36 comments Add a comment
I recently bought an old cottage on a river served by bridleway and footpath access. My property is 'land-locked' by the surrounding fields owned by the farmer. Normally, when someone moves next door, a decent established neighbour takes the cup of sugar round before it's asked for, makes the new neighbour feel at home and at ease in the new environment. I had offered my hand to the farmer on every occasion we met (about 5 now), but he shook it with insincerity, not unlike the futility of going to confession for absolution to clear away past sins, only to make more room for fresh ones!
The farmer who owns the fields that the bridleway passes through, has removed an existing 10 feet gate, reducing it to a 6 feet gate, then some months later, still not satisfied, reduced it again to an kissing gate, actually on the bridleway. The 'kissing gate' saga shows just how far this mean farmer will go. He even warned me not to buy the property, so it was nice to know in advance he had something install if I did.
No way can anyone get a horse through there now, let alone two horses passing in opposite directions as the law requires. With a little bit of knowledge of the law, I've diverted around the obstruction along an old footpath conveniently not signed, on foot with a colleague when, hurtling down the field towards us came the farmer on his quad bike.
"Your trespassing on my land, get off!"
I explained to him in front of my engineer friend who was with me at the time, that I was going around the obstruction quite lawfully on route to my property. He argued, that where the kissing gate is now situated is at the end of the bridleway and the rest of the way to my property is footpath only. I pointed out, that he is wrong, and the gate is an unlawful obstruction on a bridleway.
To my mind his motives are quite clear, they are to make access to my property very difficult. He told me, that he never put up the gate, but implied that the authorities placed it there. I responded, that the authorities would not do such a thing, or make such a mistake and go as far as altering the same gate twice!
The main gate onto the bridleway off the country lane will only open wide enough for a man to pass. It is a 10 feet wide gate or thereabouts, but for some reason, a railway sleeper is placed behind the gate. To open it fully, you have to roll this large timber out of the way, and yet this is a bridleway entrance gate. The farmer's reasoning behind this obstruction is that it prevents his sheep getting under the gate. The actual gate is slumped tight on to the earth and has to be lifted up to open it. His sheep would have to be in a severe state of liquid anorexia to slide under any part of this gate.
Infer what you will, this farmer is a mean piece of kit and at odds with the world around him. Having booked an appointment with the highways authority to try and resolve the gate obstruction, I'll let you know what happens next. Hopefully, they will get it removed!
By: mkixjags
Leave a comment
Two years is a little more than just temporary.
The point is that I know what it's like to be confined to a wheelchair, that makes it relavent to this gripe, ACCESS TO LAND
To show I'm not totally prejudiced (your words)
Disabled World:
"Anybody who still insists that disabled people should stick to the train and leave the rest of the mountain "wild" needs to consider that they are always only one slip or trip away from life in a wheelchair – and if we really want Snowdon to be wild then nobody should go up there except the goats."
What the hell is "Lassie" some sort of washpowder?
Who or what is "Timmy" ?
You really are a Pleb, Semper Fi and goodnite.
IF it is true, and no amount of puzzle "clues" proves that, then I would have to say that:
1. It is not relevant to the subject. Having a temporary disability does not mean you cannot be prejudiced.
2. No one made you do it; you chose to engage in a hazardous activity.
3. Small airfields with small airplanes buzzing and droning around hardly add to the "ambience", as you call it, of the countryside.
If you don't recognise any of the place names or the acronym B.A.S.E you must be a total uneducated pleb.
Another clue:
176ft second
You could just say it.
Yes, of course we believe that one....
Heres another clue:
Dunkeswell, Honiton, Langar, Elsinore, B.A.S.E
Halfpenny Green, Fkin idiot
Yes, of course we believe that one....
I repeat; the majority opinion in the rambling group I belong to is the same as mine that the countryside should not be torn up for wheelchair access.
As for roads many of them derive from before the car and were designed for the transport of goods not people, without roads we would all starve.
You all seem to have taken my post as being anti-wheelcahair-disabled, I can assure you that is not so, as a relation of mine is now stuck in a wheelchair courtesy of the Taliban
Been there done it got the T-shirt
Nobody has yet answered my original question, "what happened to the diktat from the EU" is it still in force or is the hardening of the footpaths solely down to local councils
interpretation of the DEA.
When I get time I'll find out myself and post the result.
Have a nice day
You should borrow a wheelchair one time and try it for yourself. Have someone leave you in your chair at the start of your rough track on a nice sunny day. Try sitting there as all the other people walk past you. Sit there knowing that they will have a nice day and you are just left stranded . See how it feels when you don’t have equal access. When your needs are of less worth than those of the non-disabled people.
Stalag14 says a great deal about your attitudes and beliefs.
It seems that you don't object to lifts for skiers or "tearing up the countryside" for roads to enable you to drive your car; you only object when the facilities are for disabled people.
Regarding the specific example that you have given about a path by a river in a country park. You enjoy walking there and looking at the view but you are quite happy to deny a wheelchair user the same right. There is nothing wrong with creating a path if the materials are sympathetic to the locality and, as I said before, it will also benefit elderly people and parents with pushchairs who might find muddy dirt paths difficult.
You like to talk about the "loony left", it seems to me that this is something whipped up by the "rabid right" for the gullible readership of the Daily Mail. It is a spiteful invention designed to create hatred and suspicion of some of the most vulnerable people in society who are an easy target for tabloid malevolence.
The countryside is not disappearing under paths for disabled people. It just is not true. However, large amounts of countryside are disappearing under roads and endless house building on green field sites to cater for the sudden growth in population created by uncontrolled mass immigration.
The forum you have quoted twice is just that, a forum, someone's opinion. It carries no more weight than yours or mine.
Tearing up the countryside for wheelchair access is not "reasonable adjustments", which is what has happened in my locality, but then our local council has always been "minority mad" hence my label of "political correctness".
Such destruction is happening all over the UK and I totally disagree with it and so do most of the rambling group I belong to.
"When the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many"
to miss-quote Spock.
As for ignoring your questions, my original post was what has happened about the original diktat from brussels, as I mentioned I have actually viewed the proposed gates at a countrypark some time ago.
I am not here for you to nitpik when all I require is an answer to one question; I was hoping that one of the farming community would answer, all I have found so far is this on a farmers forum.
"Be warned, This is one where all should stick together, otherwise before long we will have to be tarmacing footpaths through fields, far fetched? No not if the ramblers get their way"
Maybe you could do the research and supply an answer?
You ignored most of my points.
Under the DDA only "reasonable adjustments" have to be made to allow access for disabled people. It does not mean that every part of the countryside has to be accessible.
Was the original story in the Daily Mail by any chance?
People often resent facilities for disabled people while completely taking for granted infrastructure created for everyone else.
When you visit country parks in your car do you rail against the thousands of miles of road, a lot of created by destroying countryside, that enabled you to get there?
As for lifts up mountains; they already have them everywhere that mountains exist. How do you think skiers get up there?
This sounds like "why did the chicken cross the road?"
Answer: Dunno, tell me do
Pedestrian Pat