[OT] Steak restaurants

OK. I'm not a member. I don't see a point in changing the current laws although it would be helpful if electoral votes could be put aside to give the issue more publicity.

Accepted but I don't think *considered* is enshrined in law in the same way that cyclists are now allowed on public bridleways.

I suspect it derives from common law, what word would you use to say a dog is a normal accompaniment?

The bridleway point is interesting, doesn't it stem from a late 1940s highways act? I'd have to look it up but early on in my working life I worked for an elderly barrister who didn't like people riding anything on the bridleways through his property, he claimed prior to whatever act it was horses could only be ridden on roads and carriageways, they could only be led by the bridel on bridleways.

BTW I didn't agree with the right to roam as allowed by CRoW, we debated this in another place long ago, being quite so wholesale, mainly from a wildlife conservation point of view but also because of the pressure it puts on boundary fences. No longer having any direct involvement with any land subject to the act I don't know how it has panned out.

Some breeds are best avoided, like Limousin.

This breed seems to be dual purpose but the bulls have been known to kill humans, like the rambler in 2010. I assume these bulls can legally be left in fields that have public access.

Prosecutors had alleged a bull belonging to Paul Waterfall attacked and killed 63-year-old Roger Freeman as he walked with his wife on a footpath across the farmer's land in November 2010.

But a trial at Nottingham Crown Court heard the Brown Swiss bull, named Moonriver Zac Pi, had been kept in the field with a number of other breeds of cow.

Glynis Freeman, then 67, initially told police the animal responsible for the attack was a ''brown, slobbering'' bull with 12in horns, which had charged and tossed her husband in the air.

But giving evidence during the four-week trial, Mrs Freeman, now 70, said she could no longer be sure the animal that attacked her and her husband did have horns.

Prosecutor Andrew McGee alleged Mr Waterfall knew the bull posed a ''deadly risk'' and said the farmer had a duty of care to protect people using a public footpath over his land at Underhill Farm in Stanford-on-Soar on the Nottinghamshire/Leicestershire border.

Mr Waterfall told the court the 19-month-old bull, known as Zac, did not have horns and said it would have been culled if it had shown any aggression.

The court heard the attack happened as the light was fading at around

Mr and Mrs Freeman, from Glen Parva, Leicestershire, were experienced ramblers and had been walking the 15 miles from Nottingham to Loughborough when the incident took place.

The couple, who were married for 42 years, saw cows and the bull in the field and carried on walking on the public footpath across Mr Waterfall's land when the attack took place.

Mrs Freeman tried to defend her husband from the animal, which she initially belived was a bull, but was also injured.

She survived the attack by climbing over a fence and flagging down a passing motorist. The last thing she remembered hearing her husband say as he called on her to get help was: ''I'm sorry my baby, I can't get us out of this,'' Nottingham Crown Court heard.

Paramedics found Mr Freeman's body in the field. He was was naked except for his boots and underwear. A post-mortem examination revealed he suffered broken ribs, shoulders and upper arms, and fractures to his vertebra.

Mrs Freeman had to undergo surgery for chest and abdominal injuries.

The bull was destroyed after the incident.

Father-of-two Mr Waterfall told the court he had thought of Mr Freeman and his family every day since the fatal incident.

A jury took just over two and a half hours to find the farmer not guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence. There were sighs of relief from family and friends of the farmer who had sat through the trial, including his wife Julia.

The judge also said the case questioned the importance of leaving health and safety issues to self-regulation.

He said it raised the question of whether Brown Swiss bulls should be added to the list of animals that could not be kept in a field where there is a public right of way."

He wouldn't have been delighted if it had affected his livestock, so clearly he wasn't a very knowlegeable farmer

Was your neighbour a TurNiP farmer?

We are chasing straws here. I expect to be fully legal the dog would need to be a working animal accompanying its master, Sheepdog etc. I fully accept Tim is entitled to walk his dog along the line of a public path. My issue is with the lack of concern/knowledge on the rules restricting such access: believing the rights were established historically by local people walking to church, the next village, to work etc. There is no obligation on the landowner to encourage use, only to ensure such use is unobstructed by crops, overgrown hedges etc.

Crossfield path ploughing is permitted but the route must be marked (often a couple of passes with tractor wheels) within 14 days. Over spraying is not permitted although I suspect a view is taken on which sprays are actually omitted. (I think the ban came in when someone's nylon stockings disintegrated from dilute sulphuric acid used to dessicate Potato haulm)

Farm here regularly sprays over public footpath that crosses a field and spays the path too to avoid having to mow it. There is a perfectly good farm track that runs parallel more or less,a couple of meters away which is mowed and which everybody uses, and which doesn't get sprayed, but it's not a 'public right of way'

That's the well known "permitted access", which can be withdrawn at any moment. The farmer could request the County Council to have the right of way moved to the more convenient (for all) route.

We noticed at our old village that when the local farmer and the Parish Council made an effort to rationalise the local paths, it nearly got loused up by interlopers such as the Ramblers putting their oar in.

Dangerous:-)

Technically the landowner needs to lodge a *section 31* deposit with the Highway Authority (a map including any rights of way). This prevents the public creating new rights after 20 years unopposed use.

Over spraying probably risks a reduction in farm payment and may only follow from a complaint or inspection. Tricky to do anyway as paths rarely parallel field tramlines.

That's what the late farmowner said to me 'the legal costs of moving it and the knee jerk reaction from the ramblers could cost me a fortune'

did that a couple of years back

exactly

A bit of a nightmare we have a ROW next to the end of our garden the landowner behind wanted to move it mainly as one end impinged on his privacy. We didn?t mind either way but some objected and it cost him a fortune eventually he gave up. During the action the path got more use than ever previously a few people used it once in a blue moon as a short cut to the local church yard.

Wonder what it was.....

F what? S for Servings? :-$