‘Ordinary’ ramblers ‘Hoodwinked’

‘Ordinary’ ramblers ‘Hoodwinked’

So called 49,000 ‘missing’ paths include miles of paths now in Stanford Battle area, paths through schools and housing estates and tracks over farms or land which have always been private not ‘Public.’To say that they have been ‘lost’ and the general public deprived of their ‘rights’ is gross untruth and vexatious propaganda. 

I believe that the ground root ‘ramblers’ are largely unaware of the harm this is causing to a small but significant amount of ordinary homeowners and farmers caught up in this ‘claim anything’ culture now promoted by the Ramblers Society.

I really do think that they would be horrified if they knew how much public money was being wasted on council time and inquiries driven by a few ‘access obsessed’ individuals, lauded only by the numbers of claims they can make before 2026. 

Not ALL claims are without merit and they are not ALL intrusive, but no distinction is made and NO sensible rules apply to obvious exceptions.

Claims can and ARE made that go through peoples living rooms or directly through the middle of their gardens. Multiple claims are made over farmland, one farmer has claims for 8 bridleways over his farm. One should ask just what his farm is for, leisure riding or growing food?

Ordinary ramblers probably think that theses claims are soon ‘sorted out’. They most likely think that sensible solutions are found. They are unlikely to know that theses claims can stay in the system for anything up to 50 years with those affected dying before any decision is reached.

There is plenty of evidence available for all to find but most turn a blind eye and choose to ignore.

It really concerns me that Ramblers are unwillingly or unable to embrace any concern or consideration for this rapidly growing problem which now,because of the huge amounts of claims stuck in the creaking PROW system, has the capacity to cause its complete failure.
Questions to ask………

1. Why is the ramblers organisation so unwillingly to engage with those who suffer intrusive public footpaths? 
2. Why do the ramblers encourage their members to make ‘scattergun’ modification claims, even when this involves intrusive footpaths which are not recorded, do not physically exist or are not in the countryside?
3. Why do the ramblers not recognise that these sorts of claims are detrimental to all concerned causing confrontation, misunderstanding and public hostility?
4. How can ramblers justify the huge amounts of public money spent on these claims when that money could be more beneficially spent on the countryside itself?
5. Why do ramblers ignore the fact that any countryside code will have little effect on anti social behaviour, flytipping and crime, all of which anyone with a PROW through their property is left to cope with.

2 thoughts on “‘Ordinary’ ramblers ‘Hoodwinked’

    1. Thank you for responding. We must try and open this discussion to those who are only presented with a one sided view.
      I am positive that those in the past who fought for access rights to our lovely countryside did not do so on the back of denying the privacy and human rights of ordinary home owners and farmers.THEY did not enjoy the support of Councils and Council employees willing to spend thousands of pounds of public money on futile inquiries, neither did they have access to vast amounts of ‘charitable’ and postcode lottery money.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.