UKC

/ irrate landowner

Dingerbell on 10:56 Thu

We ran into a little trouble yesterday in the Turton area of Lancashire nr Entwistle reservoir.

We were training mountain rescue and accompanied by fire service doing a exercise, anyway some of the group drove down this lane which passed a farm only to be confronted by a very abusive landowner tell the crew to get off hes land , after explaining who we where he wasn't bothered and actually almost blocked the lane which the fire crew drove off the side into a ditch, luckily no harm and vehicle recovered.

Now on the os map it indicates this has witton weavers way if any body knows it ,basically dashed lines with green triangles.

Im sure the fire service should take this further. Any suggestions?

timjones - on 11:08 Thu
In reply to Dingerbell:

Green triangles on an OS map sound more like a long diistance trail then any indication of rights for use by motor vehicles.

If you were on a callout I'd complain but if it was a training excercise it would have been good form to ask permission if it isn't a right of way for motor vehicles.

summo on 11:10 Thu
In reply to Dingerbell:

Triangles? Green crosses are by ways open to traffic.

I'd suggest a pre visit next time with a pack of biscuits, it opens many locked farmers gates. 

Bulls Crack - on 11:16 Thu
In reply to Dingerbell:

As per previous replies. The diamonds indicate a promoted route but its a public footpath around there.  If you were on a white road this may or may not be open to public us for vehicles - was there a sign at all where you turned into it? 

Hardonicus - on 11:18 Thu
In reply to timjones:

Shouldn't MR be able to read maps?

Dingerbell on 11:18 Thu
In reply to timjones:

I think its more of the abusive swearing and wouldn't listen to anybody, which caused the problem.

Has rest of the team says hopefully he wont want a call out  in the near future .

bedspring on 11:24 Thu
In reply to Dingerbell:

 

> Has rest of the team says hopefully he wont want a call out  in the near future .

Thats a highly unprofessional attitude to a person who may be having mental issues.
But anyway if you want to look into access and rights of way Lancs County Council has Mario Maps which is rather clunky, but you can overlay the maps with rights of way and all sorts of things, http://mario.lancashire.gov.uk/agsmario/

 

Jim 1003 - on 11:27 Thu
In reply to Dingerbell:

It's public access, but there may or may not be one for motor vehicles as I don't know the area, however emergency vehicles can use public access routes wither they are for motor vehicles or not. What is clear, is the land owner can't restrict public access.

summo on 11:44 Thu
In reply to Dingerbell:

> I think its more of the abusive swearing and wouldn't listen to anybody, which caused the problem.

Or perhaps he is working 15hrs a day to stay afloat, or had been up all night calfing, a bad TB test result... and just wished a professional organisation could ask before driving across his land. Access in an emergency is one thing and not the same in training. A bit courtesy goes a very long way in keeping landowners onside.

> Has rest of the team says hopefully he wont want a call out  in the near future .

Equally it might be the farmers tractor dragging them out in floods or heavy snow. 

 

Welsh Kate - on 11:45 Thu
In reply to Dingerbell:

Unusual to have a local landowner react like that, whether it's training or a callout: usually they're amazingly helpful - we've had landowners come out with us to guide us through their land so we can access casualties, and on training we usually check before the day, or we'll send an advance party on foot to have a chat with the farmer if possible. But you never know what you're going to encounter (one of the 'joys' of MR!) I'm our team's training officer and try as much as possible to ensure we stay 'onside' with locals, even if in one instance it means not having vehicular access to a good training area in a quarry.

I can see on the map that around there there's lots of landrover tracks, some of which have public footpaths on them (as others have said, the green line with diamonds on it just represents a 'recreational route'), so if it was a private lane he can assert his right to privacy, though unusual to have such a response to the emergency services. Is it too late, do you think, to offer a conciliatory bottle of something and try to build up a better relationship?

Simon Caldwell - on 11:48 Thu
In reply to Dingerbell:

> I think its more of the abusive swearing and wouldn't listen to anybody, which caused the problem.

 

Sounds more like it was the unauthorised access that caused the problem, which the reaction then made worse

timjones - on 11:49 Thu
In reply to Dingerbell:

> I think its more of the abusive swearing and wouldn't listen to anybody, which caused the problem.

That rather depends on what anybody was saying.

If you screwed up then the right thing to say would probably be "sorry, we'll go away this time, would it be OK to contact to arrange access for future excercises?"

> Has rest of the team says hopefully he wont want a call out  in the near future .

I would hope that you are all a little more professional than that.

 

richprideaux - on 12:28 Thu
In reply to Dingerbell:

> Has rest of the team says hopefully he wont want a call out  in the near future .

What is the criteria for your team (Bolton MRT?) responding to requests from the Police?

Do you have a list of people who have disagreed with the team that you can check against before deploying?

Is the level of response tiered based on how big the disagreement was? 

I am taking the piss a little here, but do you see where I'm coming from? That probably wasn't a comment you want on a public forum. Especially associated with a charity...

Mountain Rescue is a vital emergency service BUT you do not automatically have a right of passage over any route, especially in vehicles. If you are driving across private land with no permission from the landowner on a training exercise where no lives are at stake - then you are in the wrong. It doesn't matter which colour the reflective panels are on the side of your vehicle. The Fire Service probably understand that a little more than you do; I am currently arranging two different training exercises for work involving USAR teams and everybody is being careful to ensure that they full permission of landowners to conduct the training.

As others have said - if it were a live job then you might have some leeway. Otherwise it's time to brush up on the OS map symbols for BOATs and other PROWs...

 

richprideaux - on 12:42 Thu
In reply to Jim 1003:

> It's public access, but there may or may not be one for motor vehicles as I don't know the area, however emergency vehicles can use public access routes wither they are for motor vehicles or not. What is clear, is the land owner can't restrict public access.

For emergencies, not for training exercises.

Tyler - on 12:45 Thu
In reply to summo:

> Or perhaps he is working 15hrs a day to stay afloat, or had been up all night calfing, a bad TB test result... and just wished a professional organisation could ask before driving across his land. Access in an emergency is one thing and not the same in training. A bit courtesy goes a very long way in keeping landowners onside.

Maybe he's just a tw*t, there are a lot of people like this and is the most likely explanation.  

Post edited at 13:09
plyometrics - on 12:51 Thu
In reply to Dingerbell:

Grew up in that neck of the woods.

There’s a section of the WWW off Greens Arms road which is accessible for vehicles, as there is a farm and some residential in the middle of it. 

If it’s that section you’re referring to, you are allowed to drive down it, as far as I’m aware. 

Post edited at 12:53
Jim 1003 - on 13:02 Thu
In reply to richprideaux:

Read the post, it may or may not have access anyway for motor vehicles, and in any case it's not for the land owner to regulate it, unless it's on private land without public access. As it appears to have public access, green markings as described in the OP,  suggest you can't read a map properly....

The Wild Scallion on 13:09 Thu
MG - on 13:11 Thu
In reply to Jim 1003:

Thi

> . As it appears to have public access, green markings as described in the OP,  suggest you can't read a map properly...

That doesn't imply vehicular access as in the OP. Suggest you can't read properly. 

 

timjones - on 13:14 Thu
In reply to Jim 1003:

> Read the post, it may or may not have access anyway for motor vehicles, and in any case it's not for the land owner to regulate it, unless it's on private land without public access. As it appears to have public access, green markings as described in the OP,  suggest you can't read a map properly....

It might have public access, but if it doesn't have vehicular access then you have to walk even if you are on an MRT excercise.

If the landowner doesn't have the right to ask you not to drive then who does?

The Wild Scallion on 13:18 Thu
In reply to Dingerbell:

https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/53.64945,-2.42133,14

http://www.geographypods.com/uploads/7/6/2/2/7622863/os_symbols_sheet.pdf

I can't see any green triangles ?

You don't mean diamonds do you ?

 

 

Post edited at 13:19
richprideaux - on 13:23 Thu
In reply to Jim 1003:

> Read the post,

I must have imagined reading it then

> it may or may not have access anyway for motor vehicles, and in any case it's not for the land owner to regulate it, unless it's on private land without public access.

Posting this thread would suggest that the OP is not confident of the legal access for motor vehicles - if they were then it would be a different post altogether. A quick scan through of the relevant 25K map for the surrounding area shows nothing marked there as a byway/BOAT or other track where the public have right of vehicular access. Nothing comes up on a search for the WWW for byways, GLASS, green lane or anything else that suggests that there was a right of vehicle access.

Having some houses/farms on a shared track may just mean that you can access those residences along it, but not necessarily for other reasons. 

> As it appears to have public access, green markings as described in the OP,  suggest you can't read a map properly....

'Public access' in England and Wales is a convoluted thing. Access by foot, on a bike/horse and by motorised vehicle may all be permitted, or not, based on what type of footpath/carriageway/highway/right of way it is. 

There are quite a few of those 'green markings' that could appear on an OS map. In this case it sounds like either a bridleway or footpath on a designated and named 'trail', neither of which infers the right for vehicle access.

Unless the OP posts a grid for the contested route then it's all academic anyway - but the post about 'needing a callout in the future' is still an unwise one.

richprideaux - on 13:27 Thu
In reply to plyometrics:

> Grew up in that neck of the woods.

> There’s a section of the WWW off Greens Arms road which is accessible for vehicles, as there is a farm and some residential in the middle of it. 

> If it’s that section you’re referring to, you are allowed to drive down it, as far as I’m aware. 

If it's the section I'm thinking of (between Cheetham Close and Wayoh?) then it's just a shared access for those farms, not a public carriageway.

summo on 14:07 Thu
In reply to Tyler:

> Maybe he's just a tw*t, there are a lot of people like this and is the most likely explanation.  

In which case you don't feed it by arriving unannounced and driving large vehicles along a track it would seem has no vehicular right of way. Stack the odds in your favour? 

ChrisJD on 15:29 Thu
In reply to richprideaux:

There are plenty of tracks on OS 1:25,000 mapping that have vehicle access with showing any OS markings for rights of way.  

Just because it is not shown as as (any) RoW, doesn't mean it isn't classed as a highway.

Some OS maps may mark these vehicular access tracks with green dots. 

See: https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/blog/2011/08/rights-of-way/

And OS maps are not the definitive RoW maps.

Post edited at 15:36
summo on 15:55 Thu
In reply to Dingerbell:

I think a point many are missing is farming is a business and also a place of work. They aren't just quaint fields there for people to enjoy when they wish. 

Farm tracks can be fragile depending the weather, the same goes for parking and turning points at the end of tracks, electric fencing, perhaps even disease control if travelling across multiple farm boundaries or through yards.

A fire crew or mrt wouldn't arrive at a factory and just commence training without first touching base with someone responsible and a farm shouldn't be any different.

 

Trangia on 16:07 Thu
In reply to Dingerbell:

Interesting thread. It seems that there is no right of access generally if it is not a BOAT or similar, or road for emergency vehicles on a training exercise, but what about in the case of a real emergency where lives are at stake? Is there then a deemed right to over rule an objecting land owner or enter private property without consent?

I was thinking of a plane crash which I saw in Hampshire. Within minutes police, fire engines, ambulances and RAF vehicles converged on the scene driving through growing crops. I've no idea if the land owner was consulted -  there probably wasn't time.

summo on 16:32 Thu
In reply to Trangia:

Saving life, or risk to life, takes precedence over protection of property. 

Jim 1003 - on 16:37 Thu
In reply to richprideaux:

There's obviously some kind of public access with the green markings, if so, it is not up to the adjacent land owner to regulate it....

Anybody who obstructs emergency services training or on emergencies is just a tw*t anyway.

robert-hutton on 16:38 Thu
In reply to summo:

> Saving life, or risk to life, takes precedence over protection of property. 

100% agree, but no life to save = go away I have a job to do.

Rigid Raider - on 16:47 Thu
In reply to Dingerbell:

Quite a lot of people are living on the brink of nervous breakdown, especially hill farmers. My wife and I were once walking in Rossendale not so far from Turton when we heard furious shouting. Looked over the wall down onto a farm and saw the farmer who was absolutely apoplectic with rage, charging crazily up and down a track on his farm spreading ballast with a JCB. His wife and teenage son were standing by with shovels doing their best to help and looking absolutely cowed by this man's rage, it was awful to witness and we felt terrible sorry for them. From the level of the man's anger I would expect that he has had either a heart attack or a complete breakdown by now.

Years ago I also encountered a mad raging famer when out on my mountain bike with a group. He also ranted at us and when some of the younger cyclists started winding him up I waded in and managed to calm him down. 

We live on the edge of hilly farm land and I know the farmer pretty well. He hates hill farming and tells me that if a developer offered him a million quid for the farm he would happily sell and go and rent a nice easy farm in the Ribble Valley with flat fields, no hidden services like cable and pipelines, no messy humans as neighbours and easy access for machinery. 

richprideaux - on 17:01 Thu
In reply to Jim 1003:

> There's obviously some kind of public access with the green markings, if so, it is not up to the adjacent land owner to regulate it....

As a footpath or maybe bridleway. It's also quite possible that the farmer owns the track itself - there is just a right of way for certain kinds of traffic. 'Tis the same up and down the country - public access does not mean public land.

> Anybody who obstructs emergency services training or on emergencies is just a tw*t anyway.

Why in case of training? A good amount of time I spent as an MRT training officer was visiting farms and politely asking if we could train in their fields next Wednesday night. 

As a previous MREW chair once said "people forget that they're not the SAS - they're just a mountaineering club with extra stretchers and morphine".

 

robert-hutton on 17:16 Thu
In reply to richprideaux:

Family has had a farm in the peak for the last 300 years, and the last two generations both have other jobs to make ends meet, then you have BSE, foot and mouth, dog walkers who think its ok for the dog to chase the stock plus midnight lamping and metal detectors it's a 24 x 7 NO days off lonely job but my dad loved it too his end.

Trangia on 17:30 Thu
In reply to Welsh Kate:

Is it too late, do you think, to offer a conciliatory bottle of something and try to build up a better relationship?

A friend of mine is a keen hot air balloon pilot.

He keeps a good supply of whisky and champagne n his recovery vehicle which works wonders in opening locked gates an placating irate land owners when he finds he has to land in farmers fields!

 

Ron Rees Davies - on 17:50 Thu
In reply to Dingerbell:

Another vote for 'ask first'. 

People have been concentrating on personal & business reasons why the landowner may not want large groups with vehicles using the track, but at this time of year there's also the real possibility that there are Curlew, Lapwing etc nesting in the area which could be seriously affected by a sudden burst of vehicle activity. Without asking you just don't know!

timjones - on 17:59 Thu
In reply to Trangia:

The problem with hot air balloon pilots is that their taste in  whisky is lamentable ;)

Trangia on 18:05 Thu
In reply to timjones:

> The problem with hot air balloon pilots is that their taste in  whisky is lamentable ;)

Love it!

Have a like

Tyler - on 18:28 Thu
In reply to Ron Rees Davies:

> People have been concentrating on personal & business reasons why the landowner may not want large groups with vehicles using the track, but at this time of year there's also the real possibility that there are Curlew, Lapwing etc nesting in the area which could be seriously affected by a sudden burst of vehicle activity. Without asking you just don't know!

Oh yeah, that'll be it. The hill farmers in this part of Lancs are well known for their consideration to the wildlife! (Perhaps prophetic that auto correct changed Lancs to lamps).

Post edited at 18:40
Tyler - on 18:31 Thu
In reply to Rigid Raider:

> Quite a lot of people are living on the brink of nervous breakdown, especially hill farmers..... 

> We live on the edge of hilly farm land and I know the farmer pretty well. He hates hill farming and tells me that if a developer offered him a million quid for the farm he would happily sell and go and rent a nice easy farm in the Ribble Valley with flat fields, no hidden services like cable and pipelines, no messy humans as neighbours and easy access for machinery. 

Someone saying they'd swap their current job for an easier one plus a million quid is hardly indicative of being on the edge of a nervous breakdown. 

Stuart en Écosse - on 19:16 Thu
In reply to Dingerbell:

As others have said, maybe he was having a bad day. Making contact and an attempt at peace would be a good first move. Alternatively, he may be an actual born and bred no-excuses Jeremy Hunt, because they do exist, in which case to hell with him.

FWIW, when friends of mine moved to a farming part of the country, we went out for a walk and were accosted by a farmer who was an utter arsehole. My friends popped round to his house later on a diplomatic mission, armed with a bottle of whisky as his new neighbours, since then they've got on fine and helped each other out on many an occasion. 

wintertree - on 19:21 Thu
In reply to Jim 1003:

> There's obviously some kind of public access with the green markings, if so, it is not up to the adjacent land owner to regulate it....

I have a public footpath on my land.  I mow it.  I dug land drains for it.  Try and drive your vehicle on it and I will damned well regulate you.  

Like Warren G.

I offered the fire brigade access for water during a nearby farm arson but they had a better route.  I would have been perfectly happy for them to go ahead if I wasn’t there.  Like my old man was happy for a Lynx helicopter to land on his field, then another with a mobile landing pad, then a Chinook to take the first Lynx away.  Needs must.

Post edited at 19:23
Raskye - on 19:26 Thu
In reply to Dingerbell:

I'd reel your neck in... you're a volunteer rescue team not the cavalry

robert-hutton on 19:39 Thu
In reply to wintertree:

Its like your next door neighbour coming into your back garden and starting a barbecue and having a party, would you mind, access doesn't mean doing what you want, it means going one place to the next.

Dingerbell on 20:51 Thu
In reply to bedspring:

So bedspring how would you react if somebody ranting and raving at you swearing. 

Its rude a  full stop.

No one should abuse you in this way .

Dingerbell on 20:54 Thu
In reply to Hardonicus:

I think 40 plus who attended mountain rescue can read maps 

Dingerbell on 20:55 Thu
In reply to summo:

Some smart arses on here today

FactorXXX - on 20:57 Thu
In reply to Dingerbell:

> I think 40 plus who attended mountain rescue can read maps 

Why wasn't one of them put in charge of the map reading then?

Dingerbell on 21:17 Thu
In reply to plyometrics:

Yes that is  what we all thought but apparently he was going on one that he sold part of the land to other farmers.

Thanks Plyometrics, you ask advice and get some smart arse responses on here from some of them.

Hardonicus - on 21:30 Thu
In reply to Dingerbell:

You sound very much like some of the holier than thou types that are attracted to MR. Don't get me wrong, I'm not tarring everyone with the same brush....

richprideaux - on 21:31 Thu
In reply to Dingerbell:

So did you ever find out whether you had the right to drive down there?

Dingerbell on 21:37 Thu
In reply to Dingerbell:

just to confirm the start of the track is grid reference SD 71849 16886

Post edited at 21:39
Dingerbell on 21:41 Thu
In reply to Hardonicus:

And you sound like a troll maybe wrong not tarring you with other trolls  though , just saying!

Post edited at 21:42
bedspring on 21:45 Thu
In reply to Dingerbell:

Many farmers are highly stressed, lonely, working long hours, and with major cash flow problems, maybe a tribe of people showing up in landrovers set him off.
Or it could just be he is a twunt who is rude.
I was not there. either way, if in the future he needs help from MRT who are volunteers or the Fire Brigade who are paid for, he should get dealt with promptly like anyone else, and not as you allude, get a second rate response.
What I do know is I have given you a link to a definitive resource on rights of way, and you have not thanked me, thats rude, full stop.

Marek - on 21:54 Thu
In reply to Dingerbell:

> just to confirm the start of the track is grid reference SD 71849 16886

Pretty unambiguously a footpath, not even a bridleway, i.e., no cars permitted. The green diamonds and the fact it has a name have no RoW significance. I'm really not sure why you though you could drive up there.

Post edited at 21:54
Ridge - on 22:18 Thu
In reply to Marek:

> Pretty unambiguously a footpath, not even a bridleway, i.e., no cars permitted. The green diamonds and the fact it has a name have no RoW significance. I'm really not sure why you though you could drive up there.

Yep, marked on my 1:50k as a footpath, and a quick google confirms the weavers way is a walking path.

wintertree - on 22:22 Thu
In reply to Dingerbell:

> So bedspring how would you react if somebody ranting and raving at you swearing. 

Events from my youth have me conditioned to run like the wind from angry farmers.  And not in a straight line.

> Its rude a  full stop.

Is there a requirement to be polite to people blatantly trespassing and damaging private property?

> No one should abuse you in this way .

Aww diddums.  

Edit: to be clear I would hope to be more reasonable and would like peope to be more reasonable with me, but if I’m clearly in the wrong I’m grown up enough to accept angry words as an indication of the effect (reasonable or not) my wrongful actions have had and skulk quietly off tail between my legs never to speak of it again.

Post edited at 22:32
graeme jackson - on 22:26 Thu
In reply to Marek:

>  I'm really not sure why you though you could drive up there.

Judging from the OP and his subsequent replies I'd suggest sheer arrogance.

 

Albert Tatlock - on 22:55 Thu
In reply to Trangia:

Or a fresh loaf  of Nimble bread.

Dingerbell on 23:09 Thu
In reply to graeme jackson:

Nigh mate that's you, I came on here for advice and you seem like you fancy being a troll and smart arse answers. I will take advice not sarcasm.

And obviously your some expert on here I take it or is it you like to stir?

Post edited at 23:13
marsbar - on 23:13 Thu
In reply to Dingerbell:

This thread is an embarrassment.  Does your MRT not have someone in charge of making sure people don't post stuff like this on social media?  

I hope you are trolling tbh.  

FactorXXX - on 23:13 Thu
In reply to Dingerbell:

> Thanks Plyometrics, you ask advice and get some smart arse responses on here from some of them.

Also known as not getting the answers that you wanted...

 

Paz - on 23:16 Thu
In reply to wintertree:

Awesome mate!  Why couldn't the Lynx take off again?  Was it out of fuel and had to rush a doctor there?  Did its skids get stuck in the cow pats and schlurp into the mud?  It couldn't just be dug out - it needed a Chinook, lol?

Needing a mobile landing pad to take off again is a hell of a design flaw for a helicopter if that's the case

Post edited at 23:16
marsbar - on 23:16 Thu
In reply to Dingerbell:

Nothing in your post asks for advice.  You've been given advice on asking first before driving on someone's property (when its not a serious emergency) and learning to read a map and you don't like it.  

L mantelself on 23:31 Thu
In reply to wintertree:

> Events from my youth have me conditioned to run like the wind from angry farmers.  And not in a straight line.

TBH salt from a double barrel coming back as an occasional access levy might sort the wheat from the chaff

Marek - on 23:42 Thu
In reply to Dingerbell:

> We ran into a little trouble yesterday in the Turton area of Lancashire nr Entwistle reservoir.

So 'we' means Bolton MRT?

 

 

wintertree - on 23:58 Thu
In reply to Paz:

> Awesome mate!  Why couldn't the Lynx take off again?  Was it out of fuel and had to rush a doctor there? 

It was flying past taking a senior officer somewhere when it developed some engine fault that made landing the immediately preferred option.  

>  It couldn't just be dug out - it needed a Chinook, lol?

I think it had landed fine - I was to brief in my previous post; read on...

> Needing a mobile landing pad to take off again is a hell of a design flaw for a helicopter if that's the case

It wasn’t really a landing pad - the second lynx brought several engineers who put this rigid interlocking mat down on the ground, and left the matting and the lads and some tools behind whilst carrying the officer on his way. 

The chinoock then landed on that matting about an hour later - it was a soft/boggy grass paddock in Norfolk - not renound for its drainage.  The lads then removed  the main rotor from the Lynx and rigged it for carrying, the chinook took off from the matting and the Lynx was airlifted our.  Someone from the base came by later on to apologise for the disruption and big dent in the paddock and to collect the mats, and offer a tour of the base.

The old man enjoyed the whole event, he’d not long since had to stop privately flying single engined planes at the local club due to health reasons.

These days the American tilt rotors fly over when I was down there - they fall out of the sky somewhat more I think. 

graeme jackson - on 00:03 Fri
In reply to Dingerbell:

>  I will take advice not sarcasm.

Fair enough. You've been given a lot of advice in this thread. Let's hope you're humble enough to accept it.  I bet you're not though.

summo on 05:48 Fri
In reply to Dingerbell:

Given the fact it is a footpath, I'd suggest your team leader and a rep from the fire service head back there with a peace offering and eat some humble pie. It's a small world and I can guarantee the farmer will be telling all the other farmers already. You want to keep them onside if you plan to rattle collection tins at local shows and towns in the future. The end result might mean that if it's dry you could drive straight over his fields in the autumn to where you originally wanted to be, but don't hold your breath. Sad as the whole thing could could have been prevented with a pre visit. 

Post edited at 05:49
Jim 1003 - on 08:16 Fri
In reply to graeme jackson:

> >  I will take advice not sarcasm.

> Fair enough. You've been given a lot of advice in this thread. Let's hope you're humble enough to accept it.  I bet you're not though.

A lot of ill informed advice from dicks...

Simon Caldwell - on 10:10 Fri
In reply to Jim 1003:

The only ill informed advice I've seen has been from you, who apparently don't know the difference between a footpath, a bridleway, a byway, and a public road.

Rigid Raider - on 10:12 Fri
In reply to Tyler:

> Someone saying they'd swap their current job for an easier one plus a million quid is hardly indicative of being on the edge of a nervous breakdown. 

Judging by your editing skills you must work for a tabloid newspaper.

Some, not all, hill farmers are in a bad way. My neighbour is mentally robust and has a good attitude to farming but is realistic about the economics.

ChrisJD on 10:45 Fri

 

Looking at Google maps and Streetview (of entrances) its a rough double track forming a through route for vehicles that serves a number of isolated farms (so not some twee perfect narrow footpath).  Many tracks like this can be adopted highways (e.g. Roych Clough [now subject to a TRO]).

However, in this case it is not an adopted highway (https://blackburn.roadworks.org/).

But the double track is a RoW as a footpath (whether that reflects its true historical nature/use is another matter and it could have been warranted a higher status as many RoW were poorly classified).

But it would be pretty unusual for an adopted highway to also be marked as FP (but does happen, e.g. Hurstclough Lane near Bamford).

A quick check of the map by the OP would have raised this ambiguity (but its easy for me to see why they might think its got vehicle RoW); but volunteers who give up their time to help out and emergency service personnel shouldn't be subject to abuse/admonishment/riducule, ether by landowners or UKCers.

 

 

Post edited at 10:45
Marek - on 11:56 Fri
In reply to ChrisJD:

Some marked footpaths may well have public vehicular access (I personally can't think of one) but I would suggest that they are the exception rather than the rule and therefore anyone wanting to take vehicles onto one (in a non-emergency situation) should check beforehand rather than just assume that they can drive that way. And Roych Clough is a poor example since it's shown as 'other public access' (i.e., purposely ambiguous due to legal complexity) rather than as a footpath.

As for 'abuse', much (most?) of it in the thread has come from the OP and jim1003  which, coupled with the suggestion that the MRT wouldn't help the farmer in future, leads me to be at least a bit suspicious of the OP's inevitably one-sided account of the original incident. I wonder what sort of account we might have heard from the farmer?

I and probably most people on UKC have great respect for the work of the MRT volunteers (I've had reason to call them out - at least in Langdale), but the OP's attitude does cast a bit of sad shadow. 

 

FactorXXX - on 12:51 Fri
In reply to ChrisJD:

> A quick check of the map by the OP would have raised this ambiguity (but its easy for me to see why they might think its got vehicle RoW); but volunteers who give up their time to help out and emergency service personnel shouldn't be subject to abuse/admonishment/riducule, ether by landowners or UKCers.

Being a voluntary organisation doesn't mean that Mountain Rescue should be exempt from criticism on UKC no matter how robust and the OP's attitude hasn't exactly helped in this matter.  Unless of course you believe that members of Mountain Rescue can say what they like on UKC and not be responded to?
As for the alleged abuse from the landowner, again, being an Emergency Service/Mountain Rescue doesn't exempt you from someone venting their displeasure if you make the sort of mistake that seems to have happened here.
 

 

ChrisJD on 12:55 Fri
In reply to Marek:

> Some marked footpaths may well have public vehicular access (I personally can't think of one)

As I said .... "But it would be pretty unusual for an adopted highway to also be marked as FP (but does happen, e.g. Hurstclough Lane near Bamford)."

> Roych Clough is a poor example since it's shown as 'other public access'.

Was raised deliberately raised as an example as this is not shown as footpath, BW or other formal RoW, but had (contentious for sure) historical vehicle access and is marked with the 'not-quite-sure' green circles on OS mapping.

> As for 'abuse'

Selective quoting on your part: I said "abuse/admonishment/ridicule"

 

 

 

Post edited at 13:02
ChrisJD on 12:59 Fri
In reply to FactorXXX:

I don't like the manner in which it has been done.  Ie cut them a bit more slack.

My personal view.  Its a public forum, you can choose to behave how you like.

And Landowner venting displeasure is fine.  From what the OP said, it stepped over that mark. 

Post edited at 13:01
ChrisJD on 13:08 Fri
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Unless of course you believe that members of Mountain Rescue can say what they like on UKC and not be responded to?

That's an unfair troll-like leap and clearly putting words in my mouth.

 

FactorXXX - on 13:25 Fri
In reply to ChrisJD:

> That's an unfair troll-like leap and clearly putting words in my mouth.

Suppose it depends how you want to interpret the term 'admonish'.  I take it to mean the action of telling someone in a critical way that they have done something wrong and that it was a mistake that shouldn't have happened.  If that is the case, then why shouldn't people on UKC admonish the behaviour of the Mountain Rescue in this instance and indeed any other where they appear to have made an error?
In the case of this thread, the OP has said things which necessitate a reply for clarification/correction, etc. I assume that you agree with that premise?
As for 'ridicule', what's wrong with taking the piss out of the apparent inability of the MR to read a map correctly?  

ChrisJD on 13:33 Fri
Marek - on 13:50 Fri
In reply to ChrisJD:

> Selective quoting on your part: I said "abuse/admonishment/ridicule"

I agree about 'abuse' being not helpful.

'Admonishment/ridicule' (in response to what looked like either incompetence and/or arrogance in some who really should know better) might well have been justified in this case.

marsbar - on 16:59 Fri
In reply to ChrisJD:

> volunteers who give up their time to help out and emergency service personnel shouldn't be subject to abuse/admonishment/riducule, ether by landowners or UKCers.

I disagree.  

I'd say the OP has brought this situation on themselves by posting on here to moan, particularly as they are unwilling to acknowledge their error.  I'd also put few quid on the the details conversation with the landowner being less one sided than we've heard here.  

If you want to report to the mods feel free.  They can decide if they want us to stop admonishment.  

Personally I am happy to say that it isn't right for a volunteer to say what was said about not rescuing the landowner on a public forum.  

I also think the map reading issue is fair enough. 

 

 

Jim 1003 - on 17:20 Fri
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

> The only ill informed advice I've seen has been from you, who apparently don't know the difference between a footpath, a bridleway, a byway, and a public road.

That's because you're also ill informed, all of the above are part of the legal definition of public  road.

Post edited at 17:24
Marek - on 17:29 Fri
In reply to Jim 1003:

> That's because you're also ill informed, all of the above are part of the legal definition of public  road.

I'm mystified: Do you really believe that you have the right to drive a car along a footpath?

Jim 1003 - on 17:35 Fri
In reply to Marek:

Thats not what I said, check it out yourself.“public road” means any road, street or thoroughfare or any other place (whether a thoroughfare or not) which is commonly used by the public or any section thereof or to which the public or any section thereof has a right of access, and includes—

FactorXXX - on 17:42 Fri
In reply to Jim 1003:

> Thats not what I said, check it out yourself.“public road” means any road, street or thoroughfare or any other place (whether a thoroughfare or not) which is commonly used by the public or any section thereof or to which the public or any section thereof has a right of access, and includes—

Isn't that the South African definition? 

Jim 1003 - on 17:55 Fri
In reply to FactorXXX:

What is a ‘road’?

Legally, what is a ‘road’?

According to the Road Traffic Act 1988, s 192(1) a ‘road’ means any highway to which the public has access. It also includes any bridges over which a road passes.

The question to be asked, if the place is not obviously a highway, is whether the general public have actual and legal access to it.

Also, a road physically should have the character of a definable route, with ascertainable edges, and that leads from one point to another to  enable travellers to move conveniently from one point to another along that route.

Accordingly, using the above legislation, the question of whether a place is a ‘road’ is whether, factually, it can be made to fit into the above description.

A private occupation road leading to a farm, if at the time the public have access, is a road (Harrison v Hill 1932 SC 13).

 

The last one is interesting, in this case, especially, ...it's a complex area of law...which is why I said there were many ill informed posts...Also, in my experience, many people may think they have a private road, but actually they do not. Farmers are the worst offenders....

I had to research this once, in some detail after an off road motor cycle hit a kid on an alleged private footpath and thought he couldn't be prosecuted, but he was, as it was held to be a highway, and so a road. 

Post edited at 18:00
MG - on 18:08 Fri
In reply to Jim 1003:

You seem to have cut and pasted from a definition used in Zambia!

https://www.arrivealive.co.za/Public-Roads-vs-Private-Roads-and-Traffic-Enforcement

wintertree - on 18:12 Fri
In reply to MG:

> You seem to have cut and pasted from a definition used in Zambia!

Nice one.  Perhaps we should integrate a plagiarism detector into UKC.  I really have been restraining myself from posting further on this thread.

A quick read of their cited legislation (Harrison v Hill 1932 SC 13) shows it to (a) be Scottish and therefore clearly not well related to English access rights and (b) on careful reading not actually stating that vehicle rights are granted by the definition of “road” that they consider.  Pedestrian *or* vehicle.

For someone so emphatically asserting that almost everyone else is wrong they do seem really rather confused.

Post edited at 18:17
MG - on 18:19 Fri
In reply to wintertree:

You will recall from previous threads that the certainty of Mr 1003's assertions are inversely related to their accuracy.

marsbar - on 18:48 Fri
In reply to Jim 1003:

What a load of @#£&. 

marsbar - on 19:27 Fri
In reply to Dingerbell:

If you want to call me a knob dear, do have the balls to do it in public on the thread, sending me 2 abusive emails just makes me think you are a bit of a coward and only reinforces my view that the farmer most likely had good reason to swear at you.  

Its funny how time and again those whining about being abused are actually the ones causing the problems and then kicking off when they can’t handle the truth.  

I will be forwarding your emails and a link to this thread to MRT.  As a volunteer they need to be aware that you are bringing them into disrepute.  Both MRT and the fire service generally have more sense and manners to behave as you describe.  

Post edited at 19:53
FactorXXX - on 19:36 Fri
In reply to Jim 1003:

> What is a ‘road’?

> Legally, what is a ‘road’?

> According to the Road Traffic Act 1988, s 192(1) a ‘road’ means any highway to which the public has access. It also includes any bridges over which a road passes.
> The question to be asked, if the place is not obviously a highway, is whether the general public have actual and legal access to it.

A highway in England & Wales is any route that the public has access to - from footpaths to motorways.
In the case of a farm road, etc. it can be a highway in that the public can access it on foot only.  However, the owner of the road might additionally have vehicular use.
Not sure what category the road in question falls into, but it's certainly possible that it's a 'Private Road' with respect to vehicles.   

 

 

MG - on 19:39 Fri
In reply to marsbar:

Do report back!

Ex Poster 666 - on 19:40 Fri
In reply to marsbar:

What a spineless creep. I'd post the emails on here for everyone to see.

Threads like these exemplify why I've chosen to leave UKC.  Just need to stop reading now!

marsbar - on 19:58 Fri
In reply to MG:

Will do.  

John W - on 20:00 Fri
In reply to Dingerbell:

I may be wrong, but I’m guessing that this isn’t going the way you had in mind...

marsbar - on 20:01 Fri
In reply to Ex Poster 666:

Nothing much to post, called me a knob, knobhead and a smart arse.  

Smart arse is probably fair

 

Ex Poster 666 - on 20:12 Fri
In reply to marsbar:

> Smart arse is probably fair

That would depend of your hip size

wintertree - on 20:17 Fri
In reply to marsbar:

> Nothing much to post, called me a knob, knobhead and a smart arse.  

That’s rude. 

No one should abuse you in this way.

 

marsbar - on 20:18 Fri
In reply to Ex Poster 666:

Enormous arse at present.  Ah well.  

marsbar - on 20:22 Fri
In reply to wintertree:

It does make me wonder if he called the farmer a knob!   

I know I wind people up sometimes.  I’d be far less bothered if it was name calling on the thread.  It’s sending it secretly by email that creeps me out.  

Ex Poster 666 - on 20:23 Fri
In reply to marsbar:

> Enormous arse at present and correct

 

wintertree - on 20:34 Fri
In reply to marsbar:

> I know I wind people up sometimes.  I’d be far less bothered if it was name calling on the thread.  It’s sending it secretly by email that creeps me out.  

There’s one poster who occasionally sends me emailed challenges/questions when I participate on some threads.  I rather like the informal convention of posting “yhm” on the thread, and would probably have replied to them if they had done that.  Otherwise it’s just weird.

Me, I never wind people up.  Fact.

FactorXXX - on 20:40 Fri
In reply to marsbar:

> Nothing much to post, called me a knob, knobhead and a smart arse.

What a weird thing to do.
In the vain hope of making some good of this thread, may I suggest that we post links to appropriate songs.  Here's mine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l482T0yNkeo

  

> Smart arse is probably fair

Shouldn't that be in the 'Upskirting' thread?

 

marsbar - on 20:56 Fri
In reply to FactorXXX:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=308KpFZ4cT8

and on the subject of farmers, I’ve been torturing the children with this recently 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuV1puxGMZQ

 

 

 

Ex Poster 666 - on 21:03 Fri
In reply to FactorXXX:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch_5dB1FkqY

at grid reference SD 71849 16886

FactorXXX - on 21:14 Fri
In reply to Ex Poster 666:

Lindisfarne - that's a blast from the past!
A little known fact about Rod Clements of Lindisfarne is that he invented KerPlunk.  

 

marsbar - on 21:16 Fri
In reply to MG

Prompt reply and apologies from the MRT.  

As far as I’m concerned that’s an end to the matter. 

John W - on 21:29 Fri
In reply to Dingerbell:

Oh, the delicious irony from your profile - a post about needing help with navigation with 1:25k v 1:50k maps

 

Post edited at 21:32
Ridge - on 22:45 Fri
In reply to John W:

> I may be wrong, but I’m guessing that this isn’t going the way you had in mind...

I think this has massively eclipsed Timmd's "Heroic beardy protestor on a scaffold pole" thread in that respect.

John W - on 22:50 Fri
In reply to Ridge:

I reckon it’s a close run thing

Perhaps the well-known phrase “don’t let the door hit you on the back of the head on your way out” may be quite apt.

Tom V - on 01:31 Sat
In reply to Ridge:

At least no one offered to bop him on the nose.

FactorXXX - on 02:40 Sat
In reply to marsbar:

> In reply to MG

> Prompt reply and apologies from the MRT.  
> As far as I’m concerned that’s an end to the matter. 

Do you think that the MRT involved should make a contribution to this thread?
Doesn't have to be overly dramatic, just a simple explanation of what happened with no finger pointing and if needs be an apology. 
After that, maybe a few days for it to sink in and then UKC can delete the thread.  

 

marsbar - on 07:51 Sat
In reply to FactorXXX:

I said in my email to them I'm happy to leave them to deal with it.  They have a link so if they want to post they can.  If they'd rather just deal with it privately then I think that is reasonable too.   I think the  MRT can be trusted to sort it out, I'm sure they will deal with it.  Probably personal apologies to the farmer are more important that explaining to us.  Mistakes happen, but it is how you deal with them that matters.  

Jim 1003 - on 08:45 Sat
In reply to MG:

> You will recall from previous threads that the certainty of Mr 1003's assertions are inversely related to their accuracy

Quite hilarious coming from somebody who spends his/her life on the internet...anybody who is a top 40 poster is sad...

wintertree - on 10:26 Sat
In reply to marsbar:

Doesn’t it bother you that he mixes “diameter” and “r”?  Surely it’s diameter and radius, or d and r.  Although really he should use no variables without first defining then.

Artistic licence init.

David55 on 10:32 Sat
In reply to Dingerbell:

I have been interested in this thread as I live close to the southern end of the track, and ride it regularly on a bicycle.  For many years this was a footpath, but a few years ago it became a bridleway, so older maps wont show this. There is no right of access for motor vehicles. Like many such tracks this one is from time to time used by fly tippers and unauthorised off roaders. In recent weeks the landowners have spent much time and money improving the track, for their use, and several times I have stopped and spoken with them as I passed on my bicycle.

There are several houses and farms. One of the residents is an old friend and former colleague and a few weeks ago he confirmed to me he was happy with horse riders and mountain bikers, but not motorised vehicles. He is a landowner, but I don't know if he is the landowner described in the original post.  This morning riding up just after 7am 3 of us met one of the other farmers, and he greeted us with a friendly wave and smile. The man I know appeared not to be up so I did not knock on his door.

The track is narrow, with nowhere to park that would not cause obstruction. The land surrounding it is actively farmed, and is low lying. It does not seem to me to be much of a place for a mountain rescue training exercise. Now I know something of Bolton MRT and hold them in high regard. I know they plan their Wednesday evening training in advance, and even publish a document giving details, so that members know where to go. It would be interesting to know what the plan actually was.

I suspect that those who drove down the track were simply on a bit of a jolly, and not actually participating in what was the planned exercise. From years of naughty mountain biking in places I ought not to be, I know the best policy when caught out is to apologise, be humble, not argue, and clear off in the direction advised.

Anyway, I shall show this thread to the landowner who I know, and if he is not the one described I am sure between us we will be able to find the right one and pass on the information. 

 

marsbar - on 11:21 Sat
In reply to David55:

It's good to hear you hold Bolton MRT in high regard, I hope that your conversation with the landowner can be from that angle.   

David55 on 12:07 Sat
In reply to marsbar:

In fact on reflection I shall not disclose the thread: there is too much in it that is irrelevant to the case or just plain silly. The fact that my son is not in a wheelchair is in large part due to Bolton MRT (that comment is enough to allow them to identify me, though anyone who does please do not disclose it on this thread). I shall try in the coming days to put in a good word for them, as time allows.

marsbar - on 12:35 Sat
In reply to David55:

I think that may be wise.  Thank you.  

L SteveFletcher - on 14:03 Sat
In reply to David55:

Thanks David55. Your continuing support of our team is very welcome.

The OP has been involved as a trainee member of the team for the past 3 months. Clearly they have made a mistake in bringing this to a public forum. It should've gone through the team's chain of command but didn't. Much of the info in their posts was authored without full possession of the facts.

The underlying issue was that the MRT got permission for the exercise from another nearby landowner, but due to a misunderstanding when verbally explaining our exercise location, we inadvertently got the permission of the wrong landowner. It's our mistake, and mistakes happen.

We realised the error when we were confronted by the actual landowner, and we left the land immediately. The team tried to make amends on the night.

This thread has clearly been an embarrassment to the team and the matter is being dealt with internally.

Regards

Steve Fletcher
Team Leader, Bolton MRT
 

Welsh Kate - on 14:27 Sat
In reply to David55:

And Bolton MRT were out all last night on a missing person search, along with other MRT, SARDA and other agencies. A great result - good job, everyone.

Stuart en Écosse - on 15:57 Sat
In reply to SteveFletcher:

You could request that the ukc mods delete this thread, it will soon be forgotten about.

FWIW, I doubt anyone thinks this is embarrassing for your team, only the OP, and, being generous, we all make mistakes.

marsbar - on 16:10 Sat
In reply to Stuart en Écosse:

I’ve requested it be moved to the pub