UKC

I caught a piece on the Radio4 news a couple of mornings ago about new right to roam legislation coming in soon (Sunday?)
Any idea how this may affect crag access?
Is it possible that previously 'off-limits' venues may now become available?
Maybe 'Right to Roam' will not be the same as 'Right to Climb'

In reply to John Wellbelove:

I have a feeling that it only affect parts of the country at the moment

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3884663.stm for more details and links

In reply to John Wellbelove:
On crags in areas classified as open country you will be able to climb AS OF RIGHT. You have the much maligned BMC to thank for that. You won't have a right to mountain bike, skateboard or shoot landowners. The landowner can apply to close the land to access for up to 20 days a year, but not weekends or bank holidays. There are other exclusions, like MOD land. Existing ROWs aren't affected.

It's being phased in by area. http://www.countryside.gov.uk/access/mapping/default.htm has all the details, including maps of where the open country is. In most cases these maps are provisional, there is an appeal process.

I'm no Blairite, but I somehow don't think the Tories would have introduced a law like this.

In reply to Gary Smith:

Your answer to the question makes me despair of the quality of area reps, at least in the Cheshire area.
Thank goodness the ones in other areas do not put replies like that on here.

Would you like to explain in detail, without pointing people at other websites for answers how it will effect people and which areas are now open and which are not? I am sure most people would not, it is complicated by being phased in.

In reply to sutty:

Agreed too. Perhaps he should pull his head in and explain the implications of the new legislation.

Is Cheshire in the North West region? I suspect so.

In reply to Kipper:

I am like a bear with a sore head at the moment with those effin arrogant hunting types saying they are not going to obey the law. Perhaps my walking poles pointed at a few of them might bring home to them that we will forget the law too and stop them whenever we can.

Must look up the insurrection laws, see if you can make a citizens arrest for it. Grrr.

In reply to Cosmic John:
I hope you are right!

Incidentally, if the BMC has won a great success for climbers in this legislation, why no premiere post blowing their trumpet and informing us all of how it affects climbing? Might be a good idea, non?

In reply to Cosmic John:

After seeing his last post, I suspect you may have a point...

I wonder if he has an issue with Alun Michael who was supposed to be taking part in a "right to roam" march tomorrow, and has dropped out as it was going to be targetted by protesters from the "right to kill foxes for sport" group?

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3668134.stm

In reply to gingerkate:

There is also some convincing argument that the new legislation will mean that freedoms presently enjoyed (or tolerated) could easily be reduced or diluted now.

Gary will explain this soon.

In reply to Kipper:
That's what I thought, from peak meetings. I didn't know there was anything good for us in it. Us as climbers I mean, rather than us as walkers.

In reply to Kipper:

If you're referring to the use of 'Section 22' then I'd agree. Otherwise I don't genuinely understand your comment

In reply to Gary Smith:
It might be that the person posting that 'State of British Climbing' thread just didn't think it through. Or it may be that the BMC guys (including guyesses) know by now that people expect them to cyberly appear and answer questions. And they don't like doing that. Because it takes time, I suppose? Not sure, but guess it's mainly that. So I suspect it was quite deliberate, else it'd have been fixed by now.

The right to roam legislation is communication in the other direction, however: ie from them to us. So a premier post would have done nicely. I used to be amazed at how the bad the BMC is at communication, but then I decided it's just that climbers are a lunatic anarchic bunch and couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery... well maybe we could organise that, but only because beer tends to be one of our areas of expertise... and that we have a weird and disfunctional organisation because we're a bunch of weird dysfunctional nutters and so there really is little hope for improvement

ps Except for Bunny of course, who is so adept at organising she could organise a piss-up in a nunnery, nevermind brewery.

In reply to gingerkate:
>..that we have a weird and disfunctional organisation because we're a bunch of weird dysfunctional nutters and so there really is little hope for improvement...

Nailed!

Sorry if I disappoint expectations.

'Only Fools and Horses'

In reply to gingerkate:

I notice that young Gary is a Volunteer BMC Access & Conservation Rep.

Perhaps this is similar to the way Hyacinth Bucket volunteers to help out at the Vicarage Garden Party.

Get on OK with your fellow BMC officials, Gary?

Ever thought that they seem to be er,.. avoiding you sometimes?

Of course with your attitude, you might not notice such things.

Just a thought.

In reply to Cosmic John:
Nice image, but to be fair I should point out that the vast majority of access reps are volunteers, there's just a couple of paid access officers at HQ I think (?), and also I would guess that he puts the volunteer bit on his profile so that if people call him to talk about access stuff they do it in a nice 'I thought you should know that....' or 'any chance of sorting out....' sort of way, rather than an accusatory 'why the heck haven't you f*ckers done anything about....' sort of way, which must be fairly narking if you're just volunteering to do something helpful.

Or in Gary's case, volunteering to slag off hapless RTers who dare to admit they don't fully understand Right to Roam legislation...

In reply to gingerkate:

Yes I know, volunteers usually do a magnificent job which tends to go unrecognised.

That still doesn't justify this situation.

The sheer irrationality and "slipperiness" (That is, not addressing the specific points brought forward) of Gary's replies on this thread are really quite disturbing.

If this isn't a troll, hijack, or whatever, there are definitely significant issues at work under the surface that we just don't know about.

Perhaps they will emerge in due course.

I suppose this could be Gary's final attempt to throw a spanner in the works, prior to telling the BMC to go stuff it first thing on Monday morning.

Or perhaps he really is just a total tw*t.

In reply to Cosmic John:I'd go with the latter.

In reply to Cosmic John:
I don't know, I really don't. I think Dom's theory is likely to be accurate. But who knows.

I'm going to start another thread, asking the same thing as this, but more specifically, because I don't know the answer, and this trhead has been gary-fied too much to get anything sensible on it.

In reply to Gary Smith:

Look, Gary, somebody has asked a perfectly reasonable set of questions.

Why don't you give a sensible and relevant set of answers, so that we can all learn.

Representing an official body is prestgious & carries responsibility - and you should play the game on this.

Otherwise, as this thread progresses, you're making yourself look daft - or more and more like a troll

In reply to gingerkate:

Well, yeah, he's pissed. I was taking that for granted.

In reply to John Wellbelove: Check Garys reply to the "Ice Climbing in La Grave" premium post - for someone who puts themselves foward as access officer on hisn profile, he isn't keen on Twid and Co -(some of the best instructors u could wish to learn from) helping people to access french ice and he doesnt seem keen to help people to access (reasonably asked for) information here.

I'm sure u are a great person Gary but sadly you come across as rude and arrogant in your "put down" answer to the original posters question.

Love and light from David

In reply to Greenbanks: Gary, I'm with Greenbanks on this- you are somebody who voluntarily works on our behalf and that is good but one way or another this thread has got a bit unnecessarily combative. How about a quick summary of what the RTR means for climbers and what the BMC has achieved? I've tried to keepup but I'm not sure I've got on top of it yet,

cheers, Paul

In reply to John Wellbelove:

While not condoning the ill-mannered style of his reply (for which an apology sooner rather than later might take some of the heat out of this thread), I do find myself, on balance, agreeing with Gary's sentiments here.

The impact of the right to roam legislation has been an issue for the British public since the Right to Roam Bill was presented to the House of Commons on 26 January 1999. That's more than five years ago. There has been an enormous amount of discussion, debate and analysis since then, to which we have all been entitled and encouraged to contribute.

John, you opened this thread having "caught a piece on the radio" about something "coming in soon" and asked the most basic questions about the subject. It gives the impression that you have taken no notice of, or interest in, this matter over the last five years. It also suggests an attitude that someone else can spend their time doing the research so that you needn't bother. That's probably what rattled Gary's cage.

It took me about 30 seconds to find the answers by googling for "right to roam". To save you the effort, I'll post the best link I could find, which is http://www.ramblers.org.uk/freedom/

Happy roaming and climbing, everyone!

In reply to Simon White:
I'm in the ramblers association (yeah yeah yeah I know) and so am reasonably well informed about what the freedom to roam legislation means _as a walker_. But as I said up thread, that's not the same as what it means to climbers, and what it means to climbers goes well beyond the question of is climbing included in 'roaming'. And as Kipper has also said up thread, there have been rumblings in at least some sections of the BMC that this legislation is actually in sum total negative in effect.

So unless you can explain to us why some senior BMC people have recently been heard to mouth off against the Ramblers Association because of the perceived negative effects of the legislation, then weigh that against the apparent huge positives (eg Hawks Stones), and produce a considered appraisal of whether this legislation is on whole a plus for climbers or a negative, and find that same balancing act available via a quick bit of googling, I will continue to consider John's question both pertinent and worthy of respectful treatment.

In reply to gingerkate: "But as I said up thread, that's not the same as what it means to climbers, and what it means to climbers goes well beyond the question of is climbing included in 'roaming'."

Can't point you at a link, but climbing is definitely, definitely, definitely included.

Lots of whinging about it in the dales from CLA types recently - one who wants to keep land closed because it's got old mineshafts on it and claims to be worried about liability - despite the fact there's ample case law on absolving them (like the people who tried to sue the owners of Gaping Ghyll because their son fell down it), the dozens and dozens of equally deep and dodgy potholes all over already open land and iirc liability is specificaly mentioned in the CROW anyway.

In reply to andy:
Cheers... but I know climbing is included, what I don't understand is why in some BMC quarters the freedom to roam legislation is considered a bad thing????????

Anyone got any knowledge about this?

I can't believe the people who're narked with the RA about it are just being totally silly..... wrong, maybe, but not totally silly...... so what's teh down side????????

Because in my ignorance it seems like a great step forward with no bad side at all. So what info am I missing?

In reply to gingerkate: Ah - didn't realise that. Agree with you - can't see a downside myself at all.

In reply to gingerkate:

I hope I didn't suggest that John's question was anything other than pertinent or worthy of respectful treatment, just that a little self-reliant effort in researching the matter might endear him more to his peer group than the way he asked the question.

The Right to Roam Act is avaiable at http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00037--a.htm#2

Under Section 2(1) "Any person is entitled by virtue of this subsection to enter and remain on any access land for the purposes of open-air recreation, if and so long as-

(a) he does so without breaking or damaging any wall, fence, hedge, stile or gate, and
(b) he observes the general restrictions in Schedule 2 and any other restrictions imposed in relation to the land under Chapter II."


The key phrase for this discussion is "for the purposes of open-air recreation", which is defined only by reference to the list of specifically restricted activities outlined in Schedule 2, which reads as follows:

1. Section 2(1) does not entitle a person to be on any land if, in or on that land, he-

(a) drives or rides any vehicle other than an invalid carriage as defined by section 20(2) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970,
(b) uses a vessel or sailboard on any non-tidal water,
(c) has with him any animal other than a dog,
(d) commits any criminal offence,
(e) lights or tends a fire or does any act which is likely to cause a fire,
(f) intentionally or recklessly takes, kills, injures or disturbs any animal, bird or fish,
(g) intentionally or recklessly takes, damages or destroys any eggs or nests,
(h) feeds any livestock,
(i) bathes in any non-tidal water,
(j) engages in any operations of or connected with hunting, shooting, fishing, trapping, snaring, taking or destroying of animals, birds or fish or has with him any engine, instrument or apparatus used for hunting, shooting, fishing, trapping, snaring, taking or destroying animals, birds or fish,
(k) uses or has with him any metal detector,
(l) intentionally removes, damages or destroys any plant, shrub, tree or root or any part of a plant, shrub, tree or root,
(m) obstructs the flow of any drain or watercourse, or opens, shuts or otherwise interferes with any sluice-gate or other apparatus,
(n) without reasonable excuse, interferes with any fence, barrier or other device designed to prevent accidents to people or to enclose livestock,
(o) neglects to shut any gate or to fasten it where any means of doing so is provided, except where it is reasonable to assume that a gate is intended to be left open,
(p) affixes or writes any advertisement, bill, placard or notice,
(q) in relation to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in or are about to engage in on that or adjoining land, does anything which is intended by him to have the effect-
(i) of intimidating those persons so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity,
(ii) of obstructing that activity, or
(iii) of disrupting that activity,
(r) without reasonable excuse, does anything which (whether or not intended by him to have the effect mentioned in paragraph (q)) disturbs, annoys or obstructs any persons engaged in a lawful activity on the land,
(s) engages in any organised games, or in camping, hang-gliding or para-gliding, or
(t) engages in any activity which is organised or undertaken (whether by him or another) for any commercial purpose.

No mention of climbing there. Therefore climbing is not a restricted activity, therefore it is classed as "open-air recreation" for the purposes of this legislation, and you are free to go and climb on open access land.

Sorry, no I can't explain "why some senior BMC people have recently been heard to mouth off against the Ramblers Association because of the perceived negative effects of the legislation". I could speculate that they were envious of the RA's informative website, or hacked off that that the RA has taken such a high profile, positive lead in supporting this issue. Otherwise, no idea. Are the "rumblings" published in any document presenting the BMC's considered view? Or are they just hearsay?

In reply to gingerkate:
I don't know the full story here, but in Northumberland only half of one of the banned crags is on open access land, so we haven't gained anything. Lots of crags aren't on access land, and it's felt that the law may have a negative effect on access on these crags.
Also, I believe there are provisions for stopping access to crags on wildlife grounds, which some landowners will no doubt be using.

In reply to gingerkate: I have in front of me the April 2003 editorial in Climber, where Bernard Newman argues that we already had access to most areas covered by CRoW under Common Law; I think his point was/is that CRoW sets in stone access to specific areas, which having now been set will be difficult to increase; whereas the situation in Scotland is that we now have access by default, and the onus will forever be on the landowner to prove why access shouldn't be granted. (BTW It would be great to see Van Hoogstraten with a Scottish estate...) I don't know whether the legislation as enacted has been changed in our favour.

In reply to Simon White:

All the same, it was an innocent enough question, that hasn't been asked before (not recently, anyway) and just the sort of thing one might ask when "down the pub" to engage others in a chat; we don't all follow legal matters like Perry Mason. At least he's not asking, for the umteenth time, something like "what's the best way up Mont Blanc", or "how long should my ice-axe be"!

Even for the latter it's no big deal, you're not obliged to answer.

Thanks for your very complete answer. It's a bit of a pity we won't be allowed to go for a swim though.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Ah, right.

Also, I have been thinking on it... the provision to disallow access for 28 days of teh year may work against climbers, in that there may be some crags to which we previously had permissive access through good work of BMC access officers negotiating on our behalf. If these landowners now have to accept full legal access for walkers and climbers they may be narked into imposing the 28 days of no access? But only time will tell on that one?

And maybe there are other 'small print' things that could potentially work against us?

In reply to Simon White:
>> Are the "rumblings" published in any document presenting the BMC's considered view? Or are they just hearsay?

Neither... stuff I've heard at meetings. I'm not going to quote anyone, my memory isn't good enough and anyway it wouldn't be fair.... but the over-riding impression I had been left with was that the legislation is not good news for us as climbers.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Come to think of it, I'm sure what you've quoted Bernard as saying fits in excatly with what I'd picked up at meetings and half-forgotten: that it basically doesn't add anything new.

But I'm not sure how anyone can argue that when Hawk Stones is such a benefit? Unless there is a considerable negative.

I expect it's all hazy because no-one knows what the negative will be until we see how landowners react.

In reply to JDal:
Right. So maybe the areas that benefit (from a purely climbing perspective) are very much in the minority....

What's the thinking behind worrying that access to crags not on access land will suffer, do you know?

In reply to Simon White:
Hey thanks for that detail.... I see we may be able to go to Hawk Stones but no gardening, under section (l).
Wonder how much notice people will take of that....

I think that's already the law in national parks anyway?

And no commercial climbing trips (t).
And no visits by Alan and Chris to aid guidebook writing???? (t)

In reply to gingerkate:
What's the thinking behind worrying that access to crags not on access land will suffer, do you know?

I don't have any specifics, but I suppose it can only be that the act has focussed landowners on access issues and probably p*ssed them off more than slightly. I also noticed on the news that the CLA rep was going to great lengths to point out that this isn't a Right To Roam anywhere, only to access mapped open country. The imlications are that they'll be looking at access a lot more closely now.

In reply to JDal:
Right. That makes sense. The more you learn the more complicated it gets.

Btw also check out the Bamford Edge thread.... illustrates just how complicated it all is.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

That was the general intent!

I haven't been able to check the thread for a few days (I have a life away from the PC, climbing weekends etc)
I admit that I haven't been following the right to roam issue very closely over the years. The only news I tend to get the time to listen to is about 3/4 hour of the Today program in the mornings on R4, so until the news item, I was unaware of recent developements. Having a spare 5 minutes saturday teatime I thought I'd check for threads about the climbing aspects of the legislation (the premier uk climbing web site seemed a good place to start).
No threads turned up in a search so I thought I'd kick off a discussion; maybe a bit of 'new crag' information swapping would result.

Didn't realise people could get so cross about that!

Bit disapointed that Gary Smiths (appearently abrasive) reply seems to have disappeared! Has it been deliberately removed?

In reply to John Wellbelove:
Blimey, so it has! Now let me see, what did he say... I think it was something like 'call yourself a climber' and implied you were an idiot (though he didn't use that word) for not knowing, but the creme de la creme was likening your asking about CROW implications to someone asking 'who was hitler?'....

Dominion guessed he'd been knocking back the vino, and that he'd been working so solidly on CROW for yonks that other climbers not knowing much about it was irksome to him, but whilst one can imagine it might be, he really did sound incredibly pompous. But then let's face it, most of us are capable of behaving like dicks when we've been drinking, so who knows, maybe he's not teh wally he sounded.

Oh, what added zest to the ensuing slanging match was that Gary says on his profile he's a BMC area access rep....

Doubtless I'm being a bad girl putting this all back in print, but I don't care, we all read it, don't see why you shouldn't have the fun of it too.....

In reply to gingerkate:

'Tis truly wierd! My first reply to Gary when I said I thought he was being unduly rude has gone too! Is this censorship raising it's ugly head again? It wasn't me that deleted it.

Gary was clearly being a nerd and now someone who says, politely for once in my case, that he was has been deleted.... what is the world coming too? The rule of brass, I suppose!