[OT] Steak restaurants

you tell him brian...

In message snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com, T i m snipped-for-privacy@spaced.me.uk> writes

Do you need telling to drive on the left?

Why would anyone think their dog is allowed to roam/retrieve balls on land owned by someone else?

Well there is a *reasonable* right to access private land.

My late farmer neighbour was delighted if the doggies crapped in his field 'more free fertiliser'...

Obviously all arable, so no issues with livestock

Where would I find this right please?

In Scotland.

You are thinking about Scotland or the recently designated access areas here.

Your dog is allowed to accompany you along the line of the path. In the case of a cross field footpath this is generally taken as 2m. If your dog is not trained to walk at heel, you are required to keep it on a lead.

Nobody ever asks the landowner (not once in over 40 years). They see others encouraging their dogs to run about and join in. Anyone care to guess how long a *dogs on leads* notice would last. Netting fencing topped by barbed wire works.

well yes but that's different country from TNP-land and from Tim's farm

Not sure WTF that's got to do with it (or me)? Is this a troll taken over Tim's account?? ;-(

Because 'the land' looks like a field and there is a public footpath running though / round / across it?

Many such routes are simply a sign pointing across a field and if not used regularly there may be no obvious path to follow? You are a farmer so you *think* all these things are obvious to everyone and I guess why the clever remark?

It would be different if it was full of obvious crops and if it was the chances are people wouldn't be throwing a ball into it?

So, I'll take the answer as 'no', unlike most 'other' areas accessed by the public where the rules / bylaws are often posted at the main access points (and hence my question).

So it's vegans, dogs and dog walkers and all Leatherman pocket tool owners you dislike so far, even if they are completely innocent!? ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Bwhaha, yeah, and what's difference in the outcome to the animals,

And I think the Brain Ray troll must be talking about mad cow disease and feeding of animals back to herbivores.

Next it will be avian flu in cows because we feed them chicken shift.

Cheers, T i m

Not so

In that case why can?t we slaughter them for food.

Idiot:

The law demands you keep a dog under control.

Generally if you keep it on a lead you are covered. Where the dog wanders away and will not return when commanded then your dog is no longer under control.

Whether at heel or very close, the semantics aren't important.

T i m is showing his cognitive dissonance regarding contaminated vegetable crops, having blanked out the incident where the Spanish were blamed for putting s*it-covered vegetables on the market, until it emerged that the s*it-covered vegetables were German in origin. As Germany rules the EU, the story then died a quick death.

How else would you legally keep it on the path? There is no actual legal right to take a dog on a path anyway.

In message snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com, T i m snipped-for-privacy@spaced.me.uk> writes

A path is a route to get somewhere across someone's land. Why would you expect consent to do anything else?

So?

Strange as it may seem, grass is a crop and has value to the owner.

The responsibility for waymarking paths rests with the highway authority.

You missed cyclists on footpaths and I don't see why you included vegans. Dislike is inappropriate as I merely regret actions of visitors impacting on what are my rights as a landowner.

Yes, but in many cases it's not 'a path' in the physically obvious sense of the word it's a virtual route that you may only be able to determine with a sufficiently high detail map, compass or GPS?

We were on a dog walk the other day and there was a sign highlighting

I'm not sure 'most people' would consider the need for 'consent' to anything?

Because, if they are used to parks and general open public land with full right to use all the space, even those where there may be 'footpaths' as part of a better / more defined route across them, how would they know (without the signage I referred to) what they can and cant do or go? I imagining many, seeing what looks like 'a field' (covered in grass not obvious crops or had been freshly burned or ploughed etc) and a sign that says footpath (especially way out in the countryside) might think they could go anywhere on the field that the footpath runs though? Different if they had been there before and see it full of crops etc, that might set a virtual boundary precedence.

No, it's not strange to me but might be strange to a casual person finding that space with a 'Footpath' sign on it.

I didn't ask who was responsible for any signs Tim, I asked if there (typically) were any, other than the obvious 'Footpath' signs?

I see you actually answer that indirectly elsewhere in that if you were to put up your own sign, the chances are it would be ripped down.

eg. If you don't want someone parking across your drive you put up your own 'No Parking', or 'These gates are in constant use' sign, even if they carry no weight legally it gives those not paying attention or assuming it will be 'ok' to maybe park elsewhere. [1] The local parks have signs that seem to stay there covering the bylaws and even (where permitted) additional temporary (A4 laminated) signs for exercise or volunteer / club activity and they also seem to stay put?

Again, I wonder how many of them have considered for one second the implication (> limitation) of the word 'Foot' in there or just assumed that any non-powered transport might be permitted (given how long some of the signs may have been there)?

Because they question a process you defend as 'legitimate' (when no one questioned it's legitimacy buy it's justification and morally for a large percentage of the worlds population in 2020) and can't understand what all the fuss is about possibly?

Sure but I wonder what percentage are doing so innocently (even if 'ignorance is no defence')?

I get that someone damaging any fencing could well be fully aware of their actions and it might still be 'wrong', even if they felt the landowner had illegally obstructed a public footpath (it should be resolved legally etc) but is there any fishing allowed either side of your patch that someone could stray onto 'by mistake' (or are there signs for that?) or be boating either side and fall foul of the same?

All I know of the 'Countryside code' (if there is / was such a thing) is to:

Close any gates behind me and if climbing one (because it's difficult to open and appears to be the public permitted route), do so at the hinge end.

Don't damage crops (and if having to walk though crops because that's where the footpath seems to point, follow any existing tracks).

Don't let dogs 'worry' livestock (so keep them on a lead if they might).

Don't litter.

Don't wander into what is *obviously* private property.

Don't take anything that is a crop / doesn't look wild (a blackberry from a bush on the footpath ok, sweetcorn from the field not ok).

Cheers, T i m

I thought it was generally accepted that people had a right to take dogs with them on rights of way as "natural accompaniments" - same as prams. But of course that doesn't give the dogs a "right to roam" beyond the path.

And IMLE many people don't seem to know dogs must be on leads on open access land at all times near livestock, and everywhere during nesting time. That's in addition to the widely known laws against dogs not under close control in field with sheep or chasing livestock,

That's a different matter, you said the dog should be on a lead, should in a legal context is normally interpreted as being a requirement which it is not in this case. As the other respondent says it needs to be under (close) control. If it wanders off the path that is trespass, a civil offence but under review because of lobbying by the NFU, of which I am still a member even if I disagree.

There is no actual legal

Yes there is as it is as it is considered to be a 'usual accompaniment' of a person on foot, as is a perambulator but not a bike, even if it is being pushed.