field is being grazed that day. I've already seen one idiot in these comments complain that they were mobbed by "uncontrolled" cows. What does he want? All farm animals to be tethered to a spot so he can walk across someone else's land?
There's also this notion that land ownership is someohow bad. Let's get a couple of things straight. There are two basic types of rural land; agricultural and wilderness. In the case of the former, with the exception of a few agro-giants, it's owned by farmers who are mortgaged to the eyeballs. That debt passes from generation to generation. In the latter case, it's wildeness for good reason. It can't be farmed, except possibly by some hill sheep. Some of that land (actually a huge amount of the entire country) has little monetary value but contains some of the least ecologically stable areas in the country - heather uplands, marshland, peat bogs and the like . The fact that access is restricted allows it to remain stable. If you want to see what happens when there's a huge upsurge in people accessing the land, take a look at place like the High Peak. Years of people walking wherever they like have damaged much of the peat bog. In order to stop that, a lot of money has been spent on creating paths, which people still don't stick to.
Someone else has suggested that people should pass some form of test before they can own a dog. Here's an idea. Why not make the right to roam a licensed activity? Before you can go wherever you weant, you have to prove that you are competent to do so. It won't stop people breaking the law - take driving a car as an example, but it will force people living in cities to educate themselves on rural life before they destroy it.
How about changing the name? It's not a RIGHT to roam, it's a PRIVILEGE.
It's essentially one piece of primary legislation (replacing / reworking CRoW - already in operation in Scotland with far fewer governmental resources at its disposal) and then dog reform, which needs to happen anyway. Entirely achievable.
As I point out in the video, 50% of England is owned by less than 1% of people. Well over a third of all land is still owned by the aristocracy. No, not all landowners are in that position, but many are - and its their influence which have long predominated in the countryside.
Most uplands already have access under CRoW - not to any great detriment if we trust the studies Natural England conducted following its implementation (some caveats for dogs etc as discussed in the video). Marshland is naturally defensive, as are most healthy habitats. The idea that peat bog has been destroyed by walkers when it has been subjected to draining and burning by landowners for generations isn't plausible. If you want less pressure on existing CRoW areas then the answer is more access not less, and then legitimate targeted exclusions where it's justified.
There's a general election coming up in the UK: time to bring this up to candidates methinks.
Yeah Rishi is totally against walking and this could be the crunch issue. Needs a concerted campaign within target seats that you will never pursue.
Agreed, it is one of these cases where the majority want something but the people in charge aren't interested since they are the landowners.
A large grassroots movement is the only way to get something like this accepted.
another concern is off road motorcyclists
Potentially, a concern with or without R2R
It seems to me that the UK should better adopt some of the concepts used in the USA. Outside of parkland many localities have publicly owned and maintained trails across private land. Some are abandoned railroad right of ways or utility right of ways, some are tax deductible gifts from the landowner, some are obtained via a forced sale at market price, and some are just sections of the public road marked as connecting trails. The result is that I can walk out my back gate to a former RR right of way and from there access more miles of trail, paved, graded and single track than you could walk in a year.
As a counterpoint, a family ranch of about 400 acres, with grazing leases on adjacent public and private land, abutted a couple of public trails and fire roads. There was a constant problem with malicious trespass. Fences cut, gates left open, cattle shot or killed and butchered in the field, motorcyclists on dirt bikes and fires. Almost all wildfires in this area are human caused and fire does not respect fence lines.
You may say rowdy barbaric Americans, but from what I can see in the news the UK now has its own sizeable population of barbarians, and it will by government effort find its way onto the byways and trails of the UK. People who kill cook and eat swans in park, will not respect your back yard fence or a farmer's crop or livestock.
We already have footpaths and bridleways! We are very proud of our footpath network here in the UK. Hard won and campaigned for. I've never lived anywhere that didn't have paths from my house across fields. Lucky me!
Morons are everywhere seemingly....
Some farmers just put up fences to keep people on the path if they've had trouble with dogs etc. Expensive , though!
Come to the UK and check it out!
Vehicle access leads to crimes more than paths, most trouble is near the car parks (or fire roads) 'cos they're lazy and don't walk far!
Great video.....but:
*Bring back Rebecca*
Watch this space!!
Interesting. I believe in the personal right to roam and my experience in Sweden was eye opening as to how well this works in general. We do need a bunch more education so that people do take responsibility in the immediate term when accessing land. Too often people tend to agree with rules but then seem to think they are excluded somehow. I also think your guest gave a bit of a hand pass to dog owners on this one. My personal view is that they should always be on a leash regardless of where they are in public. And don’t carry those plastic bags. Carry a small trowel. Dig a little hole and bury it when your dog takes a crap.
Great info but……,,,Too many camera location changes. Makes me a little crazy.
Fair!
True
Yes…interesting interview , but please drop the constantly changing areas. So off putting 😬.
The difference in Scotland is that the population density is massively less outside the central belt, which makes the right to access manageable. The same is not true for the the vast majority of England, nor Scandinavia which is cited as a model too.
To not recognise this lends doubt to how objective the presenters are being here. And part of the reason Scotland went that way is that there wasnt the same extensive network of formal footpaths as there are in England.
I say this as someone who has spent their life half in England and half in Scotland. Ive owned land but dont now, am a user like everyone else.
It's not about the overall density - it's the distribution. As you say, most Scots live in the Central Belt and the Scottish 'right of responsible access' starts the moment you leave the outskirts of Glasgow or Edinburgh. There was already customary access in the highlands prior to the passage of the Land Reform Act, so its innovation was to enshrine those rights and expand them to exactly those places which are most comparable to England: the outskirts of populated towns and cities, and lowland Scotland (where farming practices are not dissimilar).
You're right that England has a better path network than Scotland, and no one would argue such access infrastructure isn't important (hence the need for Core Paths as part of the LRA), but that simply means we have a head-start. Wider statutory rights protect land from arbitrary exclusion and allows us to create a more logical, connected path network.
All for it, as long as it's not locked up by the gRumblers association with the exclusion of horse riders and mountain bikers, we all know they love the right to roam but not for anyone else!!!
Wow 1% own 50% of the land with majority dating back to 1066.....sickening
As a Swede I come at this whole "right to roam" with different eyes.
However, I also think a lot of people have a rather skewed perspective of the right to roam in Scandinavia.
Like yes, in general one do have the right to walk almost anywhere. Exceptions being industrial sites, mines, farmed fields, gardens, military areas, railway tracks, motorways and a fair few more places.
The core philosophy is to not destroy. So don't break branches on trees and bushes, don't damage vegetation in general or even the geology, don't destroy property, don't leave garbage behind, don't disturb nature as in wild animals and so forth. The most destructive thing one can do is collect 1 handful of hazelnuts a day along one's journey, and set up a tent for 1 night.
In general one isn't allowed to tent within proximity to a house, nor in a garden, or within reasonable visible distance. (A distance that depending on the location can be very very far.)
And only set up fires in designated fireplaces, anywhere else is generally not legal. And most importantly, don't damage the geology, so no fires on the exposed bedrock or other rocks in general. (also good to check with the authorities regarding the current wildfire risk, since if it is high enough (as it often is) then you can't really have a fire at all. And yes, we are very particular about or granite geology, smoothly ice polished rock doesn't grow on trees.)
One can also pick wild berries and mushrooms, but don't arrive with 10+ friends to make a profit on blueberries or such. Even picking for personal use has its legal limitation. Since whatever one does isn't allowed to meaningfully impact other people's ability to enjoy their right to roam as well. Since everyone is allowed to pick berries, then you can't pick so many that there isn't a meaningful amount left for others to enjoy. This general philosophy is more or less the foundation of Allemansrätten or the Scandinavian right to roam, the foundation is simple, "leave nature as close to undisturbed as you can."
All you said is true except "but don't arrive with 10+ friends to make a profit on blueberries or such. Even picking for personal use has its legal limitation". This is still an issue and has not been proven in court yet. Every year, particularly in the north of Sweden, berry picking companies fly in 5000-6000 pickers from Thailand to pick berries for profit on others peoples land, this I think should be changed in Sweden. But the angry farmers of England is just strange, why be so mad if someone take a stroll across your land. But as someone mentioned, how to treat the land and "freedom to roam/allemansrätten" is taught from a very early age in Sweden.
@@watchmobiletvnow It is true that it hasn't really been legally established where the line in the sand is.
But the foundation of the law is still that one can't meaningfully impact the environment.
Large scale berry picking is debatable how much it meaningfully impacts the environment.
Now, if one sweeps through an area picking every single berry in the process, then that obviously meaningfully impacts other people's ability to pick berries in that area. Ie, breaking this law. (one can't argue that "people can go elsewhere." since that is a meaningful impact to have to go somewhere else.)
But what if one picks half the berries? There is still half left for other people. Except, if others also picks half, it won't take particularly long before practically all berries are gone. So half is likely still a noticeable impact.
If one only picks a few in each square meter, then it likely isn't particularly noticeable that one even were there.
It is simply debatable.
However, a lot of people use tools to pick berries, especially those doing it as a profession, greatly speeding up the process. Is this acceptable by law?
Hand picking berries is fairly slow and easy to argue that it doesn't impact other people's ability to also pick berries. (I can pick a kg of blueberries in around 2-3 hours with this process, more than I personally need.)
While anyone using the "proper" tool can completely empty a sizable area in an hour.
(Then here is me being annoyed... And reading various articles on the subject makes me ponder if people at large are already not following allemansrätten. Since everyone seems to only talk about how to most efficiently pick every single berry and quickly remove any leafs and stems that got torn along for the ride. Btw, isn't the foundation of the law "inte bryta grenar", surely that also applies to berry bushes? If one needs to filter these out after picking, then one hasn't really followed Allemansrätten to start with in my opinion. And picking all berries is obviously having a meaningful impact for other people so that too isn't in accordance to the law in my opinion.)
In the end.
I see it as somewhat logical to draw the line at the tool as a simple solution. Want to use a berry picker then you need the landowner's permission to use it. Otherwise pick by hand.
And I know a lot of Swedes will consider my conclusion as ridiculously harsh. But read what I have written and ponder, is it okay to pick all the berries? Does it matter if it is you who do it, your friend, neighbor, or someone from Thiland? I say no, picking the majority of the berries is picking too many berries. And stop ripping apart the bushes...
(I also think this comment has gotten needlessly long. But apparently berry picking is a highly debatable subject.)
@@todayonthebench I would have no problem if they picked berries for profit on state owned land, like SCA, Svea Skog, but picking berries for profit (companies hiring 1000s of people) on non state landowner land without consent is kind of weird. This was never a problem before, the industry has grown a lot in a few years, I think it a 2-3 billion SEK industry in the consumer end of things. Before people picked berries for personal use and to sell to get some extra money during summer. Now it an industry. On my 100 hektar almost all blueberries got picked by companies in a few days, kind of sucks. If they asked for consent I would not even mind having pickers on the land but picking "my" berries before me and my family have picked anything is plain wrong. But I think this will change...
@@watchmobiletvnow I personally have just as much of a problem with industrial scale picking on state owned land. (Mainly since I live nearby such a forest)
But the core philosophy of the law is still "No major impact on the environment." and clean picking the forests is a major impact on the environment and therefore isn't legal.
Now, the law is hard to enforce in practice.
And landowners have a hard time going after the pickers and the companies behind them. (since the law requires one to be more specific than "berry pickers took everything.")
But regardless.
If you have issues with berry pickers on your land to the point that you and your family can't pick any berries growing on your property, then the ones picking aren't following the law and you do have grounds to take legal action.
Exactly. It's not a Right to Roam. In Scotland we have a Right to Responsible Access.
It's really bad marketing and 'ask' to keep calling it a Right to Roam
as a small farm owner i work eally hard to keep crops growing well. they dont grow well when people walk across them. my farm is inbetween 2 villages and has 2 footpath on eather side that do join up in about a mile walk from whee they last joined. people often walk up our field to get from 1 path to another and have dogs running loos at same time. i put polite sighns telling people to plese keep to the foot paths and keep dogs on leads but people have riped them out. the fields are my garden that i take time and spend money on looking after and it is really annoying when people walk across it for no readon. also other farmers can have wiled cattle that they keep in a field away from foot paths but if people go there cos of the ""right to roam" they could let dangerous cattle out or get killed them. farmes alleady get prosecuted for having dangeous cattle where there are footpaths
I know how you feel, we have a track which goes to fields and our back entrance to the property. Farm vehicles are always damaging Hedges, fencing etc. We even caught the farmer cutting down protected trees on our land which is actually illegal. In Essex the farmers are 99% entitled wankers.
I'm curious about this bit - "farmes alleady get prosecuted for having dangeous cattle where there are footpaths". Is it correct, do you know of any cases or have sources? I've come across plenty of cattle in my walks, although I don't know if they were considered dangerous cattle. I thought that the walker has to avoid harm to the livestock or crops in the field, not the other way round.
@@Macbobob i know of farmes getting fined for having bulls in field without a sighn and farmers that have had cows and calves in fields that have chased people in the field potecting thee calves. also farmers been told by councils they have to repair gates and stiles. anothe thing i have come across is farmers been told they cant have stiles and needs kissing gates in to fields but with cattle kissing gates get damaged and pushed ove from cattle rubing against them making it easy for them to escape then the farme getting fined by the council when the cattle escape on to a main road evan tho its because of the kissing gate failing
typical move to the countryside but don't want farming
@@Macbobobno you don't
Well done Paul. Excellent video which needed making. There’s so much nonsense talked about the right to roam, often by landowners implacably opposed to it. Jon Moses is a great communicator and puts the case in an empathetic and reasoned way. I thought I knew a lot about the CROW Act 2000 but he taught me something today.
Cheers Paul. And... he said all that with every clip... "one take"
I agree from what I've seen on this channel that there are access rights that need fixing, that's obvious. I'd say farming and rural communities have enough on their plates without a mass influx of townies. So - just how much land are they suggesting we need access to for our 'wellbeing' as this is how it's being sold on their website? We currently have the right to 8% of the land, opening up other areas won't necessarily mean less overcrowding or that many more people will leave the cities looking to enjoy nature, it could just increase rural tourism from overseas. Worst case is you may end up with what's happened in other parts of the world that now see overtourism in selfie-scenic areas, to the point that access is now being restricted by lottery and prebooking, hint - people go to places that are popular to be seen at not just because they're open for access. I can see the countryside is going to end up like Cornwall in the Summer, that'll make the working natives happy (along with all the wild camping...and the rise in Lyme and TBE cases). With 70% of England being farmland, do farmers get a say in this? The 'Normans' btw do have freeholds on 30 to 47% of all the land (as 17% is unaccounted for so 'assumed; to be theirs), so almost half a Yoake, then. How do you convince the remaining near 50% to comply, especially the 18% owned by companies and 17% by 'new money'?
Reading their website, is there no currently fashionable issue not mentioned? Like a modern-day Digger movement crossed with Post-war Lebensreform, it also covers Anti-establishmentism, Anti-game shooting, Anti-National Trust, Colonialism, Slavery, Diversity and Inclusivity, Mental Health and Wellness...all by promoting a romanticised view of a rural life that we've lost (reading too much Edward Thomas me thinkst). Were we ever really 'connected' to Natures since we were hunter gathers? That seems like such a middle-class, Guardian view. Rural life was a hard one for the majority and since the Celts arrived we have always managed the Natural environment to serve our needs, not the other way around. Essentially, this is just a CC and environmental agenda, and nothing more.
Well said
An unpretentious man who talks a whole load of common sense. How refreshing 🙂
now if we had such a one as president......wont ever happen i am afraid.
You should rejoice @wout123100
That exalting one man above another is not something any of us should do.
Furthermore it's actually sin to do so.
Bible. Romans 2:1,11
[1]Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
[11]For there is no respect of persons with God.
Bible. Ephesians 6:9
[9]And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.
Bible. Colossians 3:25
[25]But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.
Bible. James 2:1,8-9
[1]My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.
[8]If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
[9]But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are ( reproved see Definition) of the law as transgressors.
Merriam-Webster's definition of "reprove": www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reprove
@@wout123100 Makes no difference in the USA who occupies the Oval Office. The imperialist state continues regardless.
At 7:38 and 8:40 you somewhat dodged the question of livestock. In order to be taken seriously, it is important for right-to-roam advocates to actively take a stand that protects the farm animals. Letting a dog loose in a field with sheep or cows, lambs or calfs, or bothering such animals in a way that gets you, or them, injured, should be treated as serious property crimes.
It's middle-class, eco-loon policy masquerading as a wellness campaign, I was half expecting to see Chris Packham at some point. You need to read what's on their website. We've had the Countr(side) Code since 1951, item 3 of 10 "Keep dogs under proper control", if that hasn't worked in all those years since, I don't believe the assurances given here. You're not going to educate all the masses of people they want in the countryside and a lot of bad things will happen. Last thing you need is even more townies...yes, I was brought up in a country village 🤣
Well yeah, obviously. That's why they're called livestock. Why wouldn't they be protected under property laws?
Sheep worrying is already considered a criminal offence in the UK
@@Oppurtunafish you'd have to catch the dog in the act, so, CCTV on every gatepost? This will work out well...🤔👎
The problem here is not the right to walk across a field, but dogs. Any right to roam should exclude dogs, as they cause enormous harm to nature, wildlife, and livestock. Try looking up the number of sheep and cows killed by dogs every year.
A classic example is Salisbury plain and similar where the military play war games constantly but the wildlife in these places thrive!!
We have much more right to roam here in Scotland thanks to the Land Reform act. It is underpined with responsibility and care of the environment. I hope England gets the same.
we have had the right to roam since at least 1320 declaration of Arbroath etc. The land reform act was a labour con. Why should anyone need permission to roam in their own country . The powers that be are quick enough to conscript you to go and fight for the land that you are not allowed to roam on.
Is it that clear cut, you don't have the right to roam on farmland much of the Land in England is farm land.
@@hetrodoxlysonov-wh9oo And most of Scotland's farmland is pretty poor quality anyway.
Having the right, doesn't mean many more will exercise that right as this is being sold to the English population. It would be interesting to see just how many more of the Scottish population now venture into the countryside these days and what actual positive effect that has had on mental health and wellbeing in Scotland. Surely there must have been at least one study done on this!
But then it's terrible, only can walk or ride a bloody bike. We want proper public land for recreational activities like is seen in the rest of the world.
Don't we have the Countryside Code to tell people how to behave when out walking? Is this reluctance for the right to roam across all land owners, or is it just a few ? A great video btw, highlighting the issues in the difference in Scottish law and English law.
I'm in Scotland and there are new paths being built where I am. The Crieff - Muthill cycle path is a three mile path that will soon link the two places. It uses a farm track, a new path using the fenced off edge of a field that grows crops, and stretches of a minor road. Together with the Crieff - Comrie path (7 miles) and the Loch Earn Railway Path this will create about 25 miles of an almost car free cycle path, linking Lochearnhead to Muthill. More paths could be made in lots of other places by using the fenced off edges of fields, as the farmer would only lose a small percentage of the total area of each field. All at the right price to the farmer, of course!
Bike racetracks are not paths. All the money is going into converting paths into bike racetracks, none into actual paths so there is a net loss. Who wants to walk with the continual "ting ting" which whatever they say really means "get out of my way". One of the good aspects of the current English legislation is they are not allowed on many paths, make sure any new right to roam doesn't erode this.
I don't think it's as easy as just allowing right to roam. I bought my farm 20 years ago and will be still paying for it for many years to come. My experience of the public just using a footpath on my land is regular left with litter, dog excrement and damaged fences and gates left open. Keeping stock and growing has enormous investment and this is where is goes wrong. I have had animals abort by being chased by dogs, another animal eating rubbish left and vets required and gates left open with animals getting onto the road. My farm is my livelihood and business but making it public has enormous consequences. Hay making last year could have ended in tragedy where a couple were picnicking in the field and had air pods on and didn't hear my tractor/grass cutter. We do have organised visits to the farm but people freely entering would be difficult and would also be a security risk where we have extensive machines and valuable products on site. I think the ability to walk the country is very idyllic and I'm sure lots of people will do that with respect. We do use guns to control vermin and that bothers me enormously if a mistake occurred.
Not all the public act like you say. You can not restrict access because of a few bad apples. Please try not to be too selfish, it is not just about how much profit you make. It is about enjoyment of the land. The last time I checked, most famers had nice big houses and expensive land rovers. You are not getting my sympathy.
As someone fortunate enough to have been brought up in a rural area the idea of leaving gates ajar, breaking fences, damaging crops and letting the dogs run wild (especially in Spring) just never occurs to me.
I understand your point of view, and I respect what you say, but when you look at just how much of the country is inaccessible to the people it is upsetting and ultimately unhealthy for body and mind, it feels like a wealth inequality, only those that are more affluent get the opportunity to experience nature, it creates anger.
I don't have a solution, but I would suggest that a destination is made between working farms and land that is owned by the 8% that simply cut off because their family own it and they don't like peasants.
@@MrLeighmanit's people like you and your ignorant attitude that makes farmers keep people off the land.
Majority of farmers don't own their houses as they are a part of the farm tenancy they pay silly amounts of rent for. It's also the farmers who spend hundreds of hours working the land so it's actually accessible.
It only takes 1 bad apple with a dog and a farmer can lose thousands of £ worth of lambs in 10 minutes and any profit for the year. You can't just simply re grow a lamb in 5 minutes. You lose a lamb then that's months of work lost.
You don't have to give farmers your sympathy but don't cry and moan when farmers and landowners don't have sympathy for you either when you have nowhere to walk in the countryside because we don't want you and your ignorant city mind.
And everyone knows your attitude would be the complete opposite if it was your garden that people are throwing little in, leaving dog poo in and letting their dogs run wild while they attack your family pets and kill them. You would lose your mind.
I read a book written by a man who walked the English coastline from somewhere down in Essex up to near Hull. It was a sort spiritual pilgrimage for him. The only part of his coastline walk that was cut off by stout strong wire fences and big signs saying "No entry - Private Property " was a stretch of land in Essex that was the private estate of that great Socialist and Man of the People MP Tony Benn. Our walking guy had to do a long inland journey around it. Definitely No Access there.
Every non landowner likes the idea of right to roam but in my experience hardly anyone wants to go off the established paths unless lost. Off path walking is tough because of bogs, streams and undergrowth. Striding freely over the land is a lovely egalitarian dream but in practice very few will want to do it.
....which is why there is no reason not to permit it.
If that's the case, why worry about it? I agree that many people use paths in practice. But default rights of access provide a statutory basis which helps support the path network: it removes the incentive to 'disappear' or obstruct paths, because they become a means of access management, it encourages the creation of new paths, it helps make the path network more connected, and it frees people to go off-path where it's appropriate and they have their own reasons for doing so. It's also worth noting that access reform is also about things like e.g. the ability to swim in reservoirs and rivers, or stopping very wealthy landowners removing people's rights to wild camp on Dartmoor, or aristocrats to take away a whole town's most important green space at a whim...
Perhaps the time, effort and money would be better spent protecting, improving and extending the existing path network, and creating new routes. This would benefit far more people than the tiny number who would want to struggle through brambles, waist high heather and gorse.
@@jamesthomas4841spread of diseases like foot and mouth is a very good reason. Along with every soft city dweller who twists their ankle and wants to take the landowner to court because they haven't smoothed the ground for them.
@kieranb7047
Curently Foot and Mouth outbreaks leads to the temporay closure of rights of way the same would apply to any extended right of access.
As for the risk of being sued for a twisted ankle I suggest you watch the video a bit more carefully 😉
I think that dogs (or more accurately, dog owners) are a big problem. I'm been hiking the length and breath of the South Downs for decades, but when walking along the SDW you know when you're coming close to a car park because of the increase in dog poo left on the path (despite the bins). Sheep-worrying is also a big issue. Also littering, and increasingly the lighting of fires. People are very often, I'm very sad to say, destructive, unthinking, and selfish. For example, damage was caused to land at the Devil's Dyke by an illegal rave that will take years and millions of pounds to recover. There's a lot that can be done to vastly improve Britain's natural environment: less intensive farming; rewilding; stopping sewage entering rivers; and so on - but a 'right to roam', in my opinion, would be another backward step. No matter how well intentioned, you just can't trust people to be responsible. I would say that the rights of flora and fauna to exist trump any perceived rights of people to disturb their environments. After all, there are already 140,000 miles of footpaths in the UK - that's more than five-and-a-half times the length of the equator. If you have a specific want or need to go somewhere out of bounds please just politely talk to the landowner and ask permission. You'll be surprised how understanding they can be. And before anyone asks; I am not a land owner myself, or associated with anyone who is. I'm just someone who is genuinely worried about nature, and what we collectively are doing to it.
Rambling, with respect for nature, is one thing. Being wilfully negligent or destructive (including leaving dogs mess lying around) is quite another.
stop pushing ravers onto nature reserves
Dog ownership needs to change, full stop. But the right to roam works here in Scotland.
Last year a local ranger told us they went out with an army of litter pickers to a frequented wild camping spot around a loch. They spent the entire day at it, and what did they find? A single, one, plastic bag that had blown on to the central island in the loch that they needed a kayak to retrieve.
Here in Scotland, the right to roam is respected, and because of that, the majority of people respect the land in kind.
The problem here is tourists not respecting the land, probably because they come from regions that don't educate on how to respect it, and irresponsible dog owners. Lets change dog ownership laws.
Thank you. Rights and Responsibilities are inextricably linked. They are the same concept. Can't have one without the other.
Great Vid and Damn right, it shouldn't be confrontational from the off, granted sometimes things are taken advantage of but god we're human, just bloody talk and be responsible and keep your dogs on a lead where needed and show damn respect - too many people, thinking they've got the right to rule everything!! Not in my world you don't!
An interesting video and it would be interesting to get the other side of the debate on roaming rights from the NFU. What does the NFU think about the fox hunting ban.
The countryside is where we grow our food and food security comes first in my view.
Curious as what fox hunting, which is an archaic barbaric, cruel, and illegal activity, has to do with rights of way?
It’s also worth noting that we grow less and less of our own food and import more and more, although food and biosecurity and animal welfare are key issues.
We’ve all met the ‘get off my land’ brigade, enclosures act when they stole away common land from the common man.
@@daveswhite90 Do farmers need to keep fox numbers down and is fox hunting the way to do it? I would think that fox hunting must damage hedges and growing crops. It would be interesting to hear what the NFU has to say about all of this.
I own a tiny piece of land by a river. Never minded people using it. But last month someone came on picked all the bluebells and stole my kayak . Don't want to fence it but........
Yeah no this is the thing is that it's unfair to expect everyone to be completely fine with this tbh
Mhm, the scottish Land Reform Act 2003 explicitly only allows you to roam as long as you follow its rules of respect. Disrupting the environment isn't permitted.
The asshole who tore up all your bluebells would still be committing a crime under right to roam.
@EStewart573 wish I could pick and choose who came by but..... I won't fence it off as its a lovely little secret place I dreamed about finding when I had young children.
The UK have cultured plastering signs. The architectural damage is 100% with regards to buildings of public access - a total mess. The people even relates to any sign as laws. (In other forums I would argue why the UK is a Police State.)
However, it is very refreshing witnessing Jon Moses in the battlefields of the rights of the people. As a Norwegian, hearing him argue of the more than a thousand years old Nordic rules of freedoms is refreshing.
(Your battle is lost when seeing a sign in the fields stating “dis da private”.)
If roamers didn't litter I think landowners (who are responsible for picking up the litter and caring for the land) wouldn't mind so much.
Nice interview and notice Rebecca making a little appearance
Having to state these things in such a way just underlines how bad the situation is. Everything the man is saying is sensible logic - why does it need to be explained? Because of people, people are not logical or sensible. That's how bad it is.
If you give right to roam, you will have a massive vehicular camping problem and particularly campervans and motorhomes have no regard for rare wild life in the Highlands of Scotland. Motorhomes do not have right to roam, but most owners think that are entitled to use them on other people's property. Before a right to roam is opened up, there needs to be promise of law enforcement against motorhomes camped on other people's property; and dumping human poo and rubbish and chemical toilets.
Things are very different in the US. Private property ownership trumps everything thing.
your Freudian slip Trumps your argument
@mrhis2ry
And do you prefer it that way? Or would a Scottish/Scandinavian model be preferable to you?
@@brettmeikle That is a very good question. In the US we don't have all the great old Roman roads or numerous canals or other historic routes to hike on. We do have some a few old rail lines to hike and bike on as well as a few canals, but most reverted back to private ownership. But it would be nice to have access to the historic sites we do that are on private property.
And yet those same land owners will call it theft when you ask them to pay taxes in return for exclusive use of that land
Even so, the US has a lot more public land than the UK. Only 8% of the UK's surface is publicly accessible, while in the US that figure is 28%. Granted, a lot of it is in the Rockies, but that still counts.
In my US state (NH) there is a presumed right to pass over unimproved land that is not fenced or legally posted every 300 feet around its perimeter. This has sometimes been called the "inherent right of trespass". My land is just under 50 acres, and although it does have a conservation easement that limits motorized vehicles I have no objection to people walking through my woods or following the brook. It is not posted.
Good to hear Bob. I moved to Tasmania from Scotland and the biggest issue is the access I lost. It's sunnier though!
Typical America, it's all down to your individual rights? So paths can appear and disappear depending on who owns it and their whims? The truth is no one should own land, it's totally mental that we allow it at all.
@@Ludd439 you rip it violently from the hands of those you exterminate, you keep every bugger off it thereafter. Like you say, totally mental.
As someone who only hears about the US on telly, I'd be worried about accidentally trespassing and getting shot (I'm not black though so maybe I'd be fine in that case). Or perhaps that's just Florida 🤷
@@shyft09 There are far more guns than people in the US. In some states no permit is required to carry one, either openly or concealed. In some states even the mentally unstable can own or purchase a gun. However, if you stay off improved or posted land (obviously trespassing) and avoid unruly gatherings, that would improve the odds to avoid being shot by an armed crazy. Oh, and stay out of the woods during deer hunting season!