Uk To Allow Public Access Around The Coastline

[Politician]

More BS. There have been rights-of-way across land bought and sold for ages.

 

True. But this legislation is considering extending such rights-of-way where they did not necessarily exist before. That is quite different from the situation where a landowner purchases land which already has an established right-of-way and then attempts to restrict access - I have no sympathy for landowners in that situation.

 

All that Mr Tory Politician wants to push forward is a case for compensation.

 

Not in the sense you mean. I was arguing that if certain stretches of coastline are of national importance, then they should be in public and not private ownership. That is quite different to compensating a landlord for possible disruption whilst allowing him to keep the land.

[Frances]

If you look at the Public right of way map you can see the relatively few places where cooperative landowners could have allowed a better coastal path - there would have been no economic cost to them nor any personal inconvenience (we are not talking about Clarkson situations but paths at the edge of mostly sheep rearing land) - prime example is in Santon south of Port Soderick down to Dhoon Bay, another is in Maughold.

[Gladys]

I could be dead wrong, but I have always thought that the island was well provided for in terms of public footpaths and access to most areas. I remember when Garwick Glen was closed to the public and the outcry after that, but I have recently found another way, by Clay Head, to get down to Garwick beach. It may not be the glen walk which is now clearly private and gated, but at least there is access to the beach.

 

I suppose that the best that can be done is for public footpaths and rights of way which are existent now to be enshrined in legislation so that they cannot lose their public right of way status by disuse or fencing off.

[Frances]

The south of the Island is indeed reasonably well provided for though there are a few places where short link paths would increase the utility of other paths (in a few cases it appears that there was a path but it wasn't marked on the definitive map).

In the north there there are many fewer paths.

It was suggested to me that when the public rights of way leglislation was passed in the early 1970's there was a call for notification of paths to be included - there was a particularly active secretary of a walking group in the South who ensured most paths were officially noted but in the North there was less work done - the landholders, even when they knew of long established paths, were under no obligation to report them.

 

Once a path has been officially noted(see the 2 sheet gov issued Public Rights of Way map) it is an offence (fine upto £1000) to block it in any way (this includes for example putting up incorrect 'private property keep out' notices, allowing dogs to roam at will or keeping bulls in fields crossed by paths. There is a very active footpath conservation society who besides clearing some paths notify DOLGE of any blockages, broken stiles etc.

[Albert Tatlock]

My view is probably closer to Vinnie's than to Albert's, but this raises a more fundamental question: should private individuals have been allowed to purchase land encompassing such beauty spots in the first place? And if they have, should the UK Government not consider buying them under a compulsory purchase order for the enjoyment of everyone?

Surely you said..."My view is probably closer to Vinnie's than to Albert's"...but this raises a more fundamental question: 'maybe Albert had a point?'

[VinnieK]

Surely you said..."My view is probably closer to Vinnie's than to Albert's"...but this raises a more fundamental question: 'maybe Albert had a point?'

 

The two standpoints differ significantly: your post argues for a situation whereby owners of (substantial) property are forced to open their property to others, ultimately neccessitating a codification of the responsibilities of both parties if such a thing is going to work. Legislation protecting beauty spots from development and, if need be, compulsory purchase where appropriate, on the other hand, allows owners of property to enjoy it freely and without constraint or interference, but limits what can actually be owned by a private individual.

[P.K.]

Not in the sense you mean. I was arguing that if certain stretches of coastline are of national importance, then they should be in public and not private ownership. That is quite different to compensating a landlord for possible disruption whilst allowing him to keep the land.

Oh really? By all means tell me how I meant what I posted, like you would know of course...

 

Just for your info one of the central planks of the legislation is that the entire coastline is of national importance and quite rightly as well. Frankly you should applaud their efforts because it will guarantee that Mr & Mrs Angry of Worthing will always vote Conservative, even though their MP was top of the league for claiming expenses. Nothing dodgy there of course, he was simply claiming his dues. Yeah, right....

 

Surely you said..."My view is probably closer to Vinnie's than to Albert's"...but this raises a more fundamental question: 'maybe Albert had a point?'

 

The two standpoints differ significantly: your post argues for a situation whereby owners of (substantial) property are forced to open their property to others, ultimately neccessitating a codification of the responsibilities of both parties if such a thing is going to work. Legislation protecting beauty spots from development and, if need be, compulsory purchase where appropriate, on the other hand, allows owners of property to enjoy it freely and without constraint or interference, but limits what can actually be owned by a private individual.

Complete bollocks. The legislation would never differentiate on the size of the holding, it's a complete irrelevance. Those who access such areas do so at their own risk, something that has been covered (e.g. via BMC insurance) for years and years. Also rights of way do not neccessitate compulsory purchase orders. The right of owners to enjoy their property will not change, they just have to share it with the proles. There are no limits on the amount of land held by an individual either, but let's just say I would prefer the John Muir Trust to hold it rather than the awfully tacky Land's End experience a la "Unsavoury".

[VinnieK]

Complete bollocks. The legislation would never differentiate on the size of the holding, it's a complete irrelevance. Those who access such areas do so at their own risk, something that has been covered (e.g. via BMC insurance) for years and years. Also rights of way do not neccessitate compulsory purchase orders. The right of owners to enjoy their property will not change, they just have to share it with the proles. There are no limits on the amount of land held by an individual either, but let's just say I would prefer the John Muir Trust to hold it rather than the awfully tacky Land's End experience a la "Unsavoury".

 

You've either got the wrong end of the stick, again, or you're just piss poor at erecting straw men.

 

1. This is not discussing what is the case now, but possible suggestions/alternatives for the future, and legislation may well differentiate on the size of the holding - a small cottage for instance may not be deemed as great an obstruction to public access of the surrounding land as a sprawing mansion with substantial gardens blocking off access: and so it might be that enforcing right of way upon the owners of the former is unneccessary.

 

2. No one has said that rights of way would neccessitate compulsory purchase orders. The compulsory purchase was in reference to undoing development in areas of natural beauty that is felt to have diminished the status of the area (not simply cutting off access to the public).

 

3. No, there aren't limits on the amount of land held by an individual, but, again, that's not what's been said. There is a limit on their ability to buy a given amount of land in a particular area - the Lake District, for instance, isn't going to be sold off any time soon, and to my knowledge you can't buy Hyde Park.

[Cronky]

obviously the grass is greener on the private land

 

The grass on the other side is astroturf

[P.K.]

You've either got the wrong end of the stick, again, or you're just piss poor at erecting straw men.

It's NEVER "straw men". It's always a "strawman". To construct one you "hang ideas on it" and then "run it up a flagpole and see who salutes it". If you ever burrow deeply into business (heaven forbid, your meetings would be real wrist-slashing stuff) then these are terms you will need to learn. No charge.

 

1. This is not discussing what is the case now, but possible suggestions/alternatives for the future

Oh really? How astute of you to notice that government policy goes through various stages. Hands up all those who didn't know that! Zzzzzzzzzzzz...........

 

2. No one has said that rights of way would neccessitate compulsory purchase orders. The compulsory purchase was in reference to undoing development in areas of natural beauty that is felt to have diminished the status of the area (not simply cutting off access to the public).

Like the Lands End "experience" no doubt, standing in the way of the well-established South West Coast Path? Just what planet are you on?

 

3. No, there aren't limits on the amount of land held by an individual, but, again, that's not what's been said. There is a limit on their ability to buy a given amount of land in a particular area - the Lake District, for instance, isn't going to be sold off any time soon, and to my knowledge you can't buy Hyde Park.

There has always been a limit on the amount of land held by an individual, it's called the price. Maybe you have heard of it? Land in the Lake District is constantly on the market as rough grazing. Of course, when you purchase some you also then have an obligation to keep and maintain the footpaths that cross it. Otherwise the truly awful Janet Street-Porter will have you up in front of the beak. Hyde Park is one of the "Royal Parks" and if the Crown wants to sell then I guess it could.

 

When I read one of VinnieK's posts like Albert I frequently feel my will to live just ebbing away.... But his constant enthusiasm to diss the chosen few is always worth a laugh. Let's hope he keeps it up or this place would be all the poorer without his zzzzzzzzz..........

[Albert Tatlock]

Not many people realise that the UK has around 60 million acres owned by 1% of the population, whilst 99% of the population (60 million) are crammed into just 5 million acres. Around 150,000 private estate owners occupy in excess of 40 million acres. I imagine the ratio on the island will be far worse.

 

Little wonder then that the average house price is the most expensive in Europe and beyond the reach of many. Also, in the UK 99% of the population pay £16 billion in community charge each year, whilst the 'landed gentry' pay £120m - and receive over £3 billion a year in grants.

 

Land reform is well overdue in the UK, as an increasing population will only make the situation far worse.

[VinnieK]

It's NEVER "straw men". It's always a "strawman". To construct one you "hang ideas on it" and then "run it up a flagpole and see who salutes it".

 

No, a strawman is where one party invents a position or point out of thin air, attributes it to the other party and proceeds to argue against it instead of arguing against the point that was made. To erect "strawmen" is to do this repeatedly, as you have done. Having said that, your numbskull definition suggests that it's yet another term, along with the much maligned "paradigm shift", that low level corporate R-Tards like you have adopted and incorrectly use in a desperate and self defeating attempt not to look thick.

 

If you ever burrow deeply into business (heaven forbid, your meetings would be real wrist-slashing stuff) then these are terms you will need to learn. No charge.

 

As attractive as the image of you taking a razor to your veins is, and it really is the kind of stuff upon which public holidays and national celebrations are declared, I'll stick with what I've got, thanks.

 

Oh really? How astute of you... {i]P.K. misses the point again[/i]

 

Let's recap, since things have become muddled and you're, let's not be coy, a dick.

 

1. I post some speculation on what government policy could be introduced to deal with the issue, perhaps as an alternative to the existing legislation.

 

2. You get distracted by the big ass bee that's constantly buzzing around in your bonnet, get confused, and point out the entirely irrelevent point that the legislation would never do that. Irrelevant because I never said it would, I was offering a different way of going about things.

 

3. I explain it for you, in the simplest terms possible.

 

4. The chip on your shoulder obscures your view of the screen, and you seem to think I'm still talking about the government legislation, in so much as you think I'm saying it goes through various stages, when I say "the discussion", rather than the discussion on the forum - which is just as obvious a statement, but apparently not to you, brainzilla.

 

Like the Lands End "experience" no doubt, standing in the way of the well-established South West Coast Path? Just what planet are you on?

 

Well done P.K. If I was describing current legislation, then yes, maybe you'd have a point. Unfortunately, here on Earth, the comment was doing no such thing, it was instead describing possible legislation that I personally think would be a solution. Now, you could have argued with that: You could have, for instance, have said "why, that will never work, because of X" or "present legislation is better than your suggestion because of Y", or whatever. But no. You can't do that, because you can't even read a post, and you can barely write one. Instead you stand there, shouting like a tool at things that aren't even there.

 

Thanks anyway, as you've at least answered my question: you're way, way to stupid to actually be guilty of employing strawmen in your argument.

 

There has always been a limit on the amount of land held by an individual, it's called the price. Maybe you have heard of it? Land in the Lake District is constantly on the market as rough grazing. Of course, when you purchase some you also then have an obligation to keep and maintain the footpaths that cross it. Otherwise the truly awful Janet Street-Porter will have you up in front of the beak. Hyde Park is one of the "Royal Parks" and if the Crown wants to sell then I guess it could.

 

I spoke to soon, you've actually almost managed to make an honest point. Did you come up with that yourself, or did your helper monkey have to point it out? There's no shame in it if you did. Apart from pointing out the obvious, which a lesser man, such as you, would sarcastically applaud, regarding price, you're right: there are limits imposed on the development of land - but then I never said there was.

 

Who has the right to sell the "Royal parks" is less simple than you suggest. Whilst originally owned by the crown, they're preserved as public parks and funded entirely through central government grant and charitable donations.

 

When I read one of VinnieK's posts... I frequently feel my will to live just ebbing away.... But his constant enthusiasm to diss the chosen few is always worth a laugh. Let's hope he keeps it up or this place would be all the poorer without his zzzzzzzzz..........

 

Which is more than can be said for yours. Give in to that ebb; I'll even fork out for the razors, noose, or hose pipe - your choice (it will, after all be your special day). Perhaps we can set out collection tins so we can hire a bouncy castle for the kids, little commemorative dolls of you enjoying your chosen method of self-annihilation, a bit of booze for the grown ups - something families up and down the nation can come together and enjoy, like Guy Fawkes only even more lighthearted.

[P.K.]

It's NEVER "straw men". It's always a "strawman". To construct one you "hang ideas on it" and then "run it up a flagpole and see who salutes it"

No, a strawman is where one party invents a position or point out of thin air, attributes it to the other party and proceeds to argue against it instead of arguing against the point that was made. To erect "strawmen" is to do this repeatedly, as you have done. Having said that, your numbskull definition suggests that it's yet another term, along with the much maligned "paradigm shift", that low level corporate R-Tards like you have adopted and incorrectly use in a desperate and self defeating attempt not to look thick.

I've been in business all my life and here's a self-confessed student telling me how it should work and the terms of reference I should use. Like he would know and I, having used them for years with the certification to prove it, have somehow inexplicably got them wrong. Using his incredible powers of deduction he even claims to know exactly how far up that slippery ladder I have achieved. Frankly I suspect he should pick on easier game than a life-long corporate drone like myself. But having said that his efforts do afford me some amusement. So come on VinnieK, exactly how much blue-chip decision making experience have you had that might actually bolster your credibility here? I have to tell you that a paper-round doesn't really count. Sorry and all that.

 

Having completed a few UK National Trails (the actual subject of the thread) might help as well. I've done loads. Do you wish to benefit from my experiences? Always "Happy To Help" the completely clueless, that's me.

[VinnieK]

I've been in business all my life and here's a self-confessed student telling me how it should work and the terms of reference I should use.

 

Wrong again. I'm not telling you how it should work, and I'm not telling you what terms you should use. I'm telling you that you're a laughably bitter halfwit. Look "Straw man fallacy" up, hotshot, like you should have before you shot your slack jawed mouth off. If you had you would have realised that in addition to the business term, straw man is (more commonly) the title for a paticular kind of wonky rhetoric I accused you of, and that no, despite your demented ability to miscomprehend nearly every sentence that's said to you, I wasn't giving you business advice. Given that we're having a discussion here that's entirely removed from the subject and jargon of the business world, which context do you think I meant it? That's right, the context that's directly applicable to reasoning, argument, and rhetoric.

 

Well done, P.K. You managed to completely misunderstand yet another post; possibly because you're just plain stupid, or possibly because you've got your head buried so deep up your arse you're officially categorised as a novel, if particularly repugnant, form of intestinal parasite, or maybe it's a bit of both. In any case, first rate effort - your dunce's cap should be trimmed with gold for this particularly ignoble run.

[P.K.]

I've been in business all my life and here's a self-confessed student telling me how it should work and the terms of reference I should use.

 

Wrong again. I'm not telling you how it should work, and I'm not telling you what terms you should use. I'm telling you that you're a laughably bitter halfwit. Look "Straw man fallacy" up, hotshot, like you should have before you shot your slack jawed mouth off. If you had you would have realised that in addition to the business term, straw man is (more commonly) the title for a paticular kind of wonky rhetoric I accused you of, and that no, despite your demented ability to miscomprehend nearly every sentence that's said to you, I wasn't giving you business advice. Given that we're having a discussion here that's entirely removed from the subject and jargon of the business world, which context do you think I meant it? That's right, the context that's directly applicable to reasoning, argument, and rhetoric.

 

Well done, P.K. You managed to completely misunderstand yet another post; possibly because you're just plain stupid, or possibly because you've got your head buried so deep up your arse you're officially categorised as a novel, if particularly repugnant, form of intestinal parasite, or maybe it's a bit of both. In any case, first rate effort - your dunce's cap should be trimmed with gold for this particularly ignoble run.

So, despite all the verbal BS you spout you have no actual business experience at all? None whatsoever? So you are reduced to posting puerile insults to try and shore up your shredded credentials?

Never mind. One day you'll grow up and you never know you might actually make your way in the world I thrive in. That's the business world you know. I've been in it for 30+ years. I know it well. Would you like a reference? I would be happy to report that you set appallingly low standards and repeatedly failed to meet them....

 

No charge....