UKH

I just read the following article about how Labour wish to implement a Scottish-Style right to roam...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/18/labour-scottish-style-r...

I'm not very knowledgeable on this stuff, so was curious whether this could improve access to certain crags, or would landowners still be able to ban activities such as climbing?

I guess it could at minimum help reopen access to dartmoor to overnight camping? Or am I being naive?

Edit: clicking through a link to the next article suggest access to climbing and overnighting would be included, sounds promising, but can't help but think it sounds too good to be true for some reason!

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/27/labour-government-would...

In reply to The Norris:

on skim reading this looks like a good idea.

As I remember there are no trespass rules in Scotland. And I don’t think trespass has ever been used in England to prosecute someone. It’s a civil offence anyway so it’s pretty weak.

The Tory government did say they would make trespass a criminal offence but I don’t think they’ve got very far with it. 
The reason behind that was to protect landowners from people wild camping and trashing the countryside. I can understand that bit but I think it’s a hammer to crack a nut, as usual.

Let’s hope it happens. 
we need a greater proportion of the population to turn out and vote. 

In reply to The Norris:

It's impossible to answer those questions until we know what the legislation would look like. However if it would resemble the Scottish right to roam you can find the access code here:

https://www.outdooraccess-scotland.scot/

However there are some differences between Scotland and England (perhaps less so with Wales).  Far more land in England is under arable cultivation, where a right to roam might be problematic.  We also have an extensive network of public footpaths and bridleways (although these are not always accessible) supplemented by permissive paths, which Scotland doesn't. 

I'm not saying that we don't need a right to roam, only that simply copying the Scottish system might not be straightforward.  It will certainly be more difficult from a political point of view.  The Scottish legislation largely simply confirmed the status quo by codifying traditional rights and practices, whereas this would be a significant challenge to landowners' rights. As the Wrights Rocks situation illustrates, this may affect not only large estates but ordinary people.

Nevertheless, whilst CRoW was a step in the right direction it is not really adequate and anything to improve access must be welcomed.

In reply to PaulTanton:

"It’s a civil offence anyway so it’s pretty weak."

I think aggravated trespass is a criminal offence and I think the terms of what constitute aggravated trespass are pretty broad and the government were looking to make them even broader to cover protests etc.

In reply to gethin_allen:

Aggravated trespass is a criminal offence that was introduced with the Criminal Justice Act in the 90s. Many people have been prosecuted for it and convicted, including myself.

In reply to Howard J:

There's no need for arable land to be a problem. Most right to roam laws (e.g. Scotland and Sweden) do not allow crossing growing arable land and advise using field margins. Similarly, rights using include a privacy protection zone which is actually similar to "excepted land" in the CROW Act. Any right to roam just needs to come with the appropriate caveats.

As for an extensive network of paths - that's true for some parts of the country but isn't the case everywhere. I thought this was a good Twitter thread:
https://twitter.com/jm0ses/status/1659124776693014531
But there’s something deeper in that question that I find saddening. Because when someone asks "Why do you need more?” I want to respond with the simple, obvious question: Why do you need less?

In reply to The Norris:

As a climber who's taken up paddling I was shocked at how little access there is to water - especially noticeable in the Peak District.

Reservoirs by law have to allow recreation, but they just allow sailing for the most part. Recently this has included SUP in Derbyshire but no canoe / kayak. Very little of the rivers have access, and the fisherfolk who have bank access rights react aggressively to people using the river. Legally it seems no one owns the water, but the river bed and banks are part of the land. So the issue is a mixture of access to launch and misunderstanding about use of the water.

In reply to PaulTanton:

The proposed trespass change was aimed at travelers/protesters rather than people recreating  The  Home Office hadn't really thought about the wider consequences. and subsequently issued a statement saying it wasn't intended to criminalise straying off paths.  Anyway, that's what they said when it was pointed out to them! 

In reply to Bulls Crack:

Fortunately, this government and the police have an excellent track record of never infringing on people's liberties without extreme justification so that's very reassuring.

In reply to Bulls Crack:

Yes I know about that. It’s probably far better to fix the problem rather than a blanket ban.

As I see it there are not enough places for the Traveling community to go, pitch up. They are constantly moved on.

people live in house boats and they don’t suffer that kind of hassle.

Littering and generally trashing the countryside is a major problem.  I’ve done crag clean up evenings. Most of the time it’s beer cans and disposable BBQs. DOG POO BAGS!!!!!!!

But sometimes it’s climber’s rubbish, finger tape, chalk wrappers. Pack out all that you pack in. It’s easy

In reply to The Norris:

How would this impact situations like at Wildcat? Can landowners still ban access if they have 'reasonable' cause for concern, such as 'safeguarding minors'?*

*clearly bollocks. 

In reply to gethin_allen:

On looking at one of the access threads I was wondering how Aggravated Trespass applies to climbing? It seems that there must be an intention to disrupt/obstruct/intimidate some lawful activity. 

In reply to The Norris:

I think this is a great idea, even better if it was to include activities like climbing (not solely walking) and wild camping within certain "leave no trace" constraints (i.e. not fly-camping, which has become a big issue in Scotland with vans parked everywhere and people parking up, jumping a fence and putting up a tent).

In reply to Neil Williams:

I think wild camping needs rules stating minimum distance from public road or habituated building. Otherwise as we see in Scotland every bit of flat roadside grass will become a glorified campsite, with the associated littering and sanitation issues.

I'm totally in favour of increased access, but England is heavily populated with limited open space and any rule changes need to be carefully thought out to prevent significant damage to the open spaces we all love.

In reply to Neil Williams: Yes, but that needs to be legislated in properly.  Right to roam is very good, and for reference I live in Norway so I understand how it works, but what about arable areas.? Heavily farmed areas may have better access via dootpaths etc.  Right to roam doesn't also mean right to stay, camping is something else, and it also doesn't mean right to put in bolts, pegs, clean things etc.

This would need to be legislated properly, and the Westminster government doesn't at the moment have a very good track record for that.  Could you simply copy Scotlands legislation - what's the problem with doing that?

In reply to Philip:

That’s not been my experience at all. They’re nothing but friendly when I swim in the Derwent. Must be your face.

In reply to wbo2:

Fortunately this is a proposal from the Opposition, not the current incompetent Government, so I'd give them a chance?

In reply to Jenny C:

Agreed, I think there should be a minimum distance from both of:

1. A road (other than an unrestricted byway)

2. A habited building

Plus not permitted on cultivated land.

In reply to Neil Williams:

How about Golf Courses?

In reply to FactorXXX:

Golf courses tend to be near roads, how else are you going to drive your Range Rover or Jag there?

In reply to FactorXXX:

Yes, camping on the fairway should be actively encouraged.

In reply to pancakeandchips:

In all seriousness, I think there should be scope for requesting exceptions based on some very tight criteria (i.e. where it would objectively interfere with the landowner's intended use of the land).  We would need some - Scotland excepts Loch Lomond from it due to issues there, for instance, and I'm not sure it would be positive to allow unfettered wild camping on Yr Wyddfa* or Scafell Pike.

You could just make it the open fell, I suppose, but I think it'd be good for it to be a *bit* wider than that.

* Yes, I know this is about England, but it's a good example.

In reply to Neil Williams:

I guess it comes down to the specifics of the rules and if and how they are policed. There's already plenty of wild camping that goes on all over the Yr Wyddfa massif, for example, and there don't seem to be any major issues at the moment. Although saying that I have been told there's some nasty bugs in some of the llyns and over in Ogwen too.

If you introduced the right to wild camp in some areas but proscribed it in the places you mentioned you might make life difficult for, for example, ML providers who use those areas regularly albeit under the radar currently.

Since covid things have changed somewhat but we still have a situation in, eg, Eryri NP where a blind eye is turned as long as you don't take the piss. Its possible that enshrining the right in law could have the consequence of encouraging many more people to fly camp and create the sort of havoc you see along the roads in the honeypots of Scotland.

In reply to The Norris:

There certainly some merit in it but more could probably be gained by providing sufficient funds for public rights of way maintenance and a major creation programme based  on where people want/need them and improving accessibility generally. 

In reply to pancakeandchips:

Balls to that

In reply to Neil Williams:

The byelaws; parts of Scotland are interesting, If we agree unacceptable behaviour at Loch Lomond and Trossach needed curtailing, the the logic follows that if it occurs elsewhere whether that be beside the road or up a glen or hill then, for those locations the rights also need curtailing.

I can assure you despite popular stereotypes that some NEDs can actual walk away from the road, and would do so if forced by regs. Pretty shortly you would find access rights reduced over widespread areas.

There are several communities with concerns and some local politicians looking to capitalise on those concerns, elsewhere in Scotland with talk of byelaws elsewhere.

On a practical level post Landreform as a result of problems, or landowner prejudice, many land holders (particularly Perthshire and Tayside due to proximity to conurbation) have made access difficult by curtailing parking, putting boulders along roads, installing fences ect, so that while you have a right of accessing it, using it becomes difficult.

Its a difficult one, solutions are hard to find to the NED/ CHAV issue, and for those that are just clueless rather than malicious education may work but it appears a slow process. 
 

In Scotland we have the additional problem that dirty camping with campfires are so prevalent that people visiting think that such behaviour is permissible. It’s not uncommon to see tourists having fires, monopolising parking areas. Ect,

Maybe for England you should put in a no fires law and, no inebriation….to reduce the attractiveness of what is essential ungoverned space. Though the later is quiet puritanical.

In reply to Thugitty Jugitty:

Which sections - because the only 2 that seem to have easy access are Darley Bridge to Matlock and the section from A38 in Derby down to the city centre - mostly due to the relationship of Midland Canoe Club with the fisherfolk.

Try paddling Ladybower, or the Wye (Peak not the famous one).

In reply to Thugitty Jugitty:

I've certainly had fishermen being aggressive with me, one pair decided to cast their lines directly infornt of my boat in a small grade 1 rapid to block my path, when he could clearly see I had my 9 year old son. On the other hand I've also had a fisherman asking if I could stop to take a photo of him with the enormous pike he'd just caught... 

In reply to Philip:

I've had the same experiences on the Derwent, and it's not my face as I'm smokin hot!

I was really shocked at the terrible access to waterways in England and Wales when I had a brief foray into paddling a few years ago, along with the aggressive behaviour of some fishermen. 

In reply to ScraggyGoat:

I can't see why wild campers shouldn't get ratted if they want.

However, I think I'd be fine with the idea of very strict laws about lighting fires, BBQs etc without landowner permission, and about littering.

The question is how you catch people - that's difficult other than in towns - you can't exactly put CCTV all over the countryside.

In reply to pancakeandchips:

Sorry to hear that.

And recently the civil trespass has been found as too weak by land owner wealthy enough to pursue high court injunctions. Those mean that trespass which previously may have been no more than simple civil, would be against a high court injunction and subject to huge fines. Maybe worse is if you are the unfortunate who is used for the original injunction you might be found solely or jointly with other unfortunates liable to the landowners injunction high court costs. Those could be measured in hundred thousand pounds (or multiple thereof). One rule for the rich and another for the rest, it's not just Dartmoor where money rules.

In reply to ebdon:

On the other hand it’s fishermen who have been highlighting the sewerage issue. There are many demand on the countryside.  

In reply to neilh:

And paddlers. It's definitely something which deeply affects paddlers...

In reply to PaulJepson:

Do you want any hope of access back?

Then 'kin zip that kind of remark on any public forum, especially one known to be reviewed by the people we would like to be positive towards us.

Christ on a bike.  Brainless fools having lamping sessions in people's back gardens, breaking fences, obstructing farm gates, arguing with owners, being keyboard warriors.  IT DOESN'T HELP, IT DOES THE OPPOSITE 

Honestly, I'm utterly despairing of our community sometimes

In reply to The Norris:

There is loads and loads of information about specific types of activity and specific types of area, so it's an almost infinite subject, but broadly: The Scottish right to roam encompasses all activities that are not motorised (you can't just take your dirt bike or monster truck onto someone's land) and are not unreasonably damaging (you'd have trouble justifying climbing on an ancient castle wall, walking through the middle of a field of corn, or lighting a big fire in the middle of dry grass during a drought).

So you can swim, paddle, climb, walk, run, fly, sing, skip and sleep just about anywhere (not people's gardens though) and you can't be asked to leave unless the land owner has a good reason. 

Good reasons typically include "don't go in that area of hillside today please, we are stalking there" or "don't go into that specific field please, I'm about to cover it in s***". Land owners are expressly NOT allowed to say things like "no going on the estate today, we are stalking" or "my entire farm is closed today for lambing" because they are unreasonable closures.

Make sure to copy paste this if you want it for future reference, I'm sure the mods will be along shortly to redact it.

In reply to The Norris: Define garden - se the other thread

Also - are you allowed to alter - so cleaning, cleaning with a crowbar, bolting. - some thought is required.

In reply to Thugitty Jugitty:

I have been shouted at by fishing tenants for paddling through our family farm.

In reply to Philip:

Take up sea kayaking instead

In reply to kevin stephens:

I haven't checked my map, but from memory, the Peak is possibly even more lacking in sea than accessible inland water.

In reply to Luke90: I live in Sheffield and it’s always worth driving to Anglesey for world class unrestricted sea kayaking. Posting from a ferry passing the Old Man of Hoy after an excellent week’s sea kayaking amongst the Orkney Isles

In reply to The Norris:

Lovely idea but doomed to failure.  Can I see the landed wealthy allowing us plebs on their fields? No chance.

I gave up counting "Private" signs after two dozen on a run near Bovey in Dartmoor NP today.  Inc the land owning hero's who have closed a section of the Templer Way, forcing the route down a very dodgy main road. I'm sure they don't give a whatsit about the 3 groups of kids I saw trying not to get killed while obeying their Private signs....

In reply to FactorXXX:

Some cracking flat areas on them for wild camping.

In reply to The Norris:

Sceptical and slightly worried;  the advantage of deliniated rights if way is that they are shown on maps, stay visible through passage of walkers and MOST importantly adjacent to places where people actually live and get to them without driving.  From the many years I lived in Scotland, there are very few footpaths running directly from places where people actually live.  Ahhhh!  Just seen this was actually posted under "Crag Access".  I am actually talking about walking generally.  

In reply to The Norris:

I think in England Right to Roam minus the right to camp or camping only in a far more restricted way could work fine and imo its everyone's birth right to be able to roam about (the planet ultimately). One issue that could occur is fencing, is there anything stopping scottish landowners putting fences up with no reasonable way of passing them currently? I can see that being more of an issue in England

In reply to CurlyStevo:

Right to roam  in Scotland isn't terribly helpful in those parts which are farmed because there aren't any paths. So you have the right to enter a field, what then? Where's the next gate and where does that lead to? It's impossible. Seems to me there is loads more access in England. 

In reply to pancakeandchips:

Pitch and putt!

In reply to kevin stephens:

You joke but I belong to a club in Derbyshire that has a strong sea kayak group despite being probably the club furthest from any sea.

Regardless, you still need local access to train/practice/keep fit.

In reply to ian caton:

Generally I find most farms have relatively clear routes on the edges of fields - and the more sensible farmers will suggest a path which is best for them and for walkers (particularly if it’s a place that’s quite popular).
 

that said I don’t spend a lot of time walking near intensively farmed areas so possibly an unfair reflection of the situation generally.

In reply to Philip: I wasn’t joking. I probably know a few of my fellow sea kayakers in your club

In reply to The Norris:

I did consider canoeing once, but lack of access to local rivers put me off.

However regarding the Derbyshire Derwent, I do know that it has been canoed from Ladybower to the Trent, when the water was high, in one long day. And that is all I am going to say about that exploit, except it wasn't me.

John

In reply to ian caton:

Ian Caton is 100% right.  I would be terrified if the English system of paths directly from residential areas were lost.

In reply to J72:

I'm looking at OS 63 Greenock and Port Glasgow and the area at the back of all the schemes.  Footpaths are few and far between.  Granted there are one or two.

In reply to rogerhill12:

no reason you can't have them and the right to roam though. Footpaths etc still have special status on CROW land. seems like a bad argument against it. 

In reply to J72:

Farmers aren't allowed to (permanently) change the route of a path without applying to the council. And even in obviously reasonable cases where everyone is straight-lining across the corner of a grass field, there's usually a jobs worth at the council who says no you can't change it because the view of that hedge is slightly different (I kid you not).

In reply to The Norris:

The problem as I see it with this is the "Idiot" factor, presently if some knobsack is being a dick you can ask them to leave and everyone knows that then by law they have to leave, if the law was changed now the idiots of this world (and there are an incredible number of them) think (wrongly) they can do anything they want wherever they like, so when asked to leave (legally within the guidelines) the idiots now will just say no sod off I can do as I like, you now have a potentially aggressive situation building.  Certainly, the police will not have the resources to deal with many of these situations. The system we have is not perfect by any means but personally I think its best we stick with it. In an ideal world I would agree I would prefer a right to boat, roam, climb hey skip naked I don’t care. But with the fools of this world, they would go and spoil it.

In reply to ian caton:

I'm on the very eastern edge of Stirling and there are large arable fields less than a minute's walk from the house. There's an official footpath across open ground between two of these, and this is used a little, but far more common is to see people (especially the local dogwalkers) going round the edge of the fields. This all seems to work OK, with no objections that I know of and most people being pretty sensible. There are loads of unofficial/unmapped but obvious on the ground paths round the edge of fields and along riverbanks in this part of central Scotland at least.

In reply to The Norris:

Been thinking about this and I personally feel it could be a very bad thing for sports climbers, let me explain (and I am only expressing an opinion so chill. none of us know if this will come in or in what format) I don’t know how this would affect Large land owners / businesses, but for small scale people like myself who just own a small piece of land (SSSI) for conservation. I only found 1 insurance company who would insure me for public liability insurance as a non business quarry owner (most companies as soon as I mentioned quarry said they did not and would not insure one) and this is on the understanding there is absolutely no public access to the quarry area, and it would be fenced and have signage & anyone I gave permission to access the site I would no longer be covered for so would have to ensure they had their own insurance. If this law did come into effect and access to the public was granted to the site, I doubt I could get public liability insurance again. So, I would have no choice but to cut all the bolts on the rock face, just to limit the number of people accessing the site and to limit my chances of being litigated against (oh I tripped on a rock, your stairs are unsafe and slippery, one of your trees bit me, the bolt was not safe and as its on your property it’s your responsibility to ensure its safe) at the moment if I am not on site and someone illegally enters the site and ignores the private property signs, that’s their lookout however if I am  on site and someone comes at the moment I can ask them to leave and to be fair all the climbers have been fine about it, but if the law came in and as I mentioned what if a few just say no they are not leaving they have walked a long way to climb and they dam well will, and then a few more say yes that’s right I have the right to be here I will have a picnic as well. So again, the easiest way would be for me to cut all the bolts. Why would I run the risk? Just being honest so dont beat me up about it.     

In reply to Karlos123:

I've seen a BMC participation statement sign at the entrance to a few crags. I'd be interested if that has or would hold up in a court of law.

In reply to Karlos123:

That's not quite how occupier's liability works.  You have a duty of care towards anyone on your land including trespassers, so it's not "their lookout" if they get injured, you could be liable.  However all visitors are expected to take reasonable care and you will not usually be responsible for injuries caused by natural features so you should not be liable if someone trips over a rock.  I would imagine that landowners' responsibilities under a right to roam would be similar to those for access land under CRoW. 

Anyone who voluntarily participates in a dangerous activity is considered to have accepted the usual risks from that activity, so a landowner should not be liable if a mountain biker tries a jump or a climber takes a fall.  The BMC has published a guide which explains why landowners shouldn't worry about being held liable for accidents to climbers on their land. This also applies to former quarries, although you do have some responsibilities for fencing etc

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/why-rock-climbers-arent-a-liability

I would be surprised if a statutory right of access should significantly increase your potential liability or make it more difficult to get insurance. 

In reply to Karlos123:

Gov.uk says about open access land:

Your liability to the public

Unless you set out to create a risk, or are reckless about whether a risk is created, you’re not liable for any injury caused by:

any natural feature of the landscape including any tree, shrub, plant, river or stream

any ditch or pond, whether natural or not

people passing over, under or through a wall, fence or gate, except if they’re making proper use of a gate or stile

A change in legislation might absolve you of some of the liabilities insurers are worried about. 

Has a landowner ever been sued for not maintaining a climbing bolt that someone else installed?

In reply to Tom Redwood:

It might help to reinforce the point that a climber should understand the risks of climbing and has voluntarily accepted the risk of injury. Volenti non fit injuria.

In reply to Tom Redwood:

But farmers can and often do offer alternatives, usually a more sensible route. But council jobsworths only create / perpetuate the problem. Then there's those righteous zealots who blindly follow the RoW, just because they can. It's also usually the same people that shouted for right to roam in the first place. 

Then there are those farmers/landowners that go beyond, to improve access on for example arable land, by opening permissive paths, only then to have idiots roam over the fields, let dogs free and damaging crops.

Unfortunately the world is full of polarised people that can only see their side of any arguement. Their 'rights' over those of another party! 

In reply to Tom Redwood:

That appears to be nothing to do with highways law which sets out explicit parameters for diversions etc.   

Having been a rights of way jobsworth once AKA defender of your access rights 

In reply to Karlos123:

I don't think you're perspective on this is correct - right to roam in Scotland, bar in a couple of roadside places that were a problem even before access legislation, hasn't seen the "idiots" you refer to ruin it (yet).  It's certainly not perfect and COVID has brought a lot more pressures but ultimately it works for the vast majority of places.

Similarly there are disused / historic quarries all over the place and no issues with liability for landowners - the 2 crags nearest to me when I started were bolted quarries.  One of which was owned by farmer who used it as a dump occasionally and bolted by nearby marine base for a great mix of "ownership" of the risk, another that was on land owned by SSE and partially flooded - still no liability issues.  I'd have to go back and read it again but I'm pretty sure there are specific protections for landowners in the RtoR legislation.

Not directed at yourself, but I am always amazed at how hard we argue against something as self evidently good as improved access to the outdoors!

In reply to StuDoig:

I have already seen the idiots, couple camping on the site build large fire in front of the sign explaining that the site is a SSSI and there are a number of rare plants on site in the middle of last years heatwave, 2 trees for no reason I can see cut down. So far this year there have been 2 fires built on site 2 fencing sections cut, glass thrown at the area climbed and elsewhere. 1 tarp stolen a wildlife camera (used to ensure the fencing arrangement allows the badgers and deer to still use their normal trails) stolen, dog crap, lose dogs, human crap decorated with tissue.  I could go on. I am not trying to say people should not get out more and have access to the countryside. But why should I not (after paying for it and looking after it) have my own small piece of land who I can say who should have access?

And my original point was not a moan that people should not have access indeed I have worked with the BMC regarding access. I was trying to get across as a land owner (and lets get the idea of rich folks buying up huge areas of land for their own selfish needs, we bought the land as a SSSI as it was in a unfavorable condition according to natural England and declining, it’s a rare site as its one of the only sites in that area that is unimproved, so the older rarer plants survive where in other areas they can’t, we live in a small house 4 kids 2 cats and 2 dogs with a very small garden in a not particularly nice area so not rich folk in the slightest)  the difficulties we might face if this legislation went through. If I cant get public liability insurance I will have to either sell the site (which is the last thing we want to do)  or make sure that there is the least chance that people could get hurt and try and litigate against me and the less people accessing the site the better in regards to this, so why would I leave the bolts in place as this would encourage people to access the site?

I don’t have time to answer all the reply’s so will try and cover them all.

Yes I know how public liability insurance works, I have signed any dangers (which quite frankly are bloody obvious) and do site surveys of the trees etc. my point was as these are all in place if someone access the site whilst I am not on site and ignore the signs then it is their own problem and I have public liability insurance to cover me! If I give permission to access, I have no public liability insurance and would have to cover my own legal costs and go through all that crap.

To be quite honest if the legislation did go through and it allowed public access to the site, I would cut all the bolts and put up security fencing around the whole site and just say as the structures and steps are unsafe (which they are but I see no way in the world to fix them, so even now my best and safest option legaly and to stop any further "idiot" issues would be to fence the area and do everything in my power to stop people using these unsafe structures and accessing the site) we are working on a way to make it safe and access is banned for safty resons untill it can be fixed! and then see what happens. I don’t want to do this (I did cost the fencing up when the couple had the fire and seriously considered doing it but common sense and decency prevailed (my wife) and I did not do the fencing)

So in my case as perhaps with others I think it could actually be detrimental to climbers access to sport climbing. I just wanted folks to get an all-around view of some of the issues from the other side. not including large companies and farmers as they will have business liability insurance, which I could get but was told (by the BMC insurance company) I would need to set up as a business (doing what I have no idea) and the very least it would cost would be £ 1000 a year but most likely a lot more.

In reply to Karlos123:

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/ukc/dangerous_bolting_leads_to_climbers_d...

In this they say they think the landowner owns the bolts? so am I responcible for them?? do I have to add another blody sign???

In reply to Karlos123:

Of FFS the more you look the worse it gets

https://www.escalade-montagne.fr/accident-de-vingrau-la-ffme-declaree-respo...

https://www.european-mountaineers.eu/storage/app/media/Project%20and%20publ...

https://www.european-mountaineers.eu/storage/app/media/Project%20and%20publ...

In reply to PaulTanton:

With the best will in the world you will sometimes leave something behind, so a better rule is to try to pack out more than you pack in.

In reply to Karlos123:

The links you have posted to relate to issues in Australia and the EU, different legal jurisdictions. France in particular has very different rules. The Australia thread (which I haven't re-read in full) is principally about the liability of the person who placed the bolts rather than the landowner.

I very much doubt that a landowner could be held responsible for a bolt, unless he was operating it as a climbing centre.  The principle of volenti non fit injuria is well established.  I can give an example from my own experience on a piece of woodland I was then responsible for managing. The area was used by mountain bikers, who had built up a ramp to form a jump. A lad attempted the jump, broke his spine and was left paraplegic.  He attempted to sue the landowner for a considerable sum.  Our legal advice was very clear that we were not responsible for the jump even though it was on our land, and as an experienced rider he had consented to the risks.  The claim was withdrawn before even going to court.  I see no reason why the same principles shouldn't apply to bolts. The BMC are not aware of any successful legal claims being made against a landowner by climbers.

The anti-social behaviour you describe would not be permitted under a right to roam, which (assuming the Scottish model) would permit only responsible access.  You would be lawfully entitled to refuse them access. However such acts are very difficult to prevent regardless of the legal position on access.

If people are exercising a statutory right of access they are not there with your permission so that should not breach the terms of your current insurance. 

It is very difficult to say any more when a right to roam is nothing more than a politician's promise.  However drawing a parallel with CRoW, in considering any claim the courts would have regard to the principle that CROW access rights shouldn’t place an undue burden, financial or otherwise, 
on the occupier.  We should expect that similar principles would apply to wider access rights. 

Before you assume the worst, if and when such legislation is brought in I suggest you seek advice from the BMC before taking steps which would probably be unnecessary, as you would be trying to mitigate a risk which does not exist.