UKC

Can any one advise me. I have just been for a walk in my local hills. Found a really obscure place, so I wouldn't be meeting any people. Parked at the entrance to a lane signed for ballagan farm 2 km East of strathblane. Parked responsibly. Not near gates, plenty of space to pass me. Came back to find the farmer had blocked my car in with 2 bales of straw. Left a note on my windscreen telling me to keep off his hills.  I checked my car to find that he had keyed my car all along one side. I called 101 and the police came out. Police said it was private land so he had a right to block me in.  Is this true? I have been walking in Scotland for years and never had a problem parking. He refused to charge the farmer for criminal damage, claiming there was no proof he had done it. I pointed to the more that he had left as a clear sign that he had done it.

No, it isn't. 

He's right to say you don't know it was the farmer who keyed your car though, in case you've been down in the cellar for the last month visitors to the countryside are not welcome at the moment.  There's a full-on moral panic about social distancing going on, and as is sometimes the case those with the least to fear are the most afraid.  In the current heady atmosphere of rampant xenophobia, your car could have been keyed by a sweet little old lady who just happened to be passing.

You're unlikely to get much sympathy on here, I predict.  I expect I'll get a bit of a slagging too for expressing any sympathy at all.  You should probably just be grateful you didn't get a brick through the windscreen. :-/

The OpP can have some sympathy from me. In no way did they appear to breach any of the government guidelines, yet someone decided it was okay to damage their property. 
 

Mental that anyone would think this is okay.

I was observant of social distancing. No one else on the hill.  And I love in the countryside. He keyed the side of the car that was not facing the track, so that I wouldn't notice it till I got home.

How did you get your car out?

Hell  mend you , you shouldn’t have been in the hills at all. The word exceptionalism comes to mind.

Not that anyone should’ve key’d your car though.

I think the guideline is quite clear - driving somewhere to the start of a walk is a breach of them - you shouldn't be doing it. It is equally wrong for someone to damage your car but I think you could have avoided it by not driving in the first place.

Like many others I suspect, there are dozens of brilliant walks that would require me to drive for less than 15 minutes but I have been religiously avoiding them and sticking to ones I do from home to comply with the guidelines. If more people break them then we will all be walking round our back garden if we are lucky enough to have one or our living room if we haven't.

Please observe the guidelines.

When the police arrived, the farmer promptly appeared out of nowhere with his tractor and removed the bales.

In the current situation what has happened to your metal box does not even register of the fcukometer.  Regardless of interpretations of the rules you took police away from doing something important because you felt entitled to drive somewhere to take some exercise.  Shame on you 

Presumably if you were THAT local the farmer would have known your car and not have done it, if indeed he did? Hay bales are easily shiftable by most able to walk up a hill.

There is no ban on being in the hills.  Yes there is guidance recommending you don't drive to exercise. I didn't drive to the highlands. It was a neighbouring village. A rural areas where You need to drive everywhere Inc supermarkets etc. You are all entitled to your views but  my question isn't about the rights or wrong of driving during the current situation. My question is about whether I am allowed legally to park where I did and proving a crime.

I think 'did he have the right to block me in?' is looking at it the wrong way round. The real question is 'did you have the right to park there?' - to which I suspect the technical answer is probably not (as confirmed by the police). Although it is interesting that his note complained about you accessing the hills at all, to which you absolutely have the right (so long as you comply with the outdoor access code).

Driving away from home to then go on a walk is definitely against the government's advice (non-essential travel). I know of people who have been fined for much milder infractions of the lockdown. Yes, you have a right to exercise but it's inferred that you should stay local (i.e. start walking/running/cycling from your front door).

Nontheless, the farmer sounds like an absolute tosser. Keying your car is well out of order, and blocking you in is clearly nothing but spite. I think the only way you would get recompense is through civil action, but this will likely not be worth it and as already noted will be difficult to prove. You definitely have my sympathy.

No. The person who committed criminal damage wasted the police's time!

There is no way I could move it. I'm 5feet 2

)). Shove it with your car next time:: ) Are you Jimmy Crankie?

I'm not surprised to find that's the majority view.  But the fact remains that the farmer committed a criminal offence (by blocking the car in, whether he was the one who keyed it or not) and the OP did not. 

The copper almost certainly knew that, and was lying when he said the farmer had a right to block the car in.  I'd be thinking about putting in a formal complaint about the copper.  Siding with the farmer is one thing, failing to even mention to him that he'd committed an offence and lying to the OP about it is something else.

https://www.askthe.police.uk/Content/Q528.htm

My guess is whoever did it, didn't call the police.  You called them for a pathetic scratch on your car.  Regardless of what you think, you wasted their time just when it can't be spared.  Move the bales and claim on your insurance.  I bet that's the position you are in even after wasting their time.

Would it be sternly worded? 

Well, I would have to use words I suppose.  But I'd save the really stern ones for my letter to the local newspaper about it. :-P

In anycase I am sure the farmer was just going about his business with hay bales and didn’t intend to block the poor OP in. He even moved them as soon as realised. Such a decent chap.

Thanks for the link. I suppose you are right that blocking the car in via bales is very similar to car clamping. 

Does that mean that anyone can park on private land with no consequences? (that might come across as sarcasm but I'm genuinely curious).

Am I the only person that is wondering why the police didn't fine this idiot for travelling unnecessary? 

If a stranger parks on my drive and I park behind them, thus blocking them in, am I committing an offence?

Depends, did you forget about the tow hitch you just had fitted?  Crunch.

In English law I believe it isn’t an offence if they are parked whole on private land and not the highway or council land etc.  

Is this a wind up?

Clamping was already illegal in Scotland before it became so in England/Wales a few years back though, and immobilising the car in such a way as to prevent it from leaving is clamping however that is achieved.  You may be right though, the link I posted relates to England & Wales and it's possible that I'm mistaken.

In reply to lightninwolf32:

Yes, I think it does a bit.  If some cheeky sod decides to park on your driveway there's surprisingly little you can legally do about it.

Yes it is.  One more time with that link: https://www.askthe.police.uk/Content/Q528.htm

I would stand by my right as a landowner to park a couple of trailers wherever I wanted on my own land but if that was deemed an offence, presumably I would be allowed to lock my own gate.

You seem to be implying that, once an intruder has parked on my drive, I can not use my own drive without committing an offence.

Debatable.  “To commit this offence a person must intend to prevent the owner/driver from moving their vehicle”.  Key word - intend.  If you just parked there because you’re a thoughtless idiot you didn’t commit the offence.  Can’t imagine many police are going to put the effort into pushing the CPS...

And if you were intentionally immobilising a car belonging to someone who was taking the piss I would have every sympathy, even though in doing so you would be committing a criminal offence.  In the unlikely event you were unlucky enough to get charged I'd happily chuck in a few quid if you were crowdfunding your defence.

Less so if it was someone who'd taken care to park considerately and you were just being a bit of an arse about it obviously.

I would hope not - clearly 'the law is an ass' as they say, as it applies to someone parking on your driveway.  But believe it or not people have got into trouble with the law over this.  I don't know, but I guess if you did block someone in on your driveway you'd be committing the offence when you refuse to move to let them out.

There's no way the farmer in this scenario could claim he blocked in the car accidentally though, obviously.  I'm not saying he should be charged either, necessarily.  But if he keyed the car as well he's a nasty piece of work imo, there was just no need for that.

Sorry to double-dip, but I just wanted to add that I'm implying nothing.  I just posted a link that says what the law is, I didn't write it.

I think I read about a case where someone locked a gate, trapping a lorry in their yard and ended up in trouble with the law over it after he refused to let the truck leave.  Can't remember now.  There was a long rambling thread about this parking stuff on here a while back.  A poster here was running a business next to a gym and had loads of trouble with their customers parking across his doors and the guy who owned the gym being a dick about it.

That's how private clamping was killed in Scotland. The courts decided it was demanding money with menaces or blackmail.

According to Matt Hancock it is ok to   drive a short distance to take some exercise. 

I wonder if perhaps you'd read this first you might have changed your plans?

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2020/4/2/21205921/coronavirus-covid-19-shelter...

So, clamping isn't a thing any more because basically it isn't legal to immobilise someone's vehicle, irrespective of where it is parked (there are exceptions but they are not relevant to the sort of private land issue you had). If there were obvious signs saying "no parking" AND listing the consequences (fines), then you can find yourself with a ticket. If there are no signs, all someone can legally do is leave a note on your window saying (with varying degrees of politeness) "please don't park here".

Any barriers to prevent or regulate access must be permanent structures and where they are sometimes open and sometimes closed, this must be clearly signed. Bails of hay don't count!

I don't think you'll get any legal comeback on the farmer but seeing as you know exactly where he is, well, in your shoes.... Maybe it's best not to recommend a bit of measured revenge, I think inciting a crime might be illegal.

It is unfortunate that the police had to be called out but that is squarely on the farmer for causing a situation that required a police response.

I think you have to remember that a lot of people are so afraid of this virus that they have lost their reason. This might explain the farmers actions and it also probably explains all the people on this thread who are making up a variety of strange arguments about how you were wrong to drive somewhere for a walk. You can see this sort of departure from a normal sane state on lots of other UKC threads recently (e.g. the one about Boris being in hospital with all and sundry wishing him a grim death).

Personally, I prefer to focus my efforts on limiting my opportunities to spread the virus and ignore things that don't have any impact. I was out walking in the hills for 5 hours today and did a lovely 12 hour walk earlier in the week and a couple more the week before. On none of these excursions did I see a single other person - ergo, I don't need to worry about virus spread.

You know what you need to do with this turniphead.

Although it was clearly wrong to park where did, especially as there is plenty of parking in strathblane, with a easy 1km walk along the old railway cycle track to start of the walk.  The farmer is also clearly in the wrong.

I have heard worrying accounts across Scotland of farmers telling people to get of there land even though we'll established paths and right of way cross there land.  Access laws and right of way still apply.  ballagan glen is actually a Scottish wild life trust nature reserve with a well established right of way through the farm grounds.  Any resident in strathblane or Lennoxtown are well in there rights to walk from there house and access the nature reserve via the farm land.  The hills above are not closed, intact they are easy to access for local people via the easy land lover track up the hill side.  Such hills are among the easiest in UK with little to none abject danger, especially if you compare it to rocky and polished top of Arthur seat which is still climbed by hundreds of people each day despite the lockdown.

The presumption is that you cannot park on private land unless you have explicit or strongly implied[1] permission; the right to roam doesn't extend to driving.

I can't comment on the rest.

[1] Strongly implied provision would be a properly laid out car park obviously intended for customers.

You shouldn’t be driving for your daily exercise the government advise is clear. 

Quote from the link.

'But perhaps most important, might we be seen by many people as we drove to and from the river with canoes on our car — people who’ve been told to stay home, people who’ve lost jobs, who can’t see friends and family, who maybe are ill, who maybe are fearing the loss of someone they love, people who would rightly think, “Why are you out there at a time like this?”

Yes, we decided. We would be doing that, and that was wrong.'

Perhaps the OP should have thought this way.

The government advise isn’t clear as Matt Hancock was asked this question on Question Time last Thursday.His reply was that it was ok to drive a short distance for exercise. 

 >I don't need to worry about virus spread.

Entirely wrong. Everyone needs to worry about virus spread, wherever they live, whatever practices they adopt.

According to Matt Hancock, the supermarkets have the capacity to deliver all our food to our door, but more seriously, this is the guidance below, cut and pasted from the government website:

Stay local and use open spaces near to your home where possible – do not travel unnecessarily.

I interpret that as, it is OK to travel if it is really necessary. It sounds highly unlikely that it was necessary for the OP to travel, but only they know the answer to that.

Seems to me that a lot of people are losing their sense during this pandemic. Sadly but more importantly people are losing their lives, family, friends and livelihoods. We're all at risk one way or another so we should try our best to show solidarity with others and get a bit of perspective. The farmer was wrong to do what he did to your car and if you want to know your legal rights that's ok but perhaps we should consider how he may have been affected by the pandemic? Also, when we can return to normality consider how the relationship with accessing the hills via his farm will be soured by our actions now.

Hancock is getting sick of the quibblers , that is fairly clear to anyone who has listened to him this past couple of days, so i wouldn't be at all surprised if he amends his advice in a way which will not go down well at all to those who value their daily bout of exercise.

How would you feel if I drove to your house, parked my car on your driveway (not blocking anything) and then went for a walk?

Legal or not, in these times, your behaviour is selfish and a complete waste of police time. Plus, you came into contact with a police officer, and unbeknowsnt to you, you might be shedding the virus. So have put that police officer at risk for a pointless act. Walk from your house, or if it was that local, you could have walked to the farm and saved the car journey. 

He sounds just like an ineffectual primary school teacher; "If some of you misbehave you'll ALL be in trouble"

If he can't control a very small percentage of the population breaking sensible guidelines, how's he going to stop a much greater number ignoring pointlessly draconian measures?

The issue will then will rest squarely on the shoulders of those who have been saying repeatedly that they will follow advice when it's given in black and white but until then they'll go their own way. Whether they're as good as their word is yet to be seen.

What kind of backwards defence is that? You live in the countryside? So presumably you're lucky enough to have nice open spaces on your doorstep?  People would be much more sympathetic if you lived in a high rise flat with no garden, but what you did definitely counts as not essential travel.

Hanock et al don't care if a minority break advice/emergency laws, and don't care if new legislation will essentially, as you point out, be ineffective.  They want to be seen to be doing something, and they want the population to have a bogeyman that isn't the Government/Tories.......

.......they are hoping that we will forget that they ignored WHO advice and sat on their thumbs for six weeks (with Borris going on holiday for two of these), were so myopic as to ignore what was happening in China, then later Italy, that they didn't have a moment hesitation in ignoring results and recommendations of 2016 Operation Cygnus (it won't happen on our watch gov'), that they underfunded the NHS in the hope that they could break it and get the population to accept gradual privatization, and were slow to respond to the developing emergency. They want us to focus on the bloke next door 'taking the piss'.

The sad thing is a few folks are giving them what they want, aided by the media, and many frightened people are falling for it,  I'm not buying it.  Though it doesn't mean the bloke next door isn't taking the piss as well!

We should not be out on the hills as accidents can happen to anyone e.g.

https://www.lamrt.org.uk/incidents/2020/incident/20

https://edalemrt.co.uk/incidents/

The last thing we should be doing is putting an unnecessary burden on MRT and other emergency services at this time. The hills will still be here when it's all over.

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/climbing-and-hill-walking-its-time-to-put-it-on-ho...

According to the Hillbagging website there is a lay-by just east of the farm entrance. In retrospect it would have been better if you had parked there. However, it is difficult to spot. 

Perhaps it wasn't the wisest decision to park where you did but you don't deserve the numerous  holier than thou self-righteous replies to your original post. I think the farmer was totally out of order. - A strongly worded note would have sufficed.

They are increasing their capacity to deliver as fast as they can, but yes this is obviously complete bollocks.

He also told Andrew Marr on Friday when he asked if nurses would be entitled to a pay rise after this that now is not the time to talk about nurses' pay.  Weird, he seems to have had no trouble finding the time to comment on premiership footballers' wages.

I wonder if it's so difficult to spot that the dickhead who keyed his car wouldn't have done it anyway.

This old chestnut - the analogy that farm land is somehow the same thing as the curtilage to the farmer's dwelling - is really quite tiresome.  How strange to see it trotted out on here by someone who, I'm guessing, would not normally be sympathetic to the "Get Orf Moi Laaand" school of thought.

One upside to having no work on is that I seem to be getting a bit fitter.  At the outer limit of a long run from home I can now just about pop out of the city into open countryside, and I did so for the first time the other day.  This route takes me past (not through) a farmyard on a public footpath, and I was genuinely nervous about the possibility of some sort of confrontation.  (As it happens there was no one about, if all carries on as it is now I'll be passing once or twice a week so I guess I'll find out soon enough what their attitude is.)

I know this feeling well from kayaking when you spot an angler on the bank in the distance - you give them plenty of space and a cheery hello, hoping for the best but expecting a 50/50 chance of getting a load of abuse back.

My route also takes me within a few yards of the front doors of maybe a thousand or so people - in a nice leafy suburb and quite a rough part of town where the lucky ones have a garden the size of a postage stamp - it never crossed my mind for a second that any of those people might be hostile.  (And the dozen odd that I passed weren't, remarkably friendly actually.  These are the people setting up neighbourhood whatsapp & facebook groups, fetching shopping for people they've never spoken to before.)

I find it staggering that so many people think that 'don't drive to exercise' doesn't apply to them. The advice is crystal clear. Don't drive to exercise.

Why didn't you cycle to your local hills?

The trouble is that it is not.

Exactly,I can’t see the difference  between cycling a short distance to go for a walk or driving. 

The advice is......... don't drive. That couldn't be any clearer. Do people really think that don't drive means it ok to go for a short drive? Medium length drive? Long drive? Don't drive surely means don't drive? Am I missing something here?

The op could have gone for a cycle or a walk or combined both. This is common sense.

I know some people need every regulation spelled out to understand it but this one is pretty simple. 

The actions of the few, and it is the vast minority, will put us all at risk from not having access to simple exercise.

Let’s wait for this to all calm down and see what repercussions come of the me me me attitude in relation to land access.  My guess is if farmers are getting so pissed off, so are other land owners who may be the ones who begrudgingly give access to some of the climbing location.  I get the feeling the BMC job is going to be made a little more difficult in the future.  Just a hunch....

Can you provide a link to the government advice which says that? I have just looked it up and it says to exercise locally without unnecessary travel. It doesn't mention specifically anything about driving. I get the impression they have left it deliberately vague (perhaps inadvisably so) so that it does allow people with nowhere to reasonably exercise from their front door to travel a little bit.

One thing it definitely isn't is "crystal clear".

...... shared on here by at least one  senior BMC Access Officer . i don't envy his job dealing with the fallout from all this, and yet he will be working to represent people who are currently undermining his best efforts.

There's been a very polarised 'debate' running across lots of threads on here about whether or not it's ok to drive a short distance in order to go for a walk/run (not a climb).  There's been some bile, a lot of sanctimonious moralising, some outright bullshit and people on both sides claiming the government advice is crystal clear and vindicates their position.

So just to clarify - could you quote the senior BMC Access Officer commenting specifically on the subject of whether or not it's ok to drive a short way from home before taking some exercise?  I can't seem to find it.

Also, given that this has absolutely nothing to do with the remit of the BMC, maybe you wouldn't mind also telling us how they're uniquely qualified to comment.

You have taken this completely out of context. In case it wasn't clear from my post, I was referring to the actions of driving to a walking location and going for a long walk. It wasn't a blanket statement about all actions and all times.

You have just typed it out. "Unnecessary travel' are the key words. It is not necessary to drive to the hills when you can exercise from your door. It's common sense. It may not be your preferred exercise but walking from the door is still exercise.

Half a dozen short drives = a trip to the petrol pumps. 

This thread may be the best troll of the week.  You surely didn't drive to a hill. Semi block an access. Get trapped by hay bales. Have your car keyed. Call the police. 

10/10

However, if this is not a wind up can you tell us exactly where you parked? The farm only has one entrance and parking there would be pretty silly. There's nowhere else around the farm to park without being in their, or another persons driveway. If you parked in their driveway I'm not surprised by what happened.

You misread my post to which Tom referred to.  I wasn’t commentating on the merits of driving to and from exercise.  That’s been done in the same way Brexit was. I was referring to the perception of me me me, interpret whatever rules to meet my own needs which farmers seem to be getting angry about.  If that is the case then it may transpire that landowners with choices about granting access to climbing destinations might start feeling that way too.  Whatever happens,this situation won’t make the BMC position easier.  Which is why he agreed and said a senior BMC acess officer had hinted at.

There isn't much point referring you to the video presentation made by Elfyn Jones on the BMC website since you think the issue is beyond their "remit".

But if you did watch  the video and paid close attention  you would  find him saying exactly what you can't seem to find elsewhere.

Shared on Twitter by Scotland's new chief medical guy. The caption is  based around a soldier with a donkey on his back..........

This picture [is] from World War II, a soldier carrying a donkey. It is not that the soldier loves donkeys or has some sort of perversion. What’s happening is that the field is mined and that if the donkey was free to wander as it pleased, it would likely detonate a charge and kill everyone. The moral of the story is that during difficult times the first ones you have to keep under control are the jackasses who don’t understand the danger and do as they please.

I can easily imagine living somewhere where I couldn't go for a run (a specifically allowed form of exercise) from my front door while maintaining proper social distancing, but a short drive allowing me to do this. The advice is vague. It is not crystal clear. To be crystal clear it could have said "do not drive to your place of exercise".

Necessary travel is to get basic necessities, medical care, provide care for a vulnerable person or travel to/from work. Re exercise, stay local and avoid unnecessary travel.

Now, people may want to use this to ‘justify’ driving to exercise, but it does not say to ‘exercise in your preferred location’. This would, by any reasonable definition, be unnecessary if you have to get in a car to get to a place of exercise. You can walk, cycle, run from your home address- you may not want to and  it may not be beautiful countryside but it is still exercise.

This is short term to protect the most vulnerable in society and the more who abide by it, without the selfishness on display in many posts here, the shorter it will be and the more people will survive it.

Every individual who is driving to exercise is justifying it to themselves that they are not a risk to themselves or others, but how many thousands/tens of thousands are doing exactly the same. No one can argue that this is without risk when multiplied by the numbers doing it. People just need to stop the selfishness for a short time. 

I can just about imagine that circumstance. It would be fairly unusual though, I would suggest that the majority driving to exercise could exercise without doing so.

I'd have to describe that passage as exemplifying pusillanimous thought.  It could equally lead to not socially distancing because the other people are not doing it in your vicinity

And they may well in most cases be correct - the guidelines do not forbid it, they are not a risk and they may well be decreasing the risk by driving. The problem is that with the (deliberately?) vague advice some people will stretch things unreasonably in ways which would be unsustainable if too many people did it. 

I'm not saying that people should be driving to exercise, just that the guidelines are vague and far from crystal clear. It would be much better if they were clear - either "don't drive to your place of exercise" or maybe "don't drive more than 15 minutes to your place of exercise".

I don't know who said this but I hope someone was around to explain to them how this is massively flawed and not an appropriate way to think.

To best illustrate it, lets take some examples:

Should people have refrained from canoeing when there was last flooding on the Severn and other places out of respect for the people who had lost homes and other property to floods?

Should people have refrained from buying their children toy guns for birthdays when we were last at war with Iraq out of respect for soldiers and their families who were dying on the battlefield?

People shouldn't celebrate their child's birthday the day after Grenfell out of respect to the people who lost loved ones in the fire.

The fundamental error is that with both your quote and the examples above, you are taking two things which are not related and conflating them. If you go down this route then sooner or later you find that you can't do lots of things you normally do because there is some, unrelated bad thing happening in the world.

The argument "you shouldn't do this because of that" is only valid if the two things are related, so it's fair to say "you shouldn't take as many flights because the rising level of CO2 is a problem" or "you shouldn't visit your elderly relatives because there is a COVID19 pandemic" for example.

Quite possibly.

The answer to your question is yes, you are legally entitled to park where you did. You can park up to 15 metres off a sealed road but that doesn't mean you have a right to park there. If you weren't blocking the highway or obstructing the landowner from managing his/ her land then what you did was legal. You were however a bit of a cock for driving to carry out some exercise, no matter how local that was. I can't believe you haven't seen the news for the last two weeks.

I don t see how you can be sure that they are "not a risk" unless they have been tested .

There is a clear difference between curtilage and just land you own. You are comparing two different things. Although in legal terms, neither is a criminal offense, most people would agree with you (including me) that parking in someone's driveway is unreasonable and makes you a bit of a dick. Parking on someone's land, well away from their residence is another matter entirely and there are a wide range of opinions on it.

(also, although I don't know much about where you live, I don't think I actually know anyone whose driveway is big enough that anyone could park there "without blocking anything", are you sure your example is realistic?)

The farmer committed the criminal acts (both blocking the car in and vandalising it are criminal acts).

The farmer wasted police time.

The farmer put the police at risk.

End of.

Lets put this another way: If person A commits a crime and person B reports the crime, who created the need for police time?!

Ok, I maybe should have said "no more risk" or "less risk" than exercising from home.

The story behind the photo is not true.
https://fakehistoryhunter.wordpress.com/2020/04/04/not-a-donkey-being-carri...

Again, common sense. Do we really need everything to be spelled out to us like we were small children? 

What if your chosen exercise area is 16 minutes away? The same people who have the self entitlement to drive would ignore the 15 minute rule anyway. 

Again, common sense. Do we really need everything to be spelled out to us like we were small children? 

To answer my own question, yes, it seems we do. Otherwise this discussion would not exist.

"End of "doesn't quite work when you make a point of turning assumptions into fact, ie the vandalism to the car.

Doesn't matter. It's the future comment that is the point.

The problem with this argument is that what you are saying is "because activity X has a risk of injury and emergency services response, we shouldn't do it". The reality is that riskiness of activity is not being used to decide what activities are off-limits, the activities are being picked arbitrarily. There is no guidance I've seen against deep-fat frying or making tea/coffee with boiling water or ironing or staying on the ground floor and not going up and down stairs or riding a horse...

If you want to ban activities based on risk of emergency services having to get involved, then fine, but you are going to ban and awful lot of things before you get to driving or walking in the hills.

(Infact, if we really want to go down this route, I'd like to see obesity banned!)

In this case, yes.

I would like to know whether I am permitted to drive to my place of exercise or not. It is NOT clear whether I am or not.

FFS! Of course it matters! It is fake history. 

"without risk" compared to what? Everything anyone does confers a risk, what matters is the relative risk. Is driving a short distance really so much riskier than walking or cycling that distance? The last time I read about it I distinctly remember cycling as being higher risk than driving, not lower.

I assume that you are not referring to the risk of transmitting the virus because a person driving from their home to location X, going for walk and then driving home again, all without meeting a single other person is as close to the definition of zero viral risk as makes no difference.

Given the description of the OP, it seems extremely unlikely that it isn't a fact but if the argument runs better for you without the relation to the vandalism then omit it; the argument still stands on the basis of the farmer illegally blocking the OPs vehicle in.

FFFFSSS it doesn't. I don't care where the comment came from. I don't care if it was the photographer who made it or if it was made last week. 

The only fact I put forward was it was Tweeted by the new health boss. That is fact.

What does it feel right to do? 

The bit I've put in bold there is just such a comment - like you said in the preceding sentence you haven't been making.  It expresses the view that you think the OP was being selfish, as you have every right to do, but it strikes me as a little bit weird that you would continue to do that and simultaneously deny that you are.

You neglected to post a link.  I found this:  https://www.thebmc.co.uk/climbing-and-hill-walking-its-time-to-put-it-on-ho...

I just watched this video and paid close attention - he said "Don't go climbing, don't go climbing." and "Stay local."  In spite of having driven to the start of his walk from a neighbouring village, it seems pretty clear to me that the OP ticked both boxes so I guess this can't be the video you mean.  Can you post a link to the right one please?

Thank you for posting that link, it's lovely.

Given the lack of clarity, it seems right for me not drive to all to exercise at the moment since that is clearly within the rules, though I have considered doing so - and I might have done so if I lived elsewhere. I would not condemn others for doing so within reason. I would welcome clarity either way. 

I can't do links but it looks like you got the right one anyway:

from about 0.28

"Don't travel'

Stay local.

If you do go local (just) walk.

Local means accessible from your front door by walking"

D'Oh!  You're quite right - I guess I wasn't paying close attention after all!

Until they need petrol, or have a puncture, or breakdown, or crash or , or ....or....It’s all just self justification.

His boss has just resigned after twice breaking a rule which she said Scottish people had to obey. Many Scottish people are very annoyed at this and some have lost faith in Scottish health officials. - Not me, I may add. I think it is very important that her successor is as accurate as possible in his pronouncements, tweets, etc in order to restore faith. This tweet was not accurate.

Its all going to be academic with attitude being shown by some folk on here - the spread hasn't even peaked yet.

Carry on ignoring the none essential travel rule then we will be in lock down rather than isolation & social distancing as it is at the moment. Like a lot of Europe it will be no exercise out side the home, no travel etc dog walks allowed but only with 50m of the house.

And then there is the damage done to the relationships with land owners - in many areas Foot & Mouth is still a sore wound and the fall out from that, regarding access, was only starting to settle.

Yes. A pedestrian or cyclist crashing into someone is likely to lead to swearing.  A car is likely to hospitalise them.

Me too.  It's an unexpected bonus for me that having explored the area immediately around my house in a way I never have despite having lived here for a few years now, it turns out I have absolutely no need to.

The first mile out and the last back can be tricky from a 'social distancing' point of view though - I frequently have to cross the road or run down the middle of the road to allow people plenty of space as I wheeze my way past.  (And there are a few alleyways where it would be physically impossible to for two people to pass 2m apart.) 

Almost everybody I see - a great many more people than I usually see on the routes I've always driven to the start of - is unfailingly polite and friendly in spite to having much more to fear from me as a possible 'vector' of infection with Covid-19 than the farmer in the OP's story.

Hello Grumpy.

Is this where you parked - the only entrance too and from the farm?

https://www.google.com/maps/@55.983836,-4.2779814,3a,75y,40.58h,82.79t/data...

If yes, the farmers actions aside, that isn't fair what you did. That is the only entrance to-and-from the farm and is 1 mile walking distance along the burn from Strathblane.  3/4 mph walking speed ... <20mins walk? 

Why didn't you just park up here 200m(?) further along the road in the space for parking??

https://www.google.com/maps/@55.9838702,-4.2730494,3a,75y,163.74h,86.81t/da...

Assuming I am looking at the right place - I would have been extremely upset if you parked on my road end entrance like that.

I do not think you should have parked there.

That can't be the place. OP said quite clearly that he did not park near any gates.

Can't comment with any authority on the legality of blocking someone in (though I strongly suspect it isn't lawful). 

On this  - "Left a note on my windscreen telling me to keep off his hills." - however, I can point out that the access provisions of the Land reform Act 2003 are still in force, virus or no virus, and the farmer has no right to obstruct access to land on which access rights normally apply. The emergency legislation doesn't change this.

Access has already been lost at Shaftoe in northumberland.

Oh I agree Tom ... can't possibly be there that someone parked their car.

Am I looking at the right place??  

https://www.google.com/maps/@55.9843417,-4.2766725,163m/data=!3m1!1e3

Not a local so I could n't say.  But I do know a gate when I see one.

Is that the case in Scotland?

In England I'd say you can. It must be local. What local is and what 'need' means is debatable. But the police have said it is OK to drive short distances to find somewhere safe and quiet. For some people the risk of exposure to others and themselves or to find a safe area means driving a short distance is better.

My parents live in Abderdeenshire on a very fast narrow B road, one dog was killed years ago it slipped out and was hit by a car, they have no pavement and nowhere to walk. But If they drive 1000m they get to a forest area they can find exercise in isolation and safety. As 60 plus year olds it is essential they stay active.

It was merely to illustrate a the point that its actually quite annoying that people park at the end of a driveway (speaking from experience of having a driveway then needing to maneover tractor/trailers around said parked cars). Especially when there are parking areas nearby in Strathblane. Looking at  Google street view of Ballagan Farm, it really doesnt look like there is a suitable pull in/area to park a car. 

Yes he did

No he didnt. Had he not parked there in the first place, when currently we are in lockdown and only permitted 'essential travel only' then the whole situation wouldn't have happened. Yes, the farmer was wrong in his actions but lets not ignore the idiotic and selfish actions of Grumpy Monkey either. Especially when there are much more suitable parking places nearby.

Indeed. Agree to disagree.

You guess incorrect. More mutual respect from both sides wouldnt go amiss.  There are good and bad landowners, but equally there are good and bad land users. 

This story highlights to me a bad land user parking badly and a bad landowner responding badly with reagrds to their behaviour.  

Good troll. Plenty of bites

Agreed, Troll 

Those two statements seem mutually contradictory to me - I'd have thought that regarding the entirety of the land as if it were the curtilage to their dwelling, regarding anyone anywhere on that land as you might a trespasser in a small suburban garden is one of the hallmarks of a 'bad' land owner.

The OP says he parked perfectly considerately, but of course he would say that.  You may very well be absolutely right.

If we accept the OP's account as factually correct though, here's what we know objectively:

The OP drove a short distance from home in order to go for a walk starting from where he parked his car.  This may (or may not) have been in contravention to the spirit of the current 'lockdown' - the debate rages on - but was not illegal.
The farmer committed one minor criminal offence and might reasonably have been suspected of another, more serious, one.  The police were called.  The police officer who attended tacitly condoned the offence that the farmer definitely did commit, and lied to the OP about it saying that he had acted within his rights.

A bad land user, a bad land owner behaving badly (if he didn't key the car - inexcusably badly if he did), and a piss-poor police officer.  Of the three parties in this story,  he's the one who comes out of this with the least credit imo.

Edit to add:

That would have been me but I need to set the record straight. The gym owner was sound, after I had been denied access to my workshop for about a hour despite multiple trips to the guy desk I moved the car with my forklift. (most of the gym hanging out of the windows watching) 

When the car owner went to see the gym owner the following day to complain about the damage (there was quite a lot of damage) Martin the gym owner told him to do one and threatened to break his arms and legs if he ever came back. Martin is a bad man who runs various clubs in the UK and abroad, I'm certain the gym is just for money washing but he did me a solid and no one ever parked in my doorway again. 

Shitehawks will be Shitehawks  

I'd report him for animal cruelty 

As randomly as yourself getting up on your high horse I wish you the worst of luck in life and to your Un important car ☺ cheers ya fookin shitehawk 👍

Ah, my mistake.  Dodgy memory - my apologies to the gym owner.

Yeah, definitely my apologies to the gym owner.

I have moved workshops now but if I ever see him again I will tell him Deepsoup says sorry. 

I may have missed something upthread clarifying this, but how do we know its a "he"?

I suspect it's more than likely that, at 5'2", 'he' isn't.

Thats my train of thinking. And there is someone with a similar username, also from Scotland, who was pretty vocal on a different thread regarding travelling for exercise but who has been silent on this one.....

Might be wrong though....

But just in case, who do i claim my £5 from? 

Not sure if I'm following you, do you mean that these scenarios will require you to interract closely with people and risk transmitting the virus?

If so, dealing on a point-by-point basis:

Fuel stations are open as normal, there is no fuel shortage and you can buy fuel using your credit card without any need to interact with a person.

That's what you have a jack and a spare wheel for.

If you have a crappy ancient car then maybe breakdowns are a concern and you shouldn't drive your car, for anyone with a modern vehicle they are extremely rare and I don't rate this a risk high enough to be concerning (incredibly low rate of breakdowns is one reason why all the hard shoulders in the UK are being turned into normal lanes).

As previously explained, risk of crash requiring emergency attendance is massively magnified by being on a bike rather than in a car. Cycling is a-ok as far as the government are concerned, so citing this as a reason not to drive makes no sense.

You are neglecting to understand that there are still vehicles on the road (e.g. food delivery trucks and people driving to the supermarket). Also you seem to have switched topics and are now talking about hazard rather than risk.

Are breakdowns in modern vehicles really "extremely rare"?? The RAC says "RAC attends over 2.5 million roadside assistance call-outs each year. This equates to almost 7000 breakdowns in the UK every single day." And that's just the RAC, there must be a far, far higher number in total. Of course the RAC didn't say how many were in "a modern vehicle" but 7000 total just for the RAC seems a lot to me, and not "extremely rare"

Jeez. If I ever need an ill-informed pitchfork-wielding mob I’ll know where to look.

That's us!

Hmm. 38 million vehicles on UK roads, so on average each vehicle breaks down once every 15 years. That already seems pretty rare to me and then you have to take into account that most of those 2.5 million are probably older unreliable vehicles. Also you have to factor in how many of those call-outs are essentially frivolous - flat tyre and can't change it themselves / flat tyre and no spare wheel / ran out of fuel / etc.

I expect that when you factor all of this stuff in and you are a person who drives a reasonably maintained newer vehicle, there is a good chance you might only suffer a breakdown once in your entire driving life.

There is a lot of speculation here because I tried to find a breakdown of the call-outs by cause and age of vehicle and so on but Google stubbornly refused to give me anything useful and I'm not prepared to spend ages looking.

Fair point.  The OP didn't say and there's no reason why it would be relevant really, I was just making an assumption there and it hadn't crossed my mind until you pulled me up on it that I might be wrong.  Interesting.

Previous posts (inc one on womens shoe sizing) might hold a clue. 

Agreed. I think people should be reducing their risk in all activities, including deep fat frying!
The additional difference between household accidents and MRT call outs is that you aren't requiring large numbers of people to group together for search parties, stretcher carries etc.
Its fustrating for everyone, I have hills on my doorstep that I'm not going out on. There are plenty of NHS workers who dont even have the time or energy to get excercise.

So everyone is aware, their is no yorkshire airambulance for a while: 
https://www.yorkshireairambulance.org.uk/news-patient-stories/news/updated-...

you registered in 2004 and have only just noticed?!? you must have been away......Welcome back to the funhouse!!

Intention wasn't to "pull anyone up"; just musings as to why someone with that name would register and start this thread on what has been clearly a fertile ground for disagreements over the last couple of weeks......

Anyway, i'm sure (s)he has their reasons.

indeed, but there are males of that height around with small feet - Angus Young (that well known purveyor of guitar based loudness, and hoarder of vintage Marshall amp heads) is himself a "wee mite" with size 3 feet.

Any males in the Pinnacle Club?

Yup.

If it was the farmer's land then you have no right to park there.  Your right to roam under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 allows you to walk on his land but doesn't extend to parking on it.  You were in the wrong.  In normal times you might have got away with it (or might not), but these are not normal times.  The rules on travelling in order to take exercise are admittedly unclear, but what you did goes against the spirit if not the letter of the law. We have also been advised by the outdoor organisations to stay off the hills.

Contrary to popular belief, trespass does exist in Scotland although it is more limited than in England and Wales, and is a civil not a criminal matter so the police won't get involved unless other offences are committed. I believe the law against immobilisation was to prevent exorbitant penalties being levied by clamping firms. Possibly the police took the view that straw bales were not sufficiently immobilising to be an offence, or perhaps they exercised their discretion and decided that you were both in the wrong so didn't take action against either of you.  The note on the windscreen telling you to stay off the hills might possibly contravene the Outdoor Access Code, but under the current circumstances I suspect the police's sympathies were with the farmer rather than with someone who had decided he could bend the rules on travel.  The farmer removed the bales and the situation was rectified, and so far as the police were concerned that was quite rightly the end of the matter.

You have absolutely no evidence that the farmer keyed your car.  If it was on the far side from you, can you even be sure it hadn't happened beforehand?

I'm not defending the farmer's actions, especially the keying if that was him.  I also understand why you believed you could go for a walk without endangering yourself or others. But parking where you did was wrong.

The farmers actions were silly. If he had taken a moment to think of the consequences it would have been better to use his tractor to pull the car onto the road, then phone the police saying there was a badly parked car blocking the road. Car would have been ticketed or towed. Never again would the OP/troll park there. 

let midgets unite!

OK, thanks - and point taken - and I think I have to brush up on maths a bit

Excellent and thoughtful post, but ..

Sorry to nit pick here, but if the straw bales were 'sufficiently immobilising' to prevent the car from leaving, the offence was committed.  (I think some of us may have a mental image of the wrong type of bales here - the ones I have in mind I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to move by hand on my own either.) 

I'm sure you're absolutely right that the law was intended to prevent clampers from extorting money, but it remains the law - the offence is committed when a person who wants to leave is prevented from leaving isn't it?  With or without a demand for money.

Had the OP attempted to move the bales and damaged them in the process, that would have amounted to criminal damage.

I have no problem with the police officer exercising their discretion and deciding to take no action against the farmer but telling both parties that he'd acted 'within his rights' to immobilise the car is a step beyond that - it's incorrect at best, at worst a bare-faced lie.  It goes beyond choosing to take no action, and actually offers tacit approval of the offence, even encouragement to do it again in the future.

Beyond "offering advice" as they say, the police officer had no discretion to exercise in choosing to take no action against the driver; however any of us feel about parking there the driver had committed no offence.

Road verges are not private land, they are part of the highway.

I'm not a lawyer and it might not be a clear as that.

Great post. 

1. What I'm not sure anybody has queried is whether you actually parked on land belonging to the farmer. People keep giving the analogy of parking on your driveway, but it is not a similar situation to that in that you possibly parked on public land. 

2. It seems that there is uncertainty and ambiguity as to whether you can, or cannot drive a modest distance to another location away from your abode to do exercise. 

In terms of the logic of keeping social distancing, and reducing the risk of viral challenge, it does not hold up to ban that short distance. The drive itself has you in your vehicle, on your own, encapsulated against any challenge.

If you ran from the middle of a town to a park or country area, you may well run past a hundred or more houses, and in so doing run more risk of encountering other people coming out of their houses/properties, and being suddenly within the 2m distance that we are aiming to keep. This would be an inadvertent happening due to you running, and neither party being aware of the other until the last minute. So in this scenario, how is this safer than the short drive to park next to the non-populated area to walk from? I hear what is being said about not driving (which is ambiguous), but in the scenarios which I illustrate above, it does not bear logic.

Rob

After 147 replies I'm going to have to up my score. 8/10 at least.

The situation is changing all time, it’s unnecessary to travel for exercise. The advice is clear.

I know you're not in the Highlands but below is the advice they've issued in the last few days regarding access:

The Highland Council’s Access Officers have become aware of several illegal ad hoc signs appearing on paths and access routes saying that they are closed. These signs are misleading, so the team is taking this opportunity to remind everyone about the current COVID-19 outdoor access guidance.

Outdoor Access and Long Distance Route Manager, Philip Waite said: “We want to remind everyone that the Rights of Responsible Access still apply and parts of the countryside are not closed. Some signs that are appearing are not appropriate.

“Landmanagers do not have the legal right to block or obstruct paths or other access routes. If anyone has any concerns they should contact the local access officer by emailing access@highland.gov.uk.

“What we ask is that everyone continues to follow the Scottish Outdoor Access Code and the current Government advice on exercising outdoors.” 

The current advice is 

One outing for exercise per day - walk, run or cycle, alone or with members of your household.

Stay local and use open spaces near to your home where possible - do not travel unnecessarily.

Keep your distance – try to stay 2m away from other people when out and about and pass quickly but do call a friendly greeting or give a wave.

Avoid contact - take hygiene precautions when you are outside and wash your hands as soon as you are back indoors.

Dogs need to be kept on a lead or under close control, do not let them approach others and as always pick up and remove all waste

 Philip added: “Remember it's lambing time, so everyone needs to give a wide berth to farms where possible. Don’t take dogs into fields with lambs or other young animals in them and avoid disturbing any wildlife or livestock.”

According to the OP the police deemed her to have parked on private land.

TBH, I don't know.  We don't know what the police were thinking.  It might be that any offence lies in the manner of the release, rather than in the obstruction.  Perhaps, in a situation where both the OP and farmer were in the wrong but no harm was done (leaving aside the alleged keying which could not be proved) they didn't want to inflame a situation which was being resolved peaceably. Perhaps they simply got it wrong - if you want legal advice ask a lawyer, not a copper.

In reply to veteye:

The regulations simply say that taking exercise is a reasonable excuse to leave the house.  It is silent on travelling to do this, but so are all the other permitted reasons, such as shopping or seeking medical attention, so that can be implied. The only time travel is expressly mentioned is travel FOR work (perhaps to distinguish it from travel TO work).  So travelling to take exercise is not illegal, but it is contrary to all the advice.  So is walking in the hills, although this too is not illegal.

However just because we are not forbidden to do something does not mean that we should.  Someone living in an inner-city flat possibly can probably justify travelling to an open space to take exercise, but the OP says he lives in a nearby village and presumably has access to countryside.  While this is going on we all have a responsibility to act in the interests of society as a whole, and that means restricting our normal activities.  I understand that the OP felt, probably correctly, that his actions didn't put anyone at risk, and we've probably all made similar rationalisations for some of our journeys.  However it put him in the wrong from the start, quite apart from parking where he shouldn't.

The fact remains that you have no right to park on private land, although this is not a criminal offence and not a police matter.  In normal times, unless your presence causes a significant problem for the landowner you will probably get away with as it, will be more trouble than it's worth for him to try to remove you.  These are not normal times.

it's worth remembering that villages come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, together with their populations.   Our village has traffic driving through it at speeds in excess of those you would normally see in town.   Also there are fast driven and frequent tractors driven at speeds assuming they won't have to stop suddenly and frequently (I'm not exaggerating as they pass the window facing me at the moment and I can see them) with the young drivers holding a phone as they approach the crossroads outside the house.  Often towing very large trailers or silage/sewage tanker trailers,   During busy times there can be 2 of these passing per minute as contractors work in teams, till past 11 at night at some times.  This is the working countryside and it is far from the idyll some people imagine so regard needs to be given to the fact that it could be just as reasonable to drive from a village to somewhere safer.

The only heavy traffic you can be guaranteed not to see here is public bus transport.

It's not Midsomer Murders or Darling Buds of May!

Or discover your local footpaths and bridleways, as many people are beginning to do. 

I rather like our local woods but they aren't a place to stop for too long as they are a renowned source of ticks, as I know to my cost.  Seeing the inmates in Center Parcs behind the wire is a bit strange

You are wrong. It's basic highways legislation - you can park your vehicle up to 15 metres off a highway but that does not confer that you have a right to do so. Being allowed to park and not having a right are two very different things.

the keying is the key..

Can you point to an authority for that? A quick google hasn't turned up anything.  Highways law is complex, but this wasn't on a highway, or even (by the sound of it) a road available for public use, but on private land.  The OP might not have committed a parking offence (presumably the police also thought so) but that doesn't mean it was OK to park there.  The landowner's remedies may be limited, and the farmer very possibly should not have done what he did, but these are sensitive times, visitors to the countryside are not welcome,and they can no longer expect to behave as they did before and get away with it.  Both the OP's parking and the farmer's response did not amount to a serious issue, and I'm not surprised the police took no action against either of them.  

The keying of the car obviously was a serious issue but not provable.

I'd be similarly gutted if I were you. As a friend pointed out to me recently, landowners/farmers (though of course not universally) have often hated excursions onto their land and there are numerous examples of grumpy bastards making things difficult for us hill walkers/climbers - they'd love to be rid of access rights. This is just one more malicious example, but now they are vindicated more than ever. The communities are against outsiders entering as well, for fear of infection, which makes it even more difficult for folks like yourself. Perhaps the farmer meant well, perhaps not. Also, it's already obvious the police are applying the new law in a haphazard and subjective manner, so no surprises there.

The mountain rescue issue aside, going out solo walking in a sensible manner in the hills poses a minuscule or perhaps non-existent threat to the people who live in these areas. If you don't have contact with people, you're not going to transmit any infection (no, they won't pick it up from a random fence post). For people like yourself who wish to continue exercising in the highlands and enjoying the outdoors, best choose very remote areas, away from houses and farms, avoid being at or near your vehicle for any length of time (as far as I'm away it's not illegal to park your vehicle in these places now, but being present with your vehicle when the police arrive is unwise) and consider getting dropped off and picked up.

For folks who don't live in Scotland, I guess it's tricky. That far south and near Loch Lomond, I'm not surprised you met resistance. Out of sight, out of mind. Time for hill walkers and climbers to slip into the shadows. It's much better being a silent minority than a targeted minority. Shall hold my breath now and await the bombardment.

No, an extremely sensible post extolling the virtues of discretion. 

I just loving being the devils advocate.

Wel if you were being insincere in your advice about " slipping into the shadows" that's a pity because it's the soundest piece of advice I've seen on here in the last three weeks.

look out for a lot of ghillie suits on the fells instead of the normal brands

Can you get Hi-Viz ones?

Scottish Government publish access guidance today;

https://www.gov.scot/publications/ministerial-statement-on-access-rights-du...

You can leave them feedback in the box at the bottom of their page.

If it's not an essential journey then don't make it. And if you don't live in the highlands then please don't travel here until things have stabilised. To do so is irresponsible and the hills will still be there when unnecessary travel of any kind represents less of a threat.

If you live in such a rural area, why can’t you just go for a walk from your front door?

i live in a city and am quite happy just to get out of the front door for an hour...in that time I manage to find 30 mins on ‘quiet’ pavements, and 30mins on a common.

Except the whole thing becomes your exercise.

And bikes are easier to park up