UKH

The BMC has received a report of a serious incident at Vixen Tor, Dartmoor on 12 September. Climbers on the route ‘Torture’ had their ropes cut - while the leader was climbing - and the belayer was physically assaulted. Fortunately the leader managed to retreat from the climb without injury. The climbers called the police and there were several arrests - it is understood that the incident may lead to a criminal prosecution.

Vixen Tor was subject to a CRoW Act appeal earlier this year and there is no formal right of access to Tor.

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC: Bloody Hell!! it's one thing to get annoyed with someone climbing on your land but actually attacking one and trying to kill another...... I am dumbfounded! Glad that the climbers weren't seriously injured. I hope the police take the incident very seriously.

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC: do we know if it was the landowners that did this? Shocking...

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC: That's absolutely appalling - tantamount to attempted murder!!

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC: it may be safer to try the north face of haytor E4-6, as they need traffic and are similar. The excitment of confrontation with landowners is replaced by intrusive ponies which are on heat at the moment. Don't bend over.

Ian - I can't say much more on this at present as the police are making their investigations. I've spoken to the climbers and have offered the BMC's support - it goes without saying that we're appalled about the incident.

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC: I sincerely hope the the BMC will be pushing for the heaviest charge possible to be brought against the morons who did this and dont allow the Police to sweep it under the carpet as just an access issue.

Maybe we should start a fighting fund to get these attempted murderers put away for as long as possible.

In reply to Rock Hardman:

Can or should any organisation seek to influence the course of justice? Whatever the crime maybe. (I would suggest we steer clear of specifics on this one as it is somewhat unclear whether some of the charges are againest the climbers themselves.


How do you intend to achieve this? "BMC bribes judge" would look great in the papers!

regards

Tim Jones

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

Without wishing to put ideas into anyone's head, it's not going to be long before this particular spiteful landowner vandalises the crag, is it?

Remember Yellowslacks?

I assume there'd be nothing illegal about that CRoW or no CRoW, is that right?

jcm

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:
And I hope the climbers get done for trespass, too.

Sxx

In reply to Sarah G:
What do you mean by 'get done for trespass'? Unless damage was done or intended, trespass isn't a criminal offence.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

how come you see signs saying 'trespassers will be prosecuted' then? or is your example specifically relating to the CROW act? not intending to have a go at you, just curious.

In reply to Anonymous:

I'd have said that was wrong, didn't the Yellowslacks guy get done for something or other as a result?

In reply to CJD:

They're just intended to scare people off AIUI. Until the offence of criminal trespass was introduced a few years back, all they could do was order you to leave and maybe seek an injunction to prevent you returning.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

so does that mean that I could have a wander through someone else's garden if I fancied, and apart from telling me to go away the owner couldn't do anything about it?

In reply to Sarah G: I didn't think tresspass was a criminal offence in this country, only a tort. And so I was under the impression they could only be sued for any damage they caused. And in attacking them any landowners (assuming it was them who did attack the climbers) would probably have done themselves no favours on that count.

Is the only way trespass can lead to a criminal charge is if they break a court injunction banning them from entering the site. I'm sure some of the lawyers on here will clear this up.

In reply to CJD:
Hopefully someone who actually knows what they're talking about will answer that!
But I think you're probably right, depending on how you gained access to the garden.

In reply to Simon Caldwell and CJD:
trespass:
http://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/t.php?t=100994

In reply to CJD: I believe so, but if you damaged any property you would be liable for that, and if you consistently did it they could seek an injunction banning you from doing so, and breaking this would be a criminal offence.

Of course certain actions may invoke other criminal laws (maybe if your behaviour was threatening).

In reply to CJD:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds04/text/...

"Indeed, a few years ago, one of them even climbed up to Her Majesty's bedroom and committed merely a non-criminal offence of trespass."

ps The most helpful bit of teh thread is a link someone put... rob naylor I think.

In reply to gingerkate:

ooo, thanks for that!

Simon C - thanks, it's true that you learn something new every day.

In reply to Liam M:

I think the criminal justice act made trespass illegal as a measure to stop illegal raves and other stuff. there was a load of fuss about access to crags now that trespass was a criminal offence.
p

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC: feckin 'ell!

In reply to CJD: And if you tripped on a slab you could sue.

In reply to Sarah G: Its not anywhere near a house as far as I can see, here have a look for yourself. Shear Spite

http://www.westcountryviews.co.uk/dartmoor/vixentor/vixentor.htm

Stu

In reply to Stu Tyrrell: Vixen Tor is the highest rock mass on Dartmoor, standing 52 feet above the ground on the north side, and 93 feet on the south side, where the ground is lower. It is most famous for its striking silhouette which has earned it various names - sphinx, vixen, and seen from the north, it is said to resemble an old man in a cap who has turned his back on his wife! According to legend the witch of Vixen Tor lured travellers into the nearby bog.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Trespass is actionable per se, just like trespass to person. You can sue in the civil courts, but it's not criminal so there's no chance of ladyboy treatment, unless you're already that way inclined.

In reply to Stu Tyrrell: its very near a house in fact that lies 100m away from the foot of the crag.
the behaviour of the persons assaulting the climbers is just beyond belief just what were they thinking? i do hope that this matter is treated as serious as the results just dont bear thinking about.
it is well known locally of the owners views on people that 'trespass' on her land and no-one to my knowledge has climbed there for a long time, and after this terrible incident i doubt anyone will be climbing there again in the near future until the access issue is cleared up.
i havent heard it on local news..? anyone hear of anything?.

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:
"Vixen Tor is the highest rock mass on Dartmoor"

Are you sure wouldn't the Dewerstone be taller, many of the routes there are over 100 '

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:

Plus there was a 30yr old agreement with the previous owner (I think) that climbers could climb there, before the new owner took posession...

Doesn't that mean that if the right has existed for over 25 yrs it's now un-rescindable? Or is that just footpaths? Or something? I'm sure I've read that some rights become "written in stone" if they've been freely granted for a certain length of time? However, I may be totally mistaken...

In reply to Dominion: Climbers and walkers enjoyed unlimited access to Vixen Tor for more than 30 years with the agreement of the previous owner. But this arrangement ground to a halt in 2003 when a new landowner, Ms Mary Alford of Tavistock, installed a barbed-wire fence around the crag. She removed existing stiles and spray-painted ‘Private Property – Keep Out!’ at a traditional access point.

Controversially, she also ‘improved’ the land by scrub and bush clearance and by spreading fertiliser over it, changing a significant proportion of the field from open moorland habitat to semi-improved pasture. Ms Alford was successfully prosecuted by DEFRA for this action, and widely condemned by local access and conservation campaigners.

But the Planning Inspectorate’s decision to ignore Vixen Tor’s illegal improvement in hearing Ms Alford’s appeal now opens the door for other landowners to use similar tactics – flouting the law to help get their land removed from open access designation.

The BMC’s Regional Access and Conservation Officer Guy Keating said: ‘This decision represents a considerable blow to the intended spirit of the CRoW Act, and is a setback for anyone who enjoys recreation in the nation’s wild spaces’.

The BMC will continue to pursue the issue of access to Vixen Tor, and together with the Ramblers’ Association, will campaign for the Dartmoor National Park Authority to impose a statutory access order on the site. Given the NPA’s previous statements, this seems a strong possibility. In the meantime, it remains up to individuals to make their own decision about climbing on Vixen Tor.

In reply to carl: Is it on the last pic on the link I put on, that looks a long way away?

Stu

In reply to Stu Tyrrell: it could be i'll just check on me map, its been a while since i have been there so cant rermember what it looks like..!

In reply to carl:

Yep, I'm aware of the recent history of the place. I was wondering about whether rights that have been granted for over a certain period of time become automatic rights - although I'd expect the BMC to be aware of this, and have used it...

It may only apply to footpaths - I'm convinced that somewhere or other I've read that a footpath that has been used for over 25yrs then becomes a public right of way, automatically...

Someone will correct me on this...

And I may be thinking about the Stonehenge Free Festival, that was curtailed just before it happened for 25yrs on the trot, because of this common law...

In reply to Dominion: ooh i dunno bout that not heard anything like that mentioned to me before but for all i know it could be.
stu try this link it shows the dwelling right next to the tor
showhttp://uk.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?client=public&X=254500&Y=7400...

In reply to Dominion:
From what I can remember from my media law training:

With certain exceptions such as railway lines and MOD property, trespass is generally a civil not a criminal offence. You must leave at once if asked to go. The landowner has no right to use physical force except in self defence.
The land owner can try to get an injunction if you trespass repeatedly. Breaking an injunction can land you in jail
Make sure you don't cause anything which might be construed as criminal damage:e.g cutting through a fence, or possibly bolting (which doesn't apply at Vixen Tor).
A few wildlife sites have special protection. For example there are large fines for breaking the Berry Head bird ban.
In view of what happened to Adam and Chris and the importance of the site for the future of the CROW Act, Steve Findlay is trying to organise a mass protest climb/picnic at Vixen Tor for a week on Saturday, with maximum press coverage. I'm sure he'll post further details on here, when the arrangements are in place.

In terms of tresspass, you can be arrested under the vagrancy act if you are found in an enclosed area (which this is not) without permission - this is how a lot of protesters are done for entering properties they should not be.

In reply to carl: I think it is above sea level and not the Rock height.

Stu

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:
I can scarcely believe what I'm reading here

A maniac has endangered the life of one climber and assaulted one climber another, and people on here seem more concerned that the climbers be brought to justice !!

Have we lurched so far to the right that property rights take precedence over human life ?

This is not someone's back garden. This is not someones livlihood. This is open moorland that should be accessible to all. And would have been were it not for illegal actions.

I think we should all congratulate the climbers involved for their bravery in taking a stance

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:


Good point Chris - whats happened sounds appauling -

Unfortunately we all specualte without a true account & what exactly happened....

Rocktalk meets the Sun!!

;0)

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:
Without naming names I will add detail (this should not be classed as a factual account and is based on hearsay).
The two climbers were climbing when told politely to leave by the female landowner. They queried her saying they were causing no damage and had no intent to sue in the event of an accident. At any rate the packed up and pretended to leave. Once she had gone they began climbing again.
She then returned with a male who became very agressive and insisted they come down immediately. The leader tried to explain that he had to finish the route for safety reasons. The male the proceeded to try and cut the rope only hindered by the belayer.
Another man then appeared and began to throttle the belayer whilst he was belaying.
The mind boggles as to what these climbers thought in this situation.
Yes they were tresspassing but cannot be convicted of attempted murder.

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

For the offence of attempted murder there has to be intent on the part of the offender and the offence must be pre-meditated.

With regards to the police brushing this under the carpet - If it is proven that an offence has been committed by ANY party at the scene then that person will be prosecuted under government policy and guidlines (unless the injured party makes no complaint - in that case the offenders will be interviewed but not charged or reported).

As for the BMC pressing for the fullest charges - they cannot formally do anything as they are not the IP's. Plus, even if the IP's insist that for example, wounding charges be brought, it's the job of the CPS (crown prosecution service) to decide the charge in court and most police forces now run a shadow charging scheme where the OIC goes to the CPS prior to charge for a decision on what charges are laid on the offenders.

There are several charges that COULD apply (from what has been said here) including Criminal Damage with the intent to endanger life (cutting the rope) S39 Assault (known as common assault) and if there are any injuries then a possible S47 ABH. BUT, only the police and the persons involved are really in a position to make comment, everything else is hearsay.

Rich

This might be the dwelling nearby perhaps?
http://www.classic.co.uk/holiday-cottage-2005/desc-1554.html

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC: For the offence of attempted murder there has to be intent on the part of the offender and the offence must be pre-meditated.

He had a knife with him, must have planned cutting the rope?

I dont carry a knife.

Thanks Sunny - Classic Holiday cottage, well we now know why they dont want peeps around.

Stu

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC: Found this.


BBC Local news
The Dartmoor National Park Authority plans to use its legal powers to reopen a much loved local landmark.

Walkers have been campaigning for Vixen Tor to be reopened since 2003.

FACTS

The processes in the formation of Dartmoor's tors began 280m years ago.

The tors are made of granite.

Legend has it that a witch called Vixana lived in a cave at the bottom of Vixen Tor - hence its name.

A Dartmoor landmark is to be reopened to the public - despite an inquiry concluding it should stay closed.

Vixen Tor at Merrivale was originally shut by its owner, farmer Mary Alford, in May 2003 to the anger of walkers.
She successfully appealed to keep it closed after it was included on official maps showing areas open to the public under Right to Roam laws.

Now the Dartmoor National Park Authority plans to use its powers to reopen it by forcing Mrs Alford to allow access or through compulsory purchase.

Walkers have been warned to keep off the land.
Although the tor is private land, access was allowed by its previous owner for more than 30 years before Mrs Alford closed it.

When the land was included on Right to Roam maps, it was contested by Mrs Alford because her insurers said she could be liable if anyone was injured while walking or climbing.

She used the Human Rights Act to attempt to deny walkers access, an argument upheld by planning inspectors.

But now the park authority will first ask Mr Alford to voluntarily allow access. If she refuses, it will use its statutory powers to enforce access or failing that carry out a compulsory purchase of the tor.

Nick Atkinson, chief executive of of the park authority, said he hoped that an arrangement could be reached.

He said: "It is a much-loved tor. It's the essence of the park and I think access can be achieved there in a non-damaging way which can benefit the owner."

Vixen Tor was a popular spot for walkers for over 30 years.
Any purchase would be a highly unusual move, but walkers have welcomed the plan.

John Skinner of the Ramblers' Association said: "It's very much part of the Dartmoor scope and culture, and people should be allowed to see it and make use of it."

Mrs Alford told the BBC she thought that "this is supposed to be a democracy".

She said: "Similar inspectors' decisions have been respected elsewhere in the country. It ought to be here."

The park authority hopes to see the tor reopened to the public by the end of the year.

Article published: 4th March 2005

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Absolutely.

To say 'I hope the climbers get done for trespass' as someone did further up beggars belief. Actually, I'm still trying to work out if that particular comment is supposed to be sarcasm!!

In reply to john alcock at home:

Excellent idea. Whilst not normally a strong advocate of 'free' access to every lowland piece of rock in the country I do feel that a landowner over-turning 30 years of open access is a severely retrograde and unjustifiable action. I will make every effort to support this and will stongly encourage members of my local mountaineering club to do likewise.

Mark

PS Also that E4 looks superb....

In reply to Lawman:

Agree with the intent however premeditation is not necessary ie if I meet you you swear at me and I swing a punch in a fit of temper and that kills you, then that is murder. The intent to do harm is the mens rea and the likely outcome determines whether it is assault or attempted murder. In this case the attempted throttling and the cutting of the rope by another indicates to me people acting in concert ... extremely serious. I do hope that this is prosecuted to the full extent of the law. There is quite simply no excuse for this behaviour and society in general needs protection from people who are capable of such behaviour.

In reply to john alcock at home:

I think it might be an idea to postpone any action until we have a clearer picture of where this case is going. I'm sure the owners will want to paint climbers as the most unreasonable bunch possible.

In reply to Dominion:

The old law (as I'm not up to date on this) was that if access is granted by the consent of the landowner no right is created as by definition continuing consent is required

In reply to Dominion:


IANAL, but from what I recall from heated arguments about the relatie merits of the Scottish and English approach to rights of way...

If it's a voluntary right of way, and maintained as such (there are signs up saying that it is voluntary and not a public right of way, or users generally expect to ask the owner of the land for permission, etc.) then it does not automatically become a right of way, because the owner is asserting their rights of ownership over the land by making it clear to users that the land is not freely accessible.

If, on the other hand, the owner does not take action to assert their rights - they allow free access without making it clear that such free access is voluntary on their part - then automatic rights can be gained. This is why permissive rights of way are always marked as such - to prevent them from becoming public rights of way.

A public right of way can also lapse, if the landowner can show that it has not been used for some length of time.

As you say, though, this may just be public rights of way.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

People? Just one person I think. Everyone else was just diverted onto a brief discussion of whether the climbers had even committed a criminal act, the conclusion being that on the basis of the little we know, they probably had not.

In reply to Sarah G:

are you REALLY a climber, or were you trying to be ironic ? I really hope it's the latter...

By the way, do you know anything about the law of trespass ?

In reply to Simon Caldwell: Just one person, she also seems to enjoy fox hunting............nuff said!

In reply to Alasdair Fulton:
a bit strange as fox hunting seems to involve a fair amount of trespass on occasions...

BTW it's entirely consistent to support both fox hunting and ignoring access restrictions, as both are victimless 'crimes'

In reply to sn:

If you check some of the other threads sarah g decided to contribute to you'll find out shes a bit thick, bigoted and generally ill informed and thick. I'd ignore her and let her get back to being a bit of a horsey wannabe toff and hope she stays a good 600 miles away from anything she spouts unwisdom at
p

on sat 24th there will be a few climbers going down to protest the more the marrier

In reply to Dave Turnbull BMC:
I suggest a UKC meet at Vixen tor. Sounds like it could turn out to be an event akin to a kinder trespass against total morons of an ITV viewer calibre.
Seriously, if anything it sounds totally sick, I dont even know the geezers involved but I am totally shaking with anger here.....

In reply to a kid called billy:
If you're going to do that, can you be really careful not to do anything that lets the powers that be twist this around and blame climbers? For example, don't carry anything that might be regarded as an offensive weapon. We want justice here, and safety for climbers, bear in mind that the accused assailants may try and blame their actions on the victims' behaviour.

In reply to gingerkate: >don't carry anything that might be regarded as an offensive weapon.

Better leave the Hex Ten at home then.

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:

Why?

Many jobs require the carrying of a kinife as a tool. Farming is one of them, I carry a knife to open feed bags and bales of hay, trim sheeps feet, cut electric fence line to length, trim young branches that are growing into gateways, the list is endless.

There really is a big tendency to see this from one side only and reach some pretty far reaching conclusions with no evidence and only thew sketchiest information to base them on.


I should hope not if your job doesn't need it, but don't assume that its the same for everyone.


Regards

Tim Jones

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:

Why do you nsee someone elses desire to keep their property to themselves as spite? It may be selfish but I fail to see why it is spiteful.

In reply to timjones:

If it's wild, uncultivated land, as most of Dartmoor is, then refusing to let others use what you have no use for yourself is clearly spiteful.

In reply to JRobertson:

That would not be murder. What you are talking about here is Manslaughter (no malice aforethought) which can also carry a life sentence.

Murder - It is an offence for a person to unlawfully kill any person, under the peace, with malice aforethought express or implied (Contrary to Common Law)

Criminal Attempts - If, with intient to commit an offence to which this section applies (murder does) a person does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence, he/she is guilty of attempting to commit the offence. (Contrary to Criminal Attempts Act 1981 s.1)

Whereas carrying a knife and in a fight stabbing someone could amount to attempted murder as it is an act that is more than merely preparatory in the above act, but would most likely be charged by the CPS as Wounding With Intent (S18 Offences Against The Person Act 1861).

It could be argued that the idiot that cut the rope could possibly have committed the offence of Attempted Murder as the chain of causation would state that one possible outcome of this act could be a fall which could end up in the death of the lead climber - but the law is complex and sometimes an ass and I suspect that there would be insufficient evidence to prove any express or implied malice aforethought.

But, they should be dealt with, what they did could have had very serious results, and no doubt they will be if any offences can be proved and the climbers are willing to make a complaint.

Rich

In reply to Lawman:

Erm .. my knowledge of the law is Scots Law ..which is often more straight forward and commonsense than English Law .. but in this matter I'd hope it is reasonably close to English Law.

My understanding is that if there is mens rea, IE intention to commit the action then a crime is committed. In this case its probably irrelevant because if they had brought something to cut the rope then that would indicate both intention and premeditation.

In reply to Hotbad Peteel: After seeing your comments I went to have a look at the last few posts listed on Sarah's profile and I have to say that on the basis of those I do think your description of her is rather unfair. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion nonetheless.

I'd agree that her contribution to this thread was not of highest quality, though.

In reply to Martin W: I have to support Pete on this - Sarah G does seem to wade in with bothe feet and fists at times.

http://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/t.php?t=142402&v=1#1991933

When the OP gets wound up it only encourages her. Thats any forum for you.

In reply to gingerkate: isn;t granite suitable for dry-tooling?

I'd think the only things that might consider a climber armed and dangerous are seagulls when they hear the clanging of hexes

In reply to Not Fozzz:

Spite is defined as wishing to see others suffer, it seems far more likely the owner wishes to maintain the land for their own pleasure rather than to gain some thrill from the "suffering" of those who ar excluded. Selfish is a far more apt way of defining this than spiteful. Spite would for instance be to surround the site with razor wire so that you could watch pthers injure themselves on it.

Some people can be difficult, but there are a lot of motives for this other than spite and the failure to appreciate this is unlikely to help in any negotiation situation.

The wild uncultivated state or otherwise of this site is the issue which is making access tricky. As far as I can see the ariel photos strongly suggest that this site has been enclosed in recent history, should the fact that previous owners have neglected it and allowed public access create some form of obligation for the current owners? My gut feeling is that it shouldn't, it will be a lot harder to negotiate access in future at other locations if there is a percieved danger of creating an everlasting right of access with its potential effect on the value of the property.

The NP are apparently working to negotiate access, if they suceed well done. If they don't does it really matter? So WE can't go there at present, but the current owner won't live forever and it may well be possible for future generations to negotiate access, the rock will be there for a very very long time. It would seem rather selfish of us if our actions to get access to one piece of rock now this minute caused problems for generations of climbers and walkers to come. It may well be that the two climbers involved in this instance have done us all a lot of harm by failing to leave when asked politely, should we really all be springing to their defence?

Regards

Tim Jones

In reply to timjones:

I couldn't agree more, if we're not careful the landowner might stop us climbing there.

In reply to timjones:

Farmers and others have long diliked climbers and walkers on their land for no specail reason. Now they are learning that working with them instead of against them has positive advantages in most cases.

Damage done at Yellowslacks, farmer dynamited section of crag, prosecuted. Windgather, farmer poured tar down routes, compulsory purchase of the crag itself and fenced off.
Wales, some farmers stopped people going to certain crags, now they have campsites nearby with open access.

People ar more enightened now, and most close gates after themself and keep dogs on leads where needs be. Most sheep worrying is from local dogs in semi urban areas where they are let out to roam all day. Most rubbish I have seen is feed sacks left by farmers themselves, pulled may a bag out of streams when clearing them and collecting logs.
People like the woman at Vixen Tor think that just because they buy land they can stop people going on it. Times have changed, the right to roam act was designed to give some access to uncultivated land and her trying to thwart it will end in tears now.

In reply to sutty:


Why will it end in tears a decision has been made and maybe we should respect it? If it is ever overthrown we will expect the landowner to respect it, if we want to use the law when it's with us surely we must respect it when its against us?

Any act such as CROW will have grey areas such as Vixen Tor, there will always be the areas taht don't quite make the criteria for designation. We can either be grateful for the 1000's and 1000's of acres of access gained or we can throw our toys out of the pram about the few sites that we don't gain access too. In the long run do we really believe that an ill tempered dispute over one marginal site serves us well in the wider nationwide access perspective. I honestly believe that there is a big danger that it just makes us look like spoilt children who want everything right NOW.

regards

Tim Jones

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Or maybe the repercussions of this will impact on other crags accross the country. We could always keep a sense of perspective and accept that its just one crag out of 1000s.

In reply to timjones:

is there provision in the legislation to remove access from one area on the basis that people have ignored restrictions in a different area?

In reply to timjones:

IMHO that is completely the wrong approach and you'd find more and more areas which should be public access closed.

The way forward is public rights of access by default unless specifically excluded for very good reason. This action by the Vixen Tor landowner will, I predict, work more against the owner's rights than the public's rights.

There is little enough accesible rock in the South of England without getting some of the best bits forbidden

In reply to timjones:

Assuming that it's truly what happened, from what side would you like us to see the action of cutting a lead climber's ropes?

jcm

In reply to timjones:

Surely the point is that there is no reason why anyone should be denied access to this land other than the owner wanting to deny access. And if she is successful in this instance, what is to stop other like-minded owners acting in the same way as she does? as has been pointed out before, Vixen Tor was accessible with the co-operation of the previous owner. Acquiescing to unreasonable behaviour in this case will only give a green light to similar unreasonable behaviour elsewhere.

Reasonable behaviour on both sides is almost always the preferred solution - it would see that in this case, the owners unreasonable behaviour will result in compulsory purchase of the land. It's hard to see that she will see this as being in her best interests.

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

I like the irony of her comment that all this is undemocratic ( like JCM - that word conjures up the same baggage as "my rights")

What does she think is taking place, the situation is travelling through the planning and legal process. The CRoW is new legislation and this is a good example to test it by precedent.

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC: I am happy that no one was hurt and no one did cause injury to others, I hope they do comp purchase, and pay them the going rate for the house (holiday lets).

OK maybe not spite - selfish, very shelfish

Stu

In reply to timjones: That's right Tim, what's a little atempted murder when some bastards trying to walk on 'moi laaaaand'.

>We could always keep a sense of perspective

Not to hot on irony, Tim , eh ?

In reply to Lawman:

Wrong. Read your lawbooks again lawman, and make sure they don't date from the 1800s. Gold star to J Robertson who got the mens rea of murder almost spot on.

in reply to the OP, this is a shocking story. I hope action is taken against the landowners. I can understand ( to an extent) their frustration, but cutting ropes and assaulting a belayer in any circumstances is unjustifiable.

In reply to Anonymous:

I'd like it not to happen at all.

Given that it has happened we would all be a little better off if we considered the obviously quite high emotions that influence both sides of this dispute. One of the keys too effective negotiation is to attempt to understand the emotions that are driving your opponent?

It would also seem that the whole incident could have been prevented if the climbers had the sense to leave when asked. Isn't this exactly what the BMC advise in cases of dispute over access?

regards

Tim Jones

In reply to Rock Hardman:

Damned hairy hippy climnbers
Theres nothing like a bit of predictable stereotyping to help resolve a dispute. Is that irony?



Why not? Who was trying to be ironic? Was the act of cutting the rope (if it happened at all) ironic?

My suggestion is that we should keep a sense of perspective in judging this incident regardless of the sense of perspective of either party at the time.

In reply to timjones:

You seem to be an apologist for people who would endanger the safety of others over an access issue.

Are you a farmer or landowner?

In reply to timjones:

>>Assuming that it's truly what happened, from what side would you like us to see the action of cutting a lead climber's ropes?

>I'd like it not to happen at all.

But it did. On the facts as described so far, there's only been one criminal action here, and that was it. A serious one too which ought to attract a prison sentence. I take it you'd agree?

You an Orangeman in your spare time, by any chance?!

In reply to John Rushby:

I noticed 'undemocratic' too. Excellent notion - let's have a vote about it. All those in favour of unrestricted access raise your hand.

jcm

In reply to timjones: >Who was trying to be ironic?

Well obviously not you.

>Was the act of cutting the rope (if it happened at all) ironic?

I think that we can be clear that a fairly serious incident (regardless of details) took place if the BMC representative is posting on a public forum.

I think people on this forum DO have it in perspective, actions which cause may cause the death of another human being are rather more serious than a trivial act of trespass (if it happened at all (sic) ).

No matter how you dress it up, the land owner reacted out of all proportion, no matter what the provocation, and should be punished appropriately.

In reply to Anonymous:


I'd like to know which definition of "democracy" contains any mention of land ownership.

In reply to Richard:

Dictionary is a blunt tool, I think you will find land ownership has been inexctricably linked to "personal freedom".

If you have land you have power.

In reply to John Rushby:

The freedom to construct an amateurish fence http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/3185399.stm

In reply to Swig:

Discreet painting of no access?, look at it.

In reply to sutty:

An unsightly piece of vandalism.

In reply to John Rushby:


I know, but that's not what she said.

In reply to sutty:


According to the BBC "She said the rocks had been sprayed in the most discrete manner possible."

But you're right, it's not discreet either.

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

Lets stand back a moment and look at this from a non-climbing devil's advocate perspective:

Landowner asks trespassing climbers to leave her land.
They refuse.
Landowner returns with employees ready to use reasonable force to evict trespassers.
Climbers still refuse to leave.
Employees not understanding climbing safety issues try to remove belayer and a scuffle ensues as the leader is in danger but employees mistake his concern for intransigence.

I think the climbers were pretty stupid to get themselves in this mess and I can see this case going nowhere. A gang of climbers going down to trespass further will only potentially cause more problems that could even rebound on access (the law never liked mob rule).

In reply to Richard: The yellow painted words were on the stone wall where you climb over to get in, not on the tor.
A year ago we got asked to leave mid route there, and we did. It was getting dark anyway. I blame bring the noisy hexes

The day we here the land is open to us again I think we should organise a regional meet there, to celebrate it's return.

P.s. It should never have been excluded from the crow act.

In reply to John Rushby:
She's got a nerve wittering on about 'democracy' anyway, when as I distinctly recall she deliberately broke the law, illegally upgrading the land so that CRoW wouldn't apply.

In reply to Offwidth:
Oh come off it Offwidth, how stupid would someone have to be to not realise cutting a climber's rope was endangering them? I doubt you'll find many non-climbers who think we use them as decorative accessories.

In reply to gingerkate:

Does anyone know about this Mary Alford whose human rights are so violated by other people enjoying themselves? Is she old or young?

Know your enemy!

In reply to Swig: old, late 50's. got a dog and has a son? who was not so enthusiatic about shouting at us. Pretending that it was too windy to hear, and shouting "pardon?" wound her up. oh dear what have I become.

In reply to wiwwim:

That's a shame - not immediately about to retire and leave the land to more reasonable people then.

No harm in winding these sort of people up.

In reply to gingerkate:

As I said, I was playing devils advocate as too many here seem to see this in black and white and from the climbers view. I am serious that I think the case may go nowhere with the CPS, especially if the defence lawyers plea bargain. It may be obvious to us that wrong was done and that the leader could have been killed but I suspect the employee rather than the landowner stands to cop it.

In reply to wiwwim:

I do sometimes wonder if being phenomenally nice to landowners who're agin us might not help. I mean, taking them flowers and chocolates and sending them thankyou notes about what a nice day climbing we've had, when they do say yes.

OK, OK, so maybe chocolates would be a bit OTT, but there used to be this bunch of surly yobs from the local secondary who sat on my neighbour's wall scowling and being vaguely intimidating. And one day it was bitterly cold, and there they were skiving as usual, and in a sudden fit of motherliness I said, 'blimey you must be frozen, would you like a cup of tea?' And they declined the tea, but after that they turned into smiley friendly skiving people.

So ... I do think being NICE to people can sometimes be quite effective.

Probably not if they're the sort to cut climbers' ropes, though

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC: Time a mass trespass was organised! We don't seem to have progressed much from Kinder in the 1930's.

In reply to Offwidth:
I still think you're under-estimating the non-climbing public: everyone knows what ropes are for, even if they don't properly understand how they're used. In fact, it was because they understood what cutting the rope meant that they did it, one would imagine. If they just wanted to register anger they'd have cut a wee hole in the guy's beanie or something. No, everyone knows what ropes are for, that's why (IMO) the rope was what they attacked.

If the landowner asked them politely to leave, then returned with employees who behaved like that, the employees SHOULD cop it ... the landowner as well, if she instructed them to behave thus, but defo the guy who did it because he's the one who endangered life. Following orders is no excuse for endangering life.

In reply to barrowboy:
I was going to suggest the same thing.
We could all take it in turns to climb and stand guard. Might take some of the fun out of it(!) but would be worth it.

In reply to gingerkate:

Bloody hell! Just seen this for the first time. I've just seen the pics of the fence and 'discrete' signs. A real eyesore.

Its a shame that this one landowner in dartmoor is causing such problems. I've done a fair bit of walking and bouldering in dartmoor and what I love about about the place is that it feels like you can roam pretty widely without any hassle. I was going to go to go to Vixen Tor in June and see if I could get one of the letterbox stamps at the Tor, but I couldn't risk it as the bairn was with me. she couldn't understand why she couldn't go and explore round the Tor when all the others had unrestricted access.

In reply to timjones:

>It may well be that the two climbers involved in this instance have done us all a lot of harm by failing to leave when asked politely, should we really all be springing to their defence?

In most cases, rights have to be asserted as they are most unlikely to be freely given. All power to them, the Kinder trespassers and all those who assert the freedom to roam without causing any damage, every day of the week.

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

My understanding is that the National Park are going through a process of trying to regain access to the Tor. This is the most likely and most timely way in which access will be regained to an excellent crag. What we need to ask ourselves is whether a mass protest will help. I suspect it won't - best to keep a low profile and let the National Park do their job.

In reply to Swig:


You seem to mistake an attempt to add another set of views to the discussion as being an apologist. I do not condone the cutting of the rope if indeed it was a deliberate act, but it will do none of us any harm to consider how we reached this state of afairs.


Yes. Is that a problem to you? Surely an input from a different perspective oir in this case someone with a foot in both camps can only help to broaden the discussion or shouldn't real climbers even listen to farmers?

In reply to Ian Dring: I agree Ian, maybe when they hear about this incident they might get a move on!

Stu

In reply to Anonymous:



Surely it will depend on many things that we just don't know yet. After all, for all we know the climber was only a few feet off the ground when the ropes were cut. If that were the case (and leaving aside the alledged assault), then could cutting the ropes be seen as reasonable action to remove the climbers from the land, given that they failed to do so when asked? Certainly it seems rather premature to start talking about attempted murder as some have done.

Mark

In reply to timjones:


out of curiosity how can you accidently (nondeliberately) cut a rope?

This site is on the whole going to bias towards the climbers viewpoint (i hope) I cant see how someone can condone cutting a rope on someone even if you are in favour of the landowners rights.

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

Regarding the protest being planned by Steve Findlay:

Currently the plan is to assemble at the car park across the road at 10am Saturday 24th September.

I intend to be there and urge anyone who can make it to turn up as well. Hopefully we can make our feelings known to the invited press and the relevant organisations in a legal, peaceful protest.

There will be an informal meeting in the Miners Arms near the Bristol climbing wall on Monday 19th at 9pm to discuss the protest.

I understand the BMC are still discussing the matter. I hope that they will support any legal protest and will send an official representative on the 24th.

I imagine the protest will only take up an hour or two of your time and then we can all go off and climb on the more accessible sections of Dartmoor.

In reply to dissonance:

I don't know the area that the incident took place in well enough to definitively answer, but a scuffle on rocky ground could I guess lead to a dislodged or thrown rock could severe a rope. Or either party waving a knife about in "self defence" could easily severe a loaded rope. Stupidity or accident by either party are as capable of damaging a rope as an enraged landowner. This is merely an illustration of how many unknowns there are in this whole situation, indeed much of what I have said here was intended to highlight the vast areas of specualtion in this thread.


Whilst it is likely that this will be the case, why would you hope for it? Are we so exclusive and unwilling to see both sides of this or any other accessdispute?


I think you will find that nowhere have I actively condoned cutting the rope, if I have I apologise as that was never my aim. I have merely put over an alternative viewpoint on a site that has an inevitable inherent climbers bias.

Perhaps I should have followed offwidths example and made a bigger show of flagging myself up as devils advocate. With a foot in both camps it never hurts to attempt to highlight the opinions of whichever camp is in the minority in any given discussion. You are just as likely to find me defending countryside recreation and access to farming folk as defending farming to the recreational users of the countryside.

It can get to feel a bit schizophrenic sometimes, but it is an inevitable result of having a job and a hobby that in some cases have conflicting interests. Sometimes farmers say something that offends my walking/climbiung interests but just as often walkers and climbers say something that is going to sound pretty dumb to most farmers. In either case I believe it is useful to endeavour to explain why it is an issue or just perceived as an issue to the other group.

regards

Tim Jones

In reply to timjones:

That's all fine but I think if you knew this site you would agree that this landowner is not taking any reasonable position.

So much so in fact that I actually wonder what her angle truly is (taking it for granted that it's not any of the nonsense she's come out with publicly). Anyone know?

jcm

In reply to Haggis:
Has Steve, or someone involved, got experience with organising peaceful protests? If not it might be an idea to talk to someone who has. No idea who. Off teh top of my head, ie the litte I do know: I think you need to inform the police. Also might be an idea to have stewards, or at least people prepared to take that role if loads turn up. Also make sure to remind peeps on any publicity that goes out here or elsewhere that people shouldn't carry anything that could be construed to be an offensive weapon, just in case. ie If a scuffle did break out, you really do not want to have a pocketful of hexes.

In reply to Anonymous:

John, why do you take that for granted? I have some sympathy (don't all yell at me!) for landowners who are scared stiff of being sued if someone hurts themselves on their land. Mind you, maybe it is obvious that isn't her true motivation, because one of the strengths of CRoW is that it protects landowners from such litigation, as I understand it?

In reply to gingerkate:

Steve has certainly been in contact with the local police to let them know what is happening and to find out what we can do legally.

I guess further organization will be discussed on Monday night.

If anyone wants further information (I don't have any at the moment), feel free to contact me through Rockfax.

In reply to Anonymous:

Exactly. It does seem as though she really is just trying to keep people out for the sake of it. This is basically a tor on dartmoor, not a lowland crag.

In reply to timjones: I don't know the area that the incident took place in well enough to definitively answer, but a scuffle on rocky ground could I guess lead to a dislodged or thrown rock could severe a rope. Or either party waving a knife about in "self defence" could easily severe a loaded rope. Stupidity or accident by either party are as capable of damaging a rope as an enraged landowner. This is merely an illustration of how many unknowns there are in this whole situation, indeed much of what I have said here was intended to highlight the vast areas of specualtion in this thread.

Did you not read what Haggis wrote, a peacful protest at the Tor, then after 2 hours, move on to another area to climb! I wish I could be on this protest, but I will be overseas sorry!

Stu

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:

??????

Why do you think I was referring to the protest? This was in reply to a question asking how it could have been possible for the cutting of the rope last Sunday to be anything other than deliberate.

Do try to keep up at the back

In reply to Haggis: Do you know if the climbers have been charged with anything?

Stu

In reply to Dominion:

I've just skim-read this thread because been v busy today, so I may well be repeating what others have said.

As far as I can recall, a footpath remains a public right of way if it can be demonstrated to have been in continual use for 50 years or more. (Dennis Gray I think cleverly used this in the early 70s when he was Gen Sec of BMC to settle access issues to various crags. I believe they took one case to court, a popular crag whose access was in jeopardy, picked just one classic route, and said that amounted to a footpath .. and won. But my memory may be wrong on this!)

To CJD and others: Trespassing has never been a criminal offence (though someone here has suggested that v recently it may have been made one - in which case that is a huge step backwards for English law). 'Trespassers will be prosecuted' is a famous nonsense that has absolutely no standing in English law. Trespassers can only be sued for civil damages.

Offwidth: Re. Vixen Tor: I think you are being a bit soft about this, Steve. I agree with Gingerkate, JCM and others here that a well organised and well publicised peaceful protest could do a lot of good.

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC: The problem with a protest is that it may actually backfire and create negative publicity for climbers. Look at it this way: In this instance we haven't got much to be proud of. Two climbers were asked politely to leave by the landowner (on land that they knew that they didn't have access to). They effectively refuse and a scuffle ensues in which a rope is cut. You could argue that the two climbers in question provoked this act of stupidity - is that something to be proud of and shout about - I think not. If you invite the press along what angle are they going to take will they be sympathetic to the climbers or the hapless land owner who was defending her property. If there is a successful prosecution then the people in question are going to have to live with the consequences of a criminal record, both in the short term and the long term. We’ve really done ourselves proud on this one.

In reply to Stu Tyrrell: I have no information on who was charged with what - sorry.

In reply to Haggis:
If the protest goes ahead, I would want to support it. (I won't have a car that day, but hopfully will be able to get there.)

Having got loads of people there, surely the best thing to do would be to spend all day there climbing - there's plenty of good routes (and a few "Plymouth sandbags").

Would it be possible to get hold of a poster or two to publicise it down here in North Cornwall (the Barn and such places)?

In reply to Ian Dring:

You state this as a blunt, god-given fact. The truth is that the general public did have access to this land (though no official right of way) until 2003 - see Sty Tyrell.

>They effectively refuse and a scuffle ensues in which a rope is cut.

'.. in which a rope is cut'. What sort of indirect and passive language is that? Someone very deliberately cut a safety rope with malicious intent.

>You could argue that the two climbers in question provoked this act of stupidity - is that something to be proud of and shout about - I think not.

A stupid person could argue this, yes.

>If you invite the press along what angle are they going to take will they be sympathetic to the climbers or the hapless land owner who was defending her property.

Let the press decide. It is a free world. Some may no doubt be burnt up with sympathy for the 'hapless landowner'; others may not. I'm very tempted to ask you just what you mean by 'hapless' here. It is just a cliche, and if you look it up in a dictionary you'll find it won't help your case at all. This is nothing whatever to do with ill-fortune descending upon a landowner (who had dubious property rights here in the first place, cf. the Cuillin), and all to do with property owners' greed - new owners who think, wrongly, that they have sole rights over a piece of ancient wild land that they have bought with their property.

>If there is a successful prosecution then the people in question are going to have to live with the consequences of a criminal record, both in the short term and the long term. We’ve really done ourselves proud on this one.

You know perfectly well that the law has to be tested now, in these new, fringe cases, at the edge of the CROW act. It will be happening all over the place. You are clearly too gutless to want to test anything, and will cave in to any new distortion of the English law, however unjust. You have not done yourself at all proud with your feeble, acquiescent line of argument.

In reply to Mark Kemball: I doubt there will be any official posters (but I may be wrong, Haggis?) ...write some up yourself and publicise it as much as you can...

In reply to timjones:

Sorry Tim nice but dim you are wrong, gone are the days when the Peasants doffed there hats to the likes of you and your kind and left the fascist landowners to it, CROW should have sorted out this access issue, but it was probably down to the local Tory council in the end?
You will be telling us we have it all wrong about Fox hunting next, this is the 21st century, feck you and your have and have not, Dog eat dog attitude. You stole the land from the community in the first place!.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Gordon, I didn't actually say I was in favour of a protest did I? I don't think I've got a decided opinion either way, I think what has happened is awful but I can see the arguments people opposed to demonstrating are putting forward. And as it's not my patch, I don't have an instinctive feeling for what should be done like I would if it was local. What I'm saying is, if there's going to be some sort of protest ... and it seems clear from the thread that there will be ... people need to get it right. 'Peaceful' isn't something that always just happens, 'peaceful' can need planning to make it happen, especially when feelings are running very high. We do not want to be portrayed in the media as yobs. I can't see how a disciplined, well-organised demo could do any harm, but an un-calm one certainly could... unsympathetic press could twist it into a story of 'poor ickle diddums old lady landowner intimidated by nasty rough climbing yobs'... you can so easily see how they could write it from that angle.

So all I'm saying is, as it's going to happening, make it a very chilled calm happening.

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC: Can I just say to all the barrack room lawyers;


'all of you outside now'.

In reply to gingerkate:

I am by nature not a protester, and I sympathise exactly with your worries. Any protest would have to be extremely well planned, disciplined and thought through. Your second last sentence sums up my position and sentiments exactly.

A lot of this is now down to Dave Turnbull, I think. Just how to handle it, and then to handle it v well... Not so easy.

In reply to sloper:

Actually we could do with some legal help and advice from you right now, Tom - and so far you've said nothing.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Compact Oxford English definition of hapless is unlucky, unfortunate.

You've got a nice line in insults - perhaps the kind of diplomatic language that incites these sorts of incidents -anyway I stand by my original point in a gutless sort of way.

In reply to Dru:

Thanks for your inciteful, reasoned and polite contribution to the thread.

In reply to Ian Dring:

I said nothing remotely insulting, except in response to your calling your opponents stupid. I simply implied that those on your side of the argument might be equally stupid. I suggest though that you try to come to a greater understanding and respect for the English Common Law than you have shown so far in your postings.

Right, I haven't read every post, so if it's already been suggested - apologies.

Why don't the climbers get together and try to get an easement registered on the land?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

So which side do you think Ian is on?

In reply to Ian Dring:

I used the term 'ill fortune', you say 'unlucky, unfortunate'. Have you gone mad?! .. because I think in the English language you are saying more or less exactly what I am saying. Or have I gone mad, surrounded by a world of self-righteous, hair-splitting political extremists and right-wing bigots?

In reply to timjones:

He implied very strongly that he was on the side of the 'hapless landowner'; but as i said earlier, his explicit position is one of acquiescence and caution (IMHO) taken to a dangerous extreme.

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC: I just read this on the internet.

The Witch Of Vixen Tor

This particular legend tells of how Vixen Tor came to look like the head of an old woman when you're stood up close to it.

This is the story of Vixana, an evil witch who lived in a cave at the bottom of Vixen Tor. She hated people and loved to make them suffer if she got the chance......

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I'd be interested in how you reached that conclusion, because I can't see it.

I think he's taking a very similar stance to me, which is that this is an access issue that won't be solved by statutory means and it will be have to negotiated. In light of this the actions of these two climbers and their consequences will rumble on for ages and are a serious hinderance to civilised negotiation.

This is a borderline case under CROW, we lost at the owners appeal, careful and reasoned negotiation is all that we have left.

In reply to timjones:

I said very strongly earlier that this is a borderline case under CROW and that it or its like should or would be very soon tested in court. I don't see how peaceful protests can do any harm at all to the legal position, though they may certainly damage the landowners position (which is on a possibly dodgy legal footing to start with). The cutting of a climber's safety rope does not seem to me to be a helpful step towards civilised negotiation.

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC: This case reminds me somewhat of Forwen in North Wales. The BMC were negotiating an access agreement with the land owner. (I found him to be OK – when I politely asked if I could climb on the crag he was fine about it). There was an incident between the landowner and climbers and the windscreen of the climber's car was smashed by the landowner, Relationships broke down and 20 years later we have no access to a brilliant crag. In the case of Vixen Tor my understanding is that the National Park is trying to re-establish access. I’m sure that this incident will not have helped any negotiations as attitudes will become even more polarised and entrenched (it was pretty dire in the first place). I’m sure that referring to land owners as fascist right wing bigots will not help either. My posting was not taking the side of the landowner it was merely pointing out how we might be perceived. Who’s side am I on – I certainly haven’t a political axe to grind like some of the postings – I’m a local to Dartmoor and just want to climb on the crag.

In reply to Ian Dring:

What do you think of the Kinder Mass Trespass, then?

I don't understand either why you're upset at the (extremely distant, I predict) prospect of the landowner's thugs obtaining a criminal record. Or were you imagining that the climbers involved might get one?

jcm

In reply to Ian Dring: I agree Ian, the National Parks are the ones who will sort this out, compulsery purchase the Tor, its the only way.

The owners have a Holiday Cottages close (100M)to the Tor and dont want anyone near it.

A Peacfull protest might make them get on and sort it out.


Stu

In reply to timjones:

>This is a borderline case under CROW, we lost at the owners appeal, careful and reasoned negotiation is all that we have left.

Yes and no. It is open to the National Park Authority to make an access order, I think. And they seem to be minded to do it. Although to be sure it will take careful and reasoned negotiation to achieve that.

As to it being a borderline case, as I understand it there were two points.

First, should agricultural acts which were undertaken illegally be counted in deciding whether this is land over which CRoW gives the general public access?

This is not exactly a borderline matter but a point of principle which was decided in favour of the landowner by one of those decisions judges sometimes make which they believe are terribly proper based on the exact wording Parliament used, but ignore the bleeding obvious and amaze every right-thinking person, usually including any MP who voted for the legislation in question, that anyone could think that was what the Act intended.

Second, once the court had decided that the landowner's fairly blatant attempt to evade the Act could succeed in principle, were those attempts even then sufficient to bring the land outside the Act.

This second point truly was a marginal point which was decided against the public and which, given the absurd findings already made about the law, could indeed have gone either way.

The first point however we cannot allow to stand. If it were so any landowner who wanted to keep the proles off his land could carry out illegal activities, pay the fine and have bought an exemption.

I might be wrong about this last point as it might depend upon the transitional provisions, which I know nothing about. I might be wrong about the rest too but that's how I understand it. Anyone who knows better than me care to explain it?

jcm

In reply to timjones:


I've got no problem with you being a farmer or with you broadening the discussion. Just trying to understand you angle on things - which I didn't feel was clear.

I'm glad you don't condone the cutting of the rope.

In reply to Ian Dring:

Hello Ian
As a matter of some interest has this recent incident attracted any publicity in the local press?
Doug

In reply to timjones:
Tim, you do realise that this case was only borderline wrt to CRoW because of the landowner's illegal 'improvement' of the land, do you? Your pov would seem quite rational to me if it wasn't for that illegality, but surely you can't defend any landowner illegally meddling with the land to deliberately wriggle out of CRoW being applicable? I do think there's a lot of truth to teh old saying, 'live by the sword, die by the sword'... if someone (this landowner) is prepared to break the law to avoid CRoW it is quite ludicrous IMO for her to expect the people she has deliberately cheated of their rights to respect the law in relation to trespass on that land.

In reply to Hotbad Peteel:

Thick, eh?
If you can't spot a classic case of "light the blue touch paper and stand well back", then one has to conclude that you are thick as raw crude oil. Oh, do you want me explain just how thick that stuff is...?

The fact that, once again, Your Stupidness has resorted to personal attack is a fair measure of how desperately lacking in understanding and wit you are.

Sxx

In reply to IainM:

Ah, well spotted.
Fun, ain't it?

Sxx

In reply to Ian Dring:


It's simple - if the landowner is willing to provide conditional access, and providing the conditions are reasonable, then the BMC should support and publicise such restrictions. If, on the other hand, the landowner offers nothing, then there is nothing to lose by ignoring them. The owner of Vixen Tor clearly falls into the latter category.

In reply to Anonymous:

It seems to me that this (as is often the case) all hinges on facts largely unknown and a precise knowledge of the law (especially of trespass, aggravated trespass and what might be construed as reasonable force) that I certainly don't have and hasn't been clearly expressed on the thread so far.

If the facts are as presented, and an attempt really was made to 'throttle' the belayer, then it seems unlikely that this could be considered reasonable force, no matter what the provocation. From my memory of what the route looks like, anyone who managed to retreat from it safely having had their rope cut was either climbing well below their grade or hadn't got very far!

Presumably this is being given calm and careful consideration by the BMC.

In reply jcm: I'm all for peaceful protest, but in this case the problem as I see it is that it may be see as a knee jerk reaction to an incident for which we do not know the full details and one in which the climbers may have incited in some way. If there is to be a protest then I would suggest a cooling off period. After this I’d be all for a one and would participate as long as it was peaceful and was specifically related to the access issue at this particular location. It would also be worth consulting the Parks authority to see where they are up to.

As for the criminal record thing - I do a lot of work with people on probation - things are never as black and white as you portray, the ‘thugs’ as you refer to them might be quite reasonable people who are going to screw things up for themselves through a moment of madness.

In reply to Stu; yes a compulsory purchase order seems the only way forward and let’s hope the National Park Authority can pull it off. Normally you would hope that reasonable negotiation would solve such issues, but in this case, alas it is not to be.

To Doug: Haven’t seen anything, but press tends to be quite conservative in this area and would be sympathetic to farmers/landowners - really not sure where sympathies would lie in this case - could go either way

In reply to Ian Dring:
On balance I'd support a peaceful protest IF it were to include others eg: walkers and ramblers (maybe local residents too). Has any thought been given to involving such groups? Would they be interested?

There are two issues (IMO). The loss of access for everyone
and now the incident on 12th September. I'm not sure how just a bunch of climbers turning up to protest may be perceived? Fight this on two fronts (or even three fronts if local residents can be persuaded) and use the latest incident as an example of the tactics that have been used by the Landowner.

In reply to Dru:

Does Godwin's Law apply here? If so then the thread should be archived, and unfortunately Tim has won the argument.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:
No, Goodwin's needs a reference to Nazis or Hitler, fascist doesn't meet the criteria.
<grin>

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:
I recal reading an article in summit37 that the land owners were going to be approached by the BMC and permission to climb requested. If this was not granted, a compulsory purchase order of the tor was going to be sought by presumably the BMC or the Dartmoor National Park.
I havn't heard any more on the subject, but they were hoping to come to some resolution by the end of October.
Any Idea of the current status?

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Maybe i was a little over zealous in my reply, however maybe a little premature to apply Godwins Law, in my defence does Quirks exception give me a get out clause?

In reply to gingerkate and Dru:
Guy's corollary in action...

In reply to gingerkate:

I realise that this is the perception of those with little knowledge of the very long term hard work involved in land improvement. What I know from experience of pasture management is that due to a far reaching and draconian piece of legislation the owner should have sought approval before spreading manure and seaweed it quite simply is not a miraculous way of altering the composition of the sward to the degree that so many apparently believe it did. It is exceedingly unlikely that the decision which was based on the balance of species on the land would have been any different without this "improvement".


To someone with experience of managing grassland the whole focus on this inprovement is totally ill-informed and irrational! It would be nice to believe that it would swing the case but the simple fact is that photos of the crag taken before this "improvement" clearly show grassland that falls within the ISIG ctaegory which was the key to its exclusion from CROW.


There are many many reasons for fertilising grassland apart from avoiding public access. It may be the case that the previous owner never did this, but it is symptomatic of poor management/neglect. Whilst it was their right to make this decision, and regardless of the CROW side to the argument it is quite an issue that at present due to aa very superficial classification of land it is considered illegal to use what are in reality very minimal inputs to improve production from this or any pother field.

The issues are very wide and the paranoid belief of the access lobby that this "offence" is commited solely to avoid access legislation is a very shallow view that shows little knowledge of the far wider agricultural issues.

Regards

Tim Jones

In reply to timjones:
Oh, you obviously know heaps more about it than me so I'll bow to your wider experience! I hadn't realised this woman was farming actually, I thought she was just some person who'd bought a property with a stretch of wild land attached. So is she sheep farming?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I guess I'm a bit pissed off that a clear plan (approach to gain an access agreement and if not given try to purchase with help from the NP) may have been muddied by this mess. In heated situations intentions can easily be misinterpreted. In such cases the police, then the CPS and, if it goes that far, the courts need to balance assurances of attempts of reasonable force on the one hand with accusations of physical assult on the other, I'm guessing with no independant witnesses. As this all costs taxpayer's money, cases simply won't make it to court unless a win is most likely. Worse still, in at least one email I've seen the rope wasnt even cut: they just tried or threatened to cut it?

I also think that climbers should always leave private land if asked by an angry landowner not willing to reason: some of these landowners (or their employees) get so riled by such issues that one day one will crack and a climber is going to get seriously hurt or even killed. Its just not worth it, so leave and report it to the BMC and the Police if serious enough.

Even the peaceful protest may well backfire and affect access negotiations as its likely to cause the landowner to become even more intransigent. Dave Garnett is right, the BMC need to sit down and soberly consider their options. Being right doesnt mean you win and even winning doesnt always get you what you want.

In reply to Offwidth:

I agree with everything else you say, but I'm not sure quite how this particular landowner could be more intransigent than she already is.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

I suppose she could start chasing climbers off the land with broken bottles like that nice man at Gogarth.

jcm

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

In mediation situations it is wise to wait and see what negotiations bring rather than get the retaliation in early. I've helped out in numerous disputes in my time as a TU official where I was assured by my aggrieved members (or by managers) I was facing an immovable object when it turned out I wasn't. Hence I always leave jugement on things like intransigence until after Ive heard 'their' side and talked through the options. In situations like Vixen Tor I'd rather have negotiated access than the more costly access from legal action and either above punishment (which is really the business of the state unless you are a hillbilly).

In reply to Offwidth:
It's already gone past that stage though, the legal process is in full flow. Isn't it?

In reply to gingerkate:

Hmmmm. I hope this isn't irony or sarcasm, apparently I'm rubbish at spotting either

>I hadn't realised this woman was farming actually, I thought she was just some person who'd bought a property with a stretch of wild land attached. So is she sheep farming?

Everything I have seen refers to her as a farmer, it would be perfectly normal practice for a farmer to apply these by-products to land. If you have just purchased land a certain level of production and income is essential to service the borrowing on the purchase. Until the environmental busybodies got going it would have been perfectly legal. It is well within the realms of possibility that the nanny state rules forbidding such applications came into being after the land was purchased and the price agreed. I'm sure most will recognise that the burden of excessive new regulations can be a bit of a major problem to any business, agricultural or otherwise.

From the prosecution of this landowner I guess have land on which I now need to jump through the absurd hoop of asking permission to spread manure in the same way as has been done for the last 100 years or more. Never mind access issues, they're a very minor problem, it can be a severe restriction to your ability to make an acceptable living by modern day standards by farming your own land.

Maybe if the NP really wanted this land to be open access and to control its management they should have considered purchasing it when it was originally sold instead of "trying to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted" with heavy handed compulsory purchase now?

It would be appreciated if any replies to this were polite and civil, I'm only trying to convey another side to the very complex issue of the alleged "improvement" of the land. I say alleged because the inquiry findings clearly indicate that the supposed ecological experts can't even reach a sound consensus on the makeup of the pasture now, its just not an exact science.

Regards

Tim Jones

In reply to timjones:

AIUI the prosecution was made precisely because it hadn't been done for the last 100 years or more, and so was considered by the prosecution to be a change of use?

In reply to timjones:

Anyone got a good link to the findings of the inquiry and/or the court, so we (or some of us at any rate, myself included) can stop bullshitting and read what actually happened?

Also, is it really compulsory purchase we are talking about? I had the impression it was some form of access order.

jcm

In reply to timjones:
No no, I wasn't being sarky!
I'm a vet's daughter so a fair chunk of my childhood was spent visiting farms with my dad, enough so as I know that muck spreading is universal (where I grew up, anyway) and vital. I just didn't know that this woman was farming ... what I've read about the land 'improvement' has been portrayed as so clear cut and sneaky, and always with her just called a 'landowner'. Someone said on a thread the other day that if you ever read a story in the papers about something you actually know about, teh journalists have a huge amount wrong, so presumably they very often have a huge amount wrong... so on the one hand we've got a selfish landowner illegally tampering with her land to avoid CRoW, and on teh other we've got a farmer muck spreading as farmers always have, being penalised by a control freak state. And which is the truth, if either? Who knows.

In reply to timjones:


As an environmental consultant (note, not an environmentalist, with all that that implies), I get to analyse a lot of water samples from private wells, and have to tell householders that the water they're drinking is diluted cow excrement and fertiliser run-off, precisely resulting from these types of practises that farmers have carried out for many decades.

Historical precedent does not make for good science.

In reply to gingerkate:

Well, answering my own question to some extent, here is the planning inspector's report. Field 7 is the relevant one. I believe also though that there have been court proceedings which I haven't found yet.

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/access/appeals/southwest/2889-2890-...

jcm

In reply to Anonymous:
Not found that yet, but if anyone wants to read the details of the appeal it's here. Delete the linebreak, I just put that in to stop the thread going spread.
www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/access/appeals/southwest/

2889-2890-2891-2892-2893-2894-2895_decision.htm

In reply to timjones and john:
Found one thing out. As someone says above (Simon?) the rules she broke apply to "changing the use of land by bringing uncultivated land or semi-natural areas into intensive agricultural use."

So spreading manure where it has always been spread does definitely not count.

In reply to gingerkate:

Well, well, well. What crap a number of us have been spouting (me included again, to some extent). It would seem that Ms Alford succeeded in her appeal against her conviction for breaching the environmental nanny-state regulations.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2005/808.html

All turned out what was meant by 'intensive' agricultural use, apparently. It would seem that putting cowshit, no matter in what quantities, on uncultivated land to turn it into ordinary pasture is unregulated, whereas putting even the smallest amount of cowshit on to land which is already as productive as can be expected for agricultural land of its type, does, at any rate in Lord Justice Brooke's opinion, and he's the one who counts. Makes you feel proud to be a member of the European Union, does it not? Still, Tim Jones will be happy. Or perhaps not - presuambly his land is cultivated already.

It would seem therefore that in fact this woman legally improved her land just in time to avoid CRoW. However I still think there was a court case in which the disturbing principle that if ground was illegally improved it should be considered for CRoW purposes in its improved state was established. Back to google....

jcm

In reply to timjones:

As an aside, do you have any advice on how to 'unimprove' a field of rye grass that's had shed loads of slurry spread on it?

In reply to Anonymous:

There's always the 'Alladale Ploy' - try turning your whole estate into a wildlife park.

In reply to gingerkate:

I think that's right, Kate, although not the exact words. Have a look at the Regulation as quoted by LJB.

I must say this decision, having read it, comes into the category I had in mind above, of clever judges doing stupid things. It is obvious to me, and would I think be obvious to most people, that when the draftsman said that the regulations applied to bringing uncultivated land into intensive agricultural use, he meant by that into ordinary agricultural use, and not into agricultural use which was more intensive than ordinary agricultural use.

jcm

In reply to Anonymous:
So she bought a run-down old farm, that hadn't been managed properly for decades and set about getting it going again, by improving the land. Is that a fair summary?
That sounds alright.

However, I get the feeling one would have to be local (really local) to know properly what is going on there.

In reply to Anonymous:
That bit I quoted should be the exact words (even including the bf!) as I copied it from the pdf of the government booklet that is the guidelines for farmers

In reply to gingerkate:

Sadly that doesn't quite figure. If the land had always been extensively managed, there just wouldn't be any ISIG species there and the case would be totally clear cut. To put it simply at some point in the not to recent past a previous owner must have cultivated and reseeded some or all of that field.

The problem is that in the rush to designate land into fixed categories common sense doesn't always prevail. We have land here that has been categorised by someone who has never visited the site an they are so totally wrong it defies belief.

In reply to Anonymous:

Looks like I was wrong - can't find any court case on the point about whether illegally improved land should be assessed in its illegally improved state. Hard to believe this point wasn't taken though - maybe my googling skills aren't up to scratch.

Kate, in reply to an earlier point the reason I can't take the landowner's stuff about liability seriously is that CRoW specifically provides that landowners have no liability in respect of land which is listed as open land. Her liabilities are less great if the land is listed than if it is not: she would still have liabilities to trespassers anyway.

She said to the inquiry that she intended to put 40 suckling cows on the land: is there any sign of these?

Can't find anything sensible on what exactly we would like the National Park to do. If Dave Turnbull is still following this, any chance of a link, Dave?

jcm

In reply to Anonymous:

Eh? Now I'm completely confused? I thought it was illegal? As in all those fines? Are we reading different things???

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC: Read National Parks news March?
http://www.dartmoor-npa.gov.uk/dnp/news/nr150305b.html

Stu

In reply to timjones:
I'm getting confuseder and confuseder! Now you're saying they didn't visit the land, but that link of John's shows they did, more than once?

In reply to timjones:

>If the land had always been extensively managed, there just wouldn't be any ISIG species there and the case would be totally clear cut.

Eh? Did you mean MMMH species? Surely management would be intended precisely to ensure Improved and semi-improved grassland species occurred?

With VT it was agreed nothing had been done from 1966 to 2003 (whether that was in fact the case or not).

Kate, yes, you're right about the words, basically. The Regulation itself says nothing about changing the use, but it is hard to see how it could apply without the use being changed.

jcm

jcm

In reply to gingerkate:

Kate, I think Tim is referring to his own land.

Ms Alford was convicted; she appealed and her appeal was upheld. The second link I posted is the Court of Appeal's decision upholding her appeal.

jcm

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:

Yes, but that speaks of a voluntary access agreement, not any compulsory procedure. They say they've traditionally used voluntary agreements, but it does rather suggest there is some compulsory process available. I'd like to know what that is.

jcm

In reply to Anonymous:
Still, Tim Jones will be happy. Or perhaps not - presuambly his land is cultivated already.

Hmmmph. If only it was so straightforward. There is a strong chance that the management requirements for semi-natural pasture (cultivated at some point in the past)could well lead them to deteriorate over the years. In which case I have a nasty suspicion they will be reclassified and subjected to even greater management restrictions. Too many green (in both senses of the word) graduate consultants with too little real life experience have to big a say in these things IMHO ;(

In reply to gingerkate:

No, she successfully appealed, that's the point.

When farmers got wind of the impending CRoW regulations, there was a certain amount of sudden spreading of, for instance, lime on previously 'unimproved' upland pasture in order (it was assumed) to avoid this land being included.

It was widely assumed that what Mrs Alford did at Vixen Tor came under this heading but it seems that it wasn't as clear as that and, on appeal, she was cleared.

In reply to Anonymous:


That's the other thing:
Tim: I thought poor land like that was always used for sheep. Where I grew up, the cows get teh pasture, the sheep get the moors. Except when the sheep come down from the moors of course. But what I mean is, the cows need the rich ground, they don't ever get put on the poor ground. So wasn't it a bit mad of her to be trying to put cows on this land even after manuring it??? Doesn't that suggest she's fibbing??? Surely a bit of manure won't improve ground that drastically that quickly that you can then raise cows not sheep???

In reply to timjones:
I guess that's one of the problems with receiving large subsidies from the taxpayer, farmers have to put up with the extra bureucracy and interference that this inevitably brings, often from people who don't know what they're talking about

In reply to Dave Garnett and John:
Well I apologise to the woman, here's me saying she's illegally improved her land and she was cleared. I suppose that comes of reading the initial case and then missing the reporting of the appeal.

In reply to Anonymous: When it was included on Right to Roam maps, it was contested by Mrs Alford because her insurers said she could be liable if anyone was injured while walking or climbing.

She used the Human Rights Act to attempt to deny walkers access, an argument upheld by planning inspectors.

But now Dartmoor National Park Authority will first ask Mr Alford to voluntarily allow access. If she refuses, it will impose an access order or carry out a compulsory purchase of the tor.

Nick Atkinson of park authority said he hoped that an arrangement could be reached.

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:
Oh no, so before all this blew up she was willing to talk. Oh dear.

In reply to gingerkate:

What gives you that impression?

In reply to Anonymous:


Yes I'm sure thats what I said. No intensive management= no significant % of ISIG species.


So presumably this means that something was done pre 1966 and if the last owner was there for 30 odd years its just one owner who didn't do anything to maintain the grazing during his occupation therefore allowing a deterioration in grazing quality. I find it bizarre that it is presumed by any indivdual or organisation that the "neglect" of one owner places an obligation on themselves or a subsequent purchaser to continue in the same way for evermore. Its a bit like saying miss one service on your car and you can never ever get it serviced again. Before anyone makes the inevitable comment, bear in mind that grassland is as valuable a "tool" to a livestock farmer as a car is to a travelling salesman.

Regards

Tim Jones

In reply to Simon Caldwell:
Oops, just deleted as I meant Stu's link, it says:
"Accordingly, Members instructed the Chief Executive (National Park Officer) to discuss with the owners, the circumstances under which they might agree to public access being permitted and the owners have since indicated that they are willing to talk."

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:

>When it was included on Right to Roam maps, it was contested by Mrs Alford because her insurers said she could be liable if anyone was injured while walking or climbing.

It's that statement I find simply impossible to believe. AIUI inclusion on the RTR map would provide precisely a statutory exemption to any such liability. Even if her solicitor didn't know her insurers would. And in any event any solicitor worth his salt (few of them, in other words) would also have told her that she still has more or less the same liabilities to trespassers anyway, and that the way to avoid this (largely imaginary anyway) liability is warning notices not doomed attempts to restrict access.

jcm

In reply to gingerkate:

From the photos I have seen of Vixen Tor both before nad after this "improvement" it would support cows easily. Maybe not as many as soft lowland dairy grazing, but with the right stocking level it should be OK. I also believe they would produce better tasting meat than those fed on a far more modern highly intensive ryegrass/clover sward as used for dairy farming.

Regards

Tim Jones

In reply to timjones:

>I find it bizarre that it is presumed by any indivdual or organisation that the "neglect" of one owner places an obligation on themselves or a subsequent purchaser to continue in the same way for evermore.

Come now, Tim, that's rubbish. No-one's saying she shouldn't be able to improve the land, only that she shouldn't be able to keep the public off it. Farmers regarding these as synonymous was the evil the Act was intended to stop.

jcm

In reply to timjones:

>> >If the land had always been extensively managed, there just wouldn't be any ISIG species there and the case would be totally clear cut.


Yes I'm sure thats what I said. No intensive management= no significant % of ISIG species.

Hmm. I think 'extensive' must have some technical meaning I'm not aware of. I take it to mean the same as 'intensive' in this context. No?

jcm

In reply to timjones:
It does sound a bit daft, this law. You can see what they're trying to do ... they're presumably trying to stop wild land getting turned into farmland... but like you say, it's mad if just because one farmer neglects to manage the land any subsequent farmer there is at risk of litigation when s/he does.

In reply to gingerkate:

They're not at any risk of litigation at all if they just go to DEFRA and ask permission. Ms A didn't do that because she was afraid that DEFRA would think her operations were going to damage the environment (presumably).

jcm

In reply to Anonymous:
OK, but I do see Tim's pov, I'm damned if I'd want to go and ask permission before I spread some cow muck on a field that had poor grass because no-one had spread muck for yonks.

In reply to Anonymous:

This was the reason stated when the land was first closed in 2003 IIRC?

This would have been at the time before an exemption from liability by the owners was negotiated into CROW. It was a very major concern at the time and being highlighted quite strongly as a major stumbling block to the passing of the legislation.

It is just very sad that since then things have gone downhill in this case. Views on both sides have become somewhat entrenched. I suspect that the prosecution over illegal improvement and subsequent cries of foul over CROW exemption didn't help make things easier or better. It is quite easy to see how a fluke set of misunderstsndings and clashes may have added up to cause the current state of affairs.

When things get so difficult it is always hard to negotiate a way back and patience is required on all quarters until agreement is reached. The events of last weekend are very sad for all concerned and should regretted by cmapaigners both camps rather than used as some sort of sick weopon to further either cause IMHO.

Regards

Tim Jones

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC: It was all a red herring I think?

Vixen Tor Cottage (1554)

Rent Band M | Accommodates 6 + cot | 3.9 miles E of Tavistock

Forget the hustle and bustle of summer, dismiss thoughts of crowded beaches – this is a true get-away-from-it-all cottage. Approached by a narrow mile long bumpy track (unsuitable for low suspension vehicles), including negotiating two gates, this unusual property is perched up on Dartmoor, just below the eponymous Vixen Tor. Park on the grassy banks outside and follow the beech-lined path to this peaceful haven. Outside is nature at its most unspoilt but inside, the cottage is warm and welcoming with slate floors throughout the ground floor. The sitting-room and dining-room have wood-burners, as well as an oil-fired Rayburn in the kitchen. There are one or two low lintels, steps up and down and the stairs are very steep and narrow. Upstairs are three bedrooms and a large family bathroom. Outside, is a wild natural garden (please take care with children around the stream), and the views are wonderful. So, stock up on provisions and bring your walking boots and binoculars to enjoy a marvellous holiday. The water is from a private supply, which is tested regularly, and due to location the television reception is practically non-existent. Please note that the changeover times are 6pm on arrival and 1pm on departure.

In reply to timjones:
It's quite possible to keep cows on the land and at the same time allow climbing, isn't it? Seems to work at Almscliff at any rate.

In reply to timjones:
Ok, right. And even if there are no cows there now, one can hardly conclude that means she was defo fibbing, because having been nearly fined over manuring the land once she might well have changed her plan to rear cattle.

In reply to Anonymous:

The other very likely possibilty is that a busy farmer could very easily have been unaware of the very recent legislation or made an incorrect judgement of its application to any given field.

Regards

Tim Jones

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

I should think so, as long as your belayer isn't easily distracted by a sloppy wet tongue in their ear

In reply to gingerkate:

I wouldn't like the idea either, but I might be able to cope by thinking of the large subsidy cheque due at the end of the month. I'm sympathetic towards farmers, but also help keep them in business through my taxes.

In reply to timjones:
Well I go back to my earlier comment that perhaps what we should be doing is approaching difficult landowners with chocs and flowers instead of all this belligerance that seems to generally get us precisely nowhere.

Anyway, got to go! Enjoy rest of teh thread you lot, it has been really interesting and really informative, thanks Tim and thanks to John and others who posted such intense (LOL) links

In reply to gingerkate:
Yes, it could all be a dreadful misunderstanding, and given the chance she might have been willing to talk.
Though that wouldn't really explain the 'keep out' notices and barbed wire fences...

In reply to gingerkate:

Well, that's his point of view. Andy Robinson's point of view is that it'd be nice to check whether there's a public water source nearby first.

I dare say it really turns on how flexible and quick the approval procedure is, and I'm guessing maybe not very.....

jcm

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:

It couldn't be that this lady thinks she can charge more rent for this cottage if the proles can't spoil the view, by any chance?

jcm

In reply to Anonymous:


I suspect in this case, extensive means the opposite of intensive, common to talk about extensive farming vs intensive farming esp for stock rearing - the later with high stocking rates, large inputs & high outputs, the former low stocking rates, low inputs & lower outputs.

And Kate - its only modern breeds of cow that are so delicate they need good pasture, the traditional breeds used to live out on the hill & moor.

In reply to Anonymous:

Maybe worth contacting the letting agency and suggesting they might be in line for some negative publicity or a boycott unless they remove her cottage from their books.

In reply to timjones:


But a hand around the throat and a knife to the rope may just do the trick...

I see the ramblers have already had their peaceful protest:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/3361143.stm

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Well a spiteful kneejerk reaction might help, but its more likely to cause further harm. Its quite probable that the situation wouldn't be quite so bad now if someone hadn't tried to sort things out by reporting the owner for "improving" the land.

Also bear in mind that I have yet to see any indication of who owns the cottage. Is it really owned by the farmer or was it sold seperately to the rest of the property?

BTW whether I speak as a farmer or climber/walker, I see no glory or honour in being a petty little telltale.

Regards

Tim Jones

In reply to Anonymous: And EU grants for livestock (non)?

Stu

In reply to timjones:

Highly improbable I'd have though, as that happened after the fences were put up and the 'keep out' signs painted.


I've never understood why some people consider it a bad thing to report it when you believe a crime has been committed.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

No but as already explained the confusion over owners liability early on in the setting up of CROW would more than explain it. There were halfwit, lawyers and consultants all over the place giving out dud advice. Don't worry about the farmers, the "professionals" will be the end of us all

It may also be worth noting that if the liability of owners hadn't been specifically dealt with in the CROW actthe robbing lawyers would have been pretty quick to capitalise on it.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

And you honestly think the person who reported it wasn't merely playing tit for tat?


Its normal practice to report it to the police as opposed to local letting agents. We all know that the original incident was reported to the Police, this seems to be part of an unseemly proposition to run around effectively spreading gossip about it.

In reply to timjones:
Planet Earth calling timjones - is anyone there ?

It's fairly obvious that the "improvement" of the land was a deliberate attempt to avoid classification under CROW and thereby deny access. This is the sort of unreasonable farmer who gives the rest of you a bad name.


Maybe I should have made myself clearer. I do not suggest that anyone from this forum should contact the letting agency. However applying economic pressure is one good and peaceful method to use against the farmer. If they do own the cottage, then a threat of a boycott by climbers and ramblers might work. How is it spiteful to refuse to so buisness with someone who despises you ?

In reply to timjones:

>It may also be worth noting that if the liability of owners hadn't been specifically dealt with in the CROW actthe robbing lawyers would have been pretty quick to capitalise on it.

Oh come on man, You were just beginning to make me think not all farmers were tw*ts and then you go and say something like that.

How many negligence cases were brought by climbers against landowners in the 100 years before CRoW came into existence?

jcm

In reply to timjones: they weren't halfwits just insurance companies trying to make a fast buck

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

if you rent the cottage, are you allowed to climb at the Tor ?

People will be gathering at Vixen Tor on Sat 24th Sept to
highlight the situation whereby land can be purchased then
effectively annexed denying its use to those who have
enjoyed it for years.This same land has been damaged by
the "owners" in their efforts to keep this land for their
own selfish use, [whatever that may be ]. One can only
wonder at the mind set of people who are willing to hurt
others and put them in danger in order to have a piece of
land all to themselves. I think it is also worth gathering
to point out the stupidity of legislation that allows this
sort of land grabbing to happen. So, if you wish to join
us in a peacefull demonstration at Vixen please do. It is
extremely important that we stay on the right side of the
law [which is not clear]. In view of the previous
behaviour of the owner[s] I have asked the police to be
present, press and TV will also be there. We may not
immediately change anything but personaly I feel that we
cannot let a situation such as happened last Monday go
without making a strong but peacefull statement. Meet at
10 am. Bring a picnic and all the kids !

In reply to Anonymous:




And how many instances of lawyers advertising for negligence cases have you seen.

I can just imagine the adverts in Climb.



Have you slipped over on cows*%t whilst enjoying the great outdoors?

Call 0800 CLAIM NOW to find out how we could help you claim up to £X,000 on a no win no fee basis.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Planet Earth callign Chris the Tall.

How do you reach the conclusion that this is so obvious?


Ah then that'll be why you said.

"Maybe worth contacting the letting agency and suggesting they might be in line for some negative publicity or a boycott unless they remove her cottage from their books."

It seems pretty clear to me, that you were suggesting getting in touch with the agency and attempting to balckmail them into taking this cottage off their books.

Firstly I want to climb on the Tor as much as anyone.

So there's an awful incident with an assault and a rope getting cut and the police are handling that.
They might be vicious gits, or someone might have been 3 feet up, as other people have said we can't speculate - the police are going to decide anyway so it's pointless to do so. Maybe, just maybe (this is pushing the boat out here) they were, or at least she was, scared, over reacted and probably feel ashamed once they found out the danger they placed someone in. I will speculate that there was a bit of `heat of the moment'. I don't think that was the case but they could make it look like that.


Now we're having a protest all of a sudden.

There may or may not be a process underway to enforce an access order, and/or/if not that then a compulsory purchase.
I didn't know that before the incident.
I was under the inmpression that after the CROW mapping, muck spreading, conviction and appeal it was now all down to the national park who thought they didn't dazzle us with their efficiency in the mapping exercise or the courts might nonetheless want to try other things for a while.

Is this protest going to help the national park or make an access order/compulsory purchase more likely? If we'd exhausted all hope through that channel I'd be up for climbing the E1 and camping out on the Tor.

It'll be billed that way but is the protest really about access? Does it remotely look like a knee jerk reaction to the incident anyone else? If it is to go ahead I would hope a wide range of normal looking people turn up, and not just Bristolians with comedy haircuts and piercings.
This is just my personal opinion but I think banner wavers and slogan chanters look like dicks. It might rain (very very lightly) I'd like people to sit around the Tor anyway and get a brew on, offering a cup of tea to Mrs Alford if she turns up. I hope (for their sake) Chris Bonnington turns up (he's climbed the E1 with a nice guy who owns a sort of farm thing who gave us water once).

Final theory: Someone's seemingly facetious question: 'can you climb if you stay at the guest house?' is actually relevant. Maybe Mrs Alford's insurers were worried about her liability towards her guests if they wander over to the `dangerous' rocks she thinks she owns. 'Enter at own risk' signs never seemed any more valid than `trespassers will be prosecuted', especially towards children (who are mentioned in the advert). Banning everyone is a simple solution.

In reply to timjones:
Blackmail is such an ugly word. Would you characterise all customer boycotts as blackmail? I regard it as part and parcel of the consumer world we live in. In fact I'd say that excercise of consumer pressure has more effect than the ballot box these days.

However I would make it clear that such an approach should be made by the pressure groups - namely the BMC and the Ramblers - rather than by some individual.

In reply to timjones:

Sorry, your responses on here seem to be coming across as Tim but dim, maybe you are not seeing it from a balanced point of view due to your job.

I neither know what the climbing is like or even care that much as it is not on my patch but have met some pretty nasty farmers and gamekeepers in my time, most have eventually been talked round. Those that have not have usually lost the use of their land for sole use, even the Bowland Moors are open now after years of keeper dodging. That was generally treated as a game, the keepers did their job, usually with no real will as most people did no damage, the same as at Vixen tor pre the change of ownership. Vixen Tor will eventually be taken over for public use, pity the owner does not allow people on it and keep its ownership rather than lose it as moorland, it will not be classed as agricultural land as nothing has been gown on it or kept on it for years.

Hope you can see this as I do. We all have to live on this small bit of land so let's get on together.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I think it would be pretty fair toclassify them as a form of blackmail. It is after all an attempt to obation a desired result with threats.

Perhaps you would also like to answer my question asking how you see it as so obvious that the spreading of manure and seaweed was undertaken to gain an exclusion from CROW. I can assure you that there are far more effective and indeed less obvious ways of achieving this.

In reply to Paz:


I wasnt being facetious but wondered what Mrs A attitude would be if you had booked into the cottage or tried to book the cottage and asked if you were allowed to climb ?

In reply to timjones:


The timing is a bit of a coincidence. I don't know which piece of land their holiday cottage advert specifically refers to but innocently improving the land for agriculture seems to contradict their claims of unspoilt wilderness

You're knowledgeable but do you know the site?

In reply to Paz:

I don't thing the the 'protest' will achive anything (positive) in this instance, particularly if it isn't associated with other 'users' of the area.

In reply to Kipper:

Well apart from people being able to say they did something or stood up and were counted I think some recent protests that involved millions of people didn't achieve anything.

I'm worried a bit about this one, and though Steve's exact choice of words doesn't really reassure me it's only about access, the spirit of it seems great.

My concern is more: we've been gagging for a Vixen Tor mass trespass for ages (that's one of the few interesting things I've heard mentioned (off the record) at BMC meetings), yet we've been told the national park are handling it. So why, really why, are we having one now, just after the incident? Or at least since we're going to have one now anyway, let's make damned sure they know it's about access we'd still be entitled to even if the incident had never occurred. Why won't it look to them like everyone's just getting back at them?

In reply to Paz:

It would appear that they spread the manure at the correct time of year in the first year after they bought the land. Co-icidnce or not there are very vaild reasons for why it happened when it di before we even come to consider the possibility that it was done to thwart CROW.

>I don't know which piece of land their holiday cottage advert specifically refers to but innocently improving the land for agriculture seems to contradict their claims of unspoilt wilderness


As I have stated before I haven't visited the site, but it is somewhat apparent that there are a lot of perfectly valid less sinister reasons for the improvement beyond the "obvious" conclusuion that many people seem to have jumped to.

In reply to sutty:

Cheers pal. Can i assume that seeing as you can't see it from my point of view that you are as thick as two short planks

In reply to timjones:

Not thick, and not myopic either, unlike you ATM.

In reply to sutty:

Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain why you believe this?

In reply to timjones:

You seem to not see that what she did was wrong in principle, and if it had been a sensible judge in law.

Unfortunately some judges are afraid of making case law but go by the book, to the comma in one case I was involved in. Two barristers and a judge all argued about the meaning of a RTA and the comma in between two words could change the meaning of everything. Eventually the judge ruled his own way, it was 4.30 on a Friday.

In reply to timjones:
I think one of the points that Steve makes is important aside from the issue of whether than land has been altered which seems in question. The land appears to have been free for public use for many years prior to the occupation by this new landowner. Is it fair that this should now be removed. I think that the protest is fundamentally about this even though recent events have clearly proved a catalyst for this.
I am not sure whether public access for climbing would endanger the livelihood of the owner but surely issues such as these are covered by land law.

This link is to BBC News on the internet and from this page there are links to 4 other previous reports:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/3551776.stm

- There doesn't seem to be any report about the most recent incident(s)

In reply to Billy De Kid:

I think that it is clear that my belief is that in the case of what is in effect enlcosed land or as in this case enlosed land that has been neglected it should not be possible for the owner to be prevented from using "natural" inputs such as manure for management purposes. Obviously in very rare cases where there are plants of VERY high value (a difficult line to draw) there can be a case for some form of restriction. This should IMO be negotiated not statutory.


Fair is a tricky concept in terms of access to what is in essence private property. Different sides may have very different views.

I think it would be unjust to create a precedent whereby the fact that a previous owner has allowed access creates an obligation on subsequent owners. Especially if as appears to be the case here it is quite possible that the access was by neglect of the walls/fences and there was no actual agreement or intention to allow access. This point is speculative on my part it may not apply here, but there will be cases where it does. There is also I guess a distinction between linear paths where people pass through and access to carry out activities such as climbing for a period of time.

I do however believe that in this instance there is a strong argument for access to the Tor. IMO there is no statutory means of enforcing this so it would need to be voluntary or maybe part of the new HLS environmental scheme. This case is as far as I can see in a very grey area under the current law, there has to be a line somewhere and I don't feel the current line is far wrong. Sadly there will always be cases right on any delineation.

There is also a question as to whether if this land had become access land would CROW have placed management restrictions on the owner. I would have thought that in the case of land that is enclosed as this is there should be no management restriction by CROW, the rules covering EIAs already cover this, so why duplicate it?


A peaceful and legal protest in effect requesting access could in many cases be a good thing. The tining of this one may well be a bit unfortunate.


Provided it didn't become horrendously busy there should be no issues IMO. If I owned such a feature, I would most likely tend to alow access with a closure for say a week each year to avoid creating any long term obligations. In the case of enclosed land I would tend to avoid and even contest anything that created any permanent legal obligations or management restrictions on the land.

Sorry for the long post, trying to explain my personal views as both a walker/climber and farmer. I hope it is clear that I am not an myopic ogre or "fascist land-owner" as some have suggested, I favour access where there is a need or demand, but there is IMO no need or reason for access for everyone, everywhere, all of the time or for the access to place undue restrictions on normal land management.

Regards

Tim Jones

To timjones: Tim I’ve enjoyed reading your contributions to the thread and I'm glad you've stuck at it despite some of the stick you've been getting as it adds balance and has been informative. My knowledge of this area is very sketchy and I would be glad if you could explain the meaning of the following acronyms IMO, HLS, EIA, ISIG species, MMMH species - they've all been used in and around your postings.

Ta

Ian

Just came across this letter on the web:
"... one of the pro-access organisations arrayed against the Vixen Tor Land owner, is the British Mountaineerng Council. A Council some of who's members have deliberately damaged (and are still damaging) SSIs (Sites if Special Scientific Interest)' by drilling and fixing expansion bolts, against the wishes of the vast majority of British climbers, natural (unquarried rock) from Lands End to the Highlands of Scotland. Why, would any right-minded land owner want to give access to such climbers? Yes, freedom to roam means - to anyone. The freedom-to-roam Act is a joke. That an 'Access and Con-servation' Officer from the British Mountaineering Council is attending the public inquiry to fighting against Mrs Alford (Vixen Tor owner), is an even bigger joke."

Of course climbers also cause damage with chalk, wire brushes, pof, rope abrasion, excessive force to remove 'stuck' gear and of course they tend to defecate without consideration, cause noise pollution, leave litter indiscriminately, park their cars without enough consideration and some even damage the rock by 'dry-tooling'...

In reply to Sunny:
Browsing the web, the guy who posted that (Dennis Morrod) seems to be one of the most extreme "anti-bolt" people going, and prone to ignoring any evidence contrary to his opinions. Pity the BBC didn't actually check for some counterpoints before posting it. The guy seems to be good at self-publicity.

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC: I think this is really an access issue, for all. Bolting is another thing.

Stu

In reply to gbuchanan:


Are you refering to this chap: http://www.communities.ninemsn.com.au/SafetyInformationforMountainClients/h... ? He sounds like he's a few wires short of a full rack ...

In reply to sutty:


Why exactly do you believe it is "wrong in principle" whose principles are we talking about and which of her perfectly valid and legal actions are the problem? From an agricultural point of view it is very fortunate that common sense has prevailed over the land improvement side of things, it may just possibly have a knock on effect for access but we quite simply can't afford to manage our farm businesses solely for the benefit of those who seek recreation in the coutryside.


And what case law do you think he should have made, a farmermay farm as he pleases unless it offends the RA or the BMC?

In reply to tobyfk:
Ah Dennis, who for reasons unknown seems to have a hatred of the BMC & the British Guides Association but can't answer questions about his own buisness

In reply to Ian Dring:

IMO In my opinion.

HLS Higher Level Stewardship. A new scheme offering a range of payments for environmental work to meet defined local landscape targets. Apparently there are options that make payments for access.

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment. You should carry one of these out to assess the impact of farming operations on grassland of high environmental worth.

ISIG species Improved and semi improved grassland species are indicative of land that has been improved and maybe cultivated in the recent past.

MMHD Mountain, Moor, Hill and Down

In reply to timjones:

Thanks for the explanation

Ian

In reply to carl:
jesus man how big is your garden?

In reply to Steve Findlay:

hope the peaceful protest goes well. anyone who's not sure about the situation here should go and see vixen tor, and its location, for themselves: http://tinyurl.com/75mg4

it is on the moor, sheep and ponies wander around most of the time, but it's not farmland as such, at all.

there seems to be little doubt that the land improvement was done deliberately ahead of the CRoW act coming in, in an attempt to prevent open access by claiming that the land was being farmed. it's 'unfortunate' that the appeal against the conviction was successful as it was surely against the spirit and the word of CRoW (not that I know it well). it sets a bad precedent.

In reply to timjones:

>And how many instances of lawyers advertising for negligence cases have you seen.

Lawyers advertising for negligence cases against landowners in respect of open land? None. How many have you seen?

>I can just imagine the adverts in Climb.

You can imagine what you like. But they're not actually there, are they?

jcm

In reply to Paz:

>Final theory: Someone's seemingly facetious question: 'can you climb if you stay at the guest house?' is actually relevant. Maybe Mrs Alford's insurers were worried about her liability towards her guests if they wander over to the `dangerous' rocks she thinks she owns. 'Enter at own risk' signs never seemed any more valid than `trespassers will be prosecuted', especially towards children (who are mentioned in the advert). Banning everyone is a simple solution.

Nonsense. There is still a liability towards trespassers. Most cases in this area involve trespassers.

On the other hand, were this area to be designated open land under CRoW, there would no longer be any potential liability at all. Liability concerns by this stage are simply a lie and a smokescreen. There are no other words to describe it.

jcm

In reply to Anonymous:


That seems to me to be the exact opposite of what the regulations are supposed to be achieving, if their intention was to preserve specific habitats and species. If, as seems to me, the judge has made a perverse decision, is there any higher court that DEFRA can appeal to?

In reply to Martin W:

This was the Court of Appeal, so the House of Lords. If they can satisfy either the CA or the HL that it is a point of general public importance, which I would have thought they might be able to, as long as they think they've a decent chance of winning and deem it worth the expense. No particular sign of them doing that, though.

jcm

In reply to Martin W:

how do you prove it was spread by the farmer, cows shit on the ground?

cow nappys anyone?

In reply to Jon Greengrass:

I can see you've never seen a muckspreader fired in anger.

jcm

In reply to Anonymous:

Mate of mine in a hurry once made the mistake of tooting at a tractor towing a muckspreader in front of him!

In reply to Anonymous:

If as I suspect your meaning of "a point of general public importance" relates to access, I find your thinking quite extraordinary. The conviction that was overturned was under the EIA regulations and access is under the CROW act, these are 2 entirely seperate areas of law. Are you suggesting that because of the existance of the CROW act that the EIA regulations should be interpreted more strictly on land where access may become an issue?

In reply to timjones:

No, not at all, I meant the proper application of the EIA regulations. I would have thought the circumstances in which these should properly apply was undoubtedly a matter of general public importance, since all farmers need to know, and since (presumably) DEFRA believe they were intended to operate differently from how the Court of Appeal has seen them on this occasion.

jcm

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC: As a point of interest I dropped into the National Park information Centre at Princetown yesterday and had a chat with the wardens about the situation at Vixen Tor. (This is a couple of miles as the crow flies from Vixen Tor). They told me as far as they were aware the National Park was trying to reach a negotiated access agreement with the owner and they were unaware of any moves for a compulsory purchase order or compulsory access order. They were aware of the incident involving the rope cutting , but didn't particularly want to discuss it. They did stress that if there were moves for legal action then it may be possible that 'head office' had plans, but it hadn't filtered down to the rank and file Park staff. Another interesting comment they made was that although loss of access to Vixen Tor was a shame, from a walker’s point of view it wasn't a significant loss - this part of the Moor is mainly access land and walkers can approach to within 250m of the Tor. They were unaware of the loss to the climbing community so I put them right on that one. I guess climbers are a minority user of the Moor so our lobbying power isn't particularly great. I discussed the protest and asked what they thought – they didn't really put forward a strong opinion either way, but suggested that as far as a negotiated settlement goes it might put things back. I would suggest that protest organisers consult the National Park to see where their up to. The overall impression I was left with and this is my personal impression is that there isn't a lot of energy around to solve this problem. On Dartmoor there have been access gains and the access rights for the majority of users have been protected. The new OS maps are now out and Vixen Tor is not included in the access area.

In reply to Anonymous:

As with much of my employers legislation EIA is not joined-up enough or well thought through - to be seen to be setting-up a measure is action enough it seems.

In reply to Ian Dring:
"but suggested that as far as a negotiated settlement goes it might put things back. I would suggest that protest organisers consult the National Park to see where their up to. The overall impression I was left with and this is my personal impression is that there isn't a lot of energy around to solve this problem"

Good effort in talking to the NP. I was hoping Steve'd talk to the NP too, but from your impression there does't seem to be much point.


In reply to jcm:

OK she's not going to get rid of her liability towards trespassers unless she gives access undeer CRoW, if you say so.

But isn't there no stronger liability or any sort of liability towards customers of her adjacent holiday cottage? What do you think about the protest anyway. They're getting positive press coverage:

http://www.westpress.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=145809&command=displa...
http://www.westpress.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=145809&command=displa...
http://www.westpress.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=145809&command=displa...
(This was on the front page yesterday - "Battle Of The Rock")
She comes across as a totally reasonable person who's completely ready to negotiate... not.

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

Update on the situation in todays Evening Herald.

http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=133464&command=d...

"Two Tavistock men are facing criminal charges after one of Dartmoor's most famous landmarks has again triggered a court case. A 31-year-old man has been charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm after he allegedly assaulted a teenager climbing on Vixen Tor, near Tavistock

A second man, aged 57, also from Tavistock, has been charged with criminal damage after allegedly cutting some climbing ropes during the alleged altercation on September 12."

In reply to phil webber: interesting that it's 'only' criminal damage to the ropes and nothing to do with the potential consequences of those ropes being cut if the climber had fallen off...

In reply to Ian Hill:

Has anyone found out what those consequences would have been yet?

Mark

In reply to Anonymous:
Chris managed to tie into some fairly dodgy gear. He was 20 feet plus up an E4 6a.

The local TV people have promised to cover the event so everyone who turns up has a chance to gets their 15 minutes of fame.

Details:

There will be a protest held at Vixen Tor (near Merrivale on the A384, grid reference 542 743) from 10am on Saturday 24th September 2005.

All users of the moor are invited to meet at the nearby car park and make their feelings known in a peaceful, legal protest.

In reply to Haggis:

Is there no official plan to trespass?

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC: Seeing as the police are only bothered by the damage to the poor climber's ropes and belayer, are there any plans for the BMC to push for a charge of attempted murder for this outrage?

In reply to balmybaldwin: If you bother to read the thread above, you'll see that the BMC have no right to do that under the current legal system.

In reply to Paz: The official plan is to go to Vixen Tor and protest. I'm not sure of the legalities of incitement to trespass so I will not be encouraging anyone to do so.

The police have been made aware that some people will want to get onto the land. Apparently there is no problem with this. however, trespassers must leave the property if asked to though and must not prevent the landowner from going about her lawful business.

There will be a police presence there but they are there to enforce the law, not act as legal advisers.

Anyone who wishes to trespass (I think that will be most of th attendees) should do so of their own volition and be prepared to leave in a timely and safe manner if asked to. If they happen to be climbing at the time, I think it would be entirely appropriate for the leader to finish the route before departing.

Extra care should be taken to prevent any damage occuring to the property. Please take all your litter away with you etc. etc.

In other words everyone should be on their best behaviour throughout the protest so we can make our feelings known peacefully and legally.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

There has to be intent to kill or cause serious injury for a conviction of murder. Without intent it is manslaughter, but AFAIK there is no such thing as "attempted manslaughter".

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC: "Vixen Tor protest update (20 September 2005) Despite widespread and justified condemnation within the climbing community of the alleged assault at Vixen Tor, and of course much bad feeling caused by a situation where one of the South West's best crags has been lost it is possible that the proposed protest this weekend (and last week's incident) will do the access situation more harm than good.

Following a successful appeal by the Vixen Tor landowner, Mrs Mary Alford, against the opening of Vixen Tor under the CROW act, the Dartmoor National Park have continued negotiations to regain an access arrangement. The current owner has already made it clear that she is not willing to listen to The BMC, The Dartmoor Preservation Society, The Ramblers Association or the general local population. She is well aware that people are not happy about her closing of the land. It is likely that recent events and this weekends proposed protest will only serve to exacerbate an already bad situation. They will not assist in the National Park's negotiations and not do the relationship between climbers and the National Park any good. Furthermore, if recent events do worsen the access situation there is a risk that climbers could get the blame ..."
this on www.javu.co.uk (dartmoor bouldering website)

In reply to wiwwim: You could say, she will never allow you to go on the Tor again anyway, like Forwen in Wales, lost to climbers forever, so whats there loose.

NAT PARKS to comp purchase, I hope everyones sake, ramblers, climbers, locals etc, if she wins this, will this happen all over the country?

Stu

In reply to wiwwim:

so hard to see how any protest could make things worse

In reply to wiwwim:

Is that Dave Henderson's personal view? If so, and if that reflects consensus local opinion, perhaps the protest organisers should reconsider?

In reply to tobyfk:

>Is that Dave Henderson's personal view? If so, and if that reflects consensus local opinion, perhaps the protest organisers should reconsider?

The harm that a protest may or may not do really depends on the current status of negotiations between the NP and the Landowner. If this is still active, then a protest may do more harm than good (One of the organisers needs to pick up the phone and speak to the NP, if they already haven’t done this)- if there is not much going on then there may be not too much harm done. Speaking as someone who is local to the area (I live in the South Hams) I would not support a protest at this time as it seems to me to be a knee jerk reaction to the rope cutting incident. Unless somebody could convince me that the climbers didn't incite the incident in anyway then I just couldn't support a protest at this time. However if the NP have given up on trying to regain access I would support a protest sometime in the future.

Vixen Tor Protest - BMC Position

Following the alleged assault on 12 September, local climbers are organising a peaceful protest at the Tor this coming Saturday (24 Sept). All users of the moor have been invited to assemble at the parking area at 10am to make their feelings known. The protest is expected to last a couple of hours, after which there is a plan to walk and climb on the more accessible parts of Dartmoor. A good turnout is expected, and it is essential that the protest is peaceful. The police have been informed and will be present, along with local press and TV.

Whilst this is not a formal BMC protest, the BMC acknowledges the concerns of climbers and walkers and supports their desire to publicly express their views in a peaceful manner. It should be recognised that Dartmoor National Park Authority is still in discussion with the landowners to try to reach an agreement over access - climbers and walkers are therefore urged to avoid any actions which might jeopardise these discussions.

Dave Turnbull
BMC CEO

In reply to wiwwim:
I do believe that in view of the assault (alleged) that a peaceful NON ABUSIVE protest is in order. It is only because of the Kinder Trespass on the 50's that we are allowed on to these areas at all.

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:


Sorry to be pedantic but as I understand it, a climber from Bristol is organising a protest. It appears from the content on this thread and javu.co.uk that actual 'local' climbers might not be in favour?

I should say that my instinctive response when I first heard of the rope-cutting incident was that a protest was highly appropriate, and would hopefully be joined by climbers from all over the country. However, if locals don't endorse it, that's a serious issue.

In reply to tobyfk:
I can't see how Bristol is not local to Dartmoor. I live in Bristol and I climb more on Dartmoor than in the Avon Gorge or the Wye Valley. It takes about an hour and a half to get to the majority of the Dartmoor crags from central Bristol (without breaking the speed limit).

In reply to Haggis: we've found things like this before...the 'locals' seem to have problems accepting that anyone who lives more than 5 miles away from the centre of the moor could consider themselves at all local...

we've met people who've asked where we're from and on hearing 'Bristol' have said, 'ah, you're not local then'...

you're not from round 'ere are you....

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

The news piece on www.javu.co.uk was my personal opinion. Local climbers that I have spoken with seem to be in agreement, although I have not spoken to many so this may very well not represent a consensus of local views!

As Ian Dring suggested, the potential damage a protest will do depends on how negotiations are going between the NP and the Landowner. An email from the NP stated:

"The National Park Authority is in discussion with the owners with a view to securing access by agreement. I do not imagine that last week's very unfortunate incident, or any proposed protest, will serve to assist our discussions."

Regrettably the NP were only informed about the protest on Tuesday by which time it was too late to delay or revise plans for any protest.

I feel that future access to the tor will only be gained through the NP or a change in legislation. Perhaps the most effective way to expediate this would be to get together a petition of some sort to present to the NP so they know how important Vixen Tor is to climbers and possibly to write to an MP?

I also feel that the causing of friction between the NP and climbers will not serve the interests of climbers in the long term.

Dave Henderson

In reply to Haggis: I live a little considerably closer to Dartmoor than Bristol but I wouldn't say that this should give me a greater voice of what approach should be taken to this issue than yourself.

In reply to Ian Dring:

Actually, in my humble, opinion this is an issue of national importance and is not a local issue.

In reply to JimR: Yes I agree with you it is a national issue, with the caveat that locals such as Dave Henderson have a reasonable feel for how the NP might react to a protest and hence his view is well worth considering.

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC
Steve Marriott & Nigel Coe both recently e-mailed me details of the proposed protest. I first climbed on Vixen Tor in 1960, 45 years ago, and I have thought about attending the proposed trespass but I'm not convinced whether this form of protest is appropriate in the context of the wider negotiations being undertaken by The National Park Service, The Dartmoor Preservation Society, The Ramblers Association, The British Mountaineering Council and other representative bodies. An impromptu response to the recent rope cutting incident, prior to trial of the accused, could weaken the case for climbers.

Perhaps a more subtle satirical approach should be adopted. I picked up this link about Vixana, the Witch of Vixen Tor - perhaps Mrs Mary Alford can be satirically portrayed as the re-incarnation of Vixana? In particular the line that "She hated people and loved to make them suffer if she got the chance"?

http://www.walkingdartmoor.co.uk/vixana.asp

In reply to Frank Cannings:

I'm only aware of National Parks being involved in negotiations.

The Ramblers have already held a mass trespass at Vixen Tor (in January).

I think Dave's suggestion of a petition is agood to idea, but as a follow-up to the protest on Saturday.

In reply to Frank Cannings: If Mrs Alford is Vixana, who's going to take the part of the young man who had done a great service to the pixies?

In reply to Haggis

All the organisations mentioned need to compose a unified response. In the case of us climbers it is for the BMC to communicate and co-ordinate with the other organistaions with interest in the Moor. Vixen Tor is not the garden of Mrs Mary Alfords house and she is not a celebrity as Madonna can claim. We can, I believe, portray her as Vixana and I expect she will recognise the likeness.

In reply to Ian Dring:
Ian, I guess it has to be Haggis!

In reply to Frank Cannings: Hi Frank, hope things are well ?

Going to be climbing at haytor on saturday with a mate, we may pop our heads in and have a look at this protest. I dont fancy spending anight in cell (dartmoor !?!?) so wont be getting ovwer excited - ill be stood right behind haggis offering helpfull tips, my mate may also be offering body guard services to belayers.

Dave

In reply to Frank Cannings: Frank yes - he seems to have the gift of clear sight

In reply to Dave Frost:
Hello Dave
You must take or limit the risks as you wish. The longer term issues do merit standing up for what one believes in. Spending a night in Dartmoor Prison may be a worthwhile experience? Enjoy your climbing.

In reply to Ian Dring:

But can he put on the ring and become invisible?

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

At the risk of showing off, some of you may like to see these (top four pics) http://www.ukclimbing.com/photos/author.html?id=10984

Frank Cannings - it's good to see you still around, I started climbing in your old neck of the woods when your routes were a real inspiration. I believe we have a mutual friend in John Fowler, are you still in touch with him?

Mike

In reply to Mike. Pleased to know I've inspired. Your ascent of Dockers Dilemma 1980 is impressive. I notice you then wore EB's. I taught Mountain Rescue for Devon CC at Vixen Tor in the 1960's and carried people down that face in the "Tragsitz", strapped to my back in a coiled rope loop.

In reply to Frank Cannings:

Cheers Frank, but please note it wasn't my ascent, I was only the "humble" photographer. It is now interesting to note how important a route that has become. Paul wore EBs then as they were the only boots worth wearing, I still have a couple of decrepit pairs kicking around somewhere.
Mike

In reply to Frank Cannings:

Surely it depends on whether there is any real prospect of reaching agreement by the 'usual channels' My reading of this (admittedly from afar) is that there is no prospect of obtaining any kind of compromise from Mrs Alford by conventional negotiation. A similar argument used to made about Range West in Pembroke. Years of negotiation achieved very little but an access agreement was miraculously concluded soon after a mass trespass.

Of course, no-one can know for sure, but it seems to me that a very well-behaved and civilised protest with sufficient numbers might just illustrate the strength of feeling whilst demonstrating that we are normal, responsible people from whom she doesn't actually have anything to fear.

In reply to Dave Garnett:
Dave, You may well be right but in these situations it is difficult to forecast the outcome. The officials have ruled both for and against Mrs Alfords position, so who are we protesting against: Mrs Alford or the Officials? Frank

In reply to Haggis:


Haggis, I lived in Bristol for several years in the 80s and have climbed around the south-west all of my adult life - until I left the UK this year. The south-west is one of four or five places around the globe to which I feel some linkage beyond being a visitor. I even chose to get married on the north Cornish coast. So the nuances of the 'localness' of Dartmoor to Bristol are quite familiar to me.

It seems to me that Bristol climbers - or at least some specific rabble-rousing personalities - are pretty ambitious in the scope of their domain: from Carn Vellan to Pembroke judging by threads that pass by this forum. On that basis, climbers in London should have an equal say about goings on in their 'local' crag, Cheddar; Sheffield climbers should have similar rights over Malham and Kilnsey; scousers be decision takers for Llanberis ... you can see where I am going with this. It all gets fairly nonsensical. But certainly there's no special logic underpinning the apparent vastness of the Bristol 'zone'.

Of course, all of this is just semantics and cr*p. It only matters for two reasons: 1. because the BMC has chosen, for better or worse, to pay lip service to this notion of 'locals' in the way it encourages decision-making and 2. because it is commonsense that someone living a few minutes drive from a crag will know more about the area than someone who swings by on the motorway from time to time. If you buy in to either of those principles, then, as I wrote higher in the thread, you should take especial note of the opinions of people like Dave Henderson in this particular situation.

In reply to tobyfk:

Of course it is. I accept that real local knowledge is a useful thing. I don't accept that no one more than 10 miles from a location can have any input to access and ethics.

Both are national issues in my opinion - the arbitrariness of BMC areas is counterproductive in this situation. Local activists should welcome interest shown by others and be prepared to defend their ground if there is disagreement not mutter under their breath about outsiders etc.

In reply to Sunny: Fantastic, well now we all know where to stay when we go climbing there. I would like to propose a mass climb of Vixen Tor, lets get a few hundred climbers down there to try out a few of the routes and meet the locals - a diplomatic tour.

In reply to Haggis:

What does local have to do with this thing? Was I local to the peak, or N Wales, or the lakes when I lived in Manchester? All within two hours drive.
Parochialism is no good for things that impinge nationally. Those locals who claim they are the guardians of an area will come running for help when a big mast, windfarm, reservoir or new bypass is proposed. They need to realise that they are the ones who may have their finger on the pulse like the nurse but they need the help of the whole country, or the world as in the Tsunami thing to get things done.

In reply to sutty: Couldn't agree more.

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:
Vixen Tor Protest - Please leave your dogs at home.

Organisers of the protest would like to request that dogs are not brought to the protest, to avoid any potential incidents with sheep.

In reply to Team BMC: I'am not attending but posting this request just makes my blood boil on a number of grounds.

1) The justification in requesting dogs are left at home'to avoid potential incidents with sheep' is bol@#~s as this could easly be ensured by dogs being kept under control on a short lead.

2) The protest is about access rights of climbers - so to post somthing 'politely' sugesting dogs are denied access is just as loathsome - especially as under CROW at this time of year dogs must be under control though not necessarily on a short lead.

3) If the request is because there is a view that dogs will get in the way - then say so - but also consider all other things that may get in the way.

4) If the request is because Mary whats her name hates dogs more than climbers - then say so - but perhaps that would a good addition.

Frankly to post this is just using the protest to pursue a narrow minded anti canine agenda prevalent in ramblers circles.

In reply to Batfink:

I'm not attending either but the request seems sensible to me and your post abit OTT. 'anti canine agenda'...lol

Fine keep dogs on a short lead, but with lots of people and dogs about there is a small risk a couple get excited and maybe cut loose if there is a lapse of attention. Whether or not they would attack sheep is debatable but running around in the same field is enough.

Why risk turning a protest into a political coup for the opposition?

In reply to Matt:
Exactly - don't give her a chance to divert attention from the matter at hand, or even worse, gain justification for barring access if a dog did get out of control.