OK, Balanced answer number one. (although in unbalanced mode, you look a bit two faced there MoS).
I fully understand why some walkers would be upset at unexpectedly sharing training areas. But also understand what the military do on theses areas is actually life and death stuff these days (as it is worth remembering we are fighting a full on war, longer than ww2).
As an amusement is is funny to compare how some see the low flying of aircraft scaring their horses are bad practice, while other groups see the riding of horses as an act of criminality, and against the horses "animal rights" (clue in the brackets).
It's an odd world and we all have differing views.
NOW for the useful bit. Mos, you say you look online for details (I think you did anyway, can't look back now) of firings and exercises, and this is no good. Do you ever phone to see who if anyone is in any particular area on any given day? This is an accurate way to find these things out (with the exception of special forces exercises).
I am being slightly vague here as A. I don't know if you do, and B. I don't have the number to hand right now.
Thanks guys - very useful - I see now that the onus is in fact on us to find out if we can have a peaceful walk on (limited) access lands when we are supposed to be able to anyway.
As we check online for firing times, we have access to the numbers all the time. Nowhere on the site does it suggest that they should be called to find out about dry firing.
Troops carrying out dry training with blank ammunition and pyrotechnics are warned to be considerate to other users.
To me that would include stopping using them if a member of the public approaches the area they are training in. I was always told that blanks and fireworks were dangerous to be near - especially if you are a dog
Ray, despite the use of the , how about keeping any kind of personal attack right out of this? If you really think MoS is even remotely two-faced then kindly point out where. If not, then how about retracting that and apologising?
MoS's post was certainly more measured than my initial one would have been to some of the emotive contributions above!! Frankly, the fact that I'm happy to question and debate issues like this without automatically accepting the military line won't ever leave me with anything on my conscience, and nor should it.
Of course soldiers, including the TA, need to train. I don't think anyone is disputing that, even without all the 'life and death' and 'full on war' hyping up of the case. The issue here is about what constitutes reasonable practice and reasonable public information when that training impinges on public areas, National Parks no less, where the public has every right and perfectly reasonable expectations to be. After all, (taken from Dartmoor NPA website) the twin purposes of National Parks as stated in the Environment Act 1995 are: to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage, and to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the National Parks’ special qualities by the public.
Personally I'd still ideally like to see all dry firing exercises kept within the confines of the military ranges - is there any reason why this couldn't be the case? And how about more explicit information, on the firing notices website and potentially at access points to the moor, to highlight the schedule of such activity, to explain to the public the nature of 'dry training' (it can't be assumed that everybody knows) and to make it clear that the public are at liberty and perfectly safe to continue on through the middle of any such exercise they encounter, if they so choose?
> Perhaps they were happy to have a young local girl left to decompose, rather than have their "eastenders" disturbed!
Maybe they had no idea that this search was going on when they complained, or knew what the helicopter was; just that there was a helicopter apparently playing 'silly bu**ers'.
As I understand it, Wayne, the boundary runs right through Steeperton, so at least some of it falls outide (but I'm open to correction on that...), but my understanding is also that the exercise that prompted this thread involved troops on all sides of it, in which case some of the activity was outside the range.
Putting that particular case aside though, it has been stated on here that such dry training is not restricted to the range area. I wonder why that is? The ranges are a large area where the public would expect to encounter military activity (not just live fire) so is there any real reason why all training cannot remain within those confines?
How about you get off your high horse for one second.
I don't recall a personal attack on anyone. I do however remember typing a light hearted remark (hence the, for the hard of reading) about a post which only had "two faces in in"
So, just for you Matt, I will re iterate, Mos Had a post with two faces in it (and nothing else) so I made a comment that he looked a bit two faced, and then finished with an emoticon with a winking gesture (to denote a joke or humour to MoS).
I will also add, that as yet, no other poster saw this as a personal attack on Mos. But perhaps they more fully understood what I had typed, and furthermore they may have seen that I was also offering MoS some advice which I thought Would save him problems in the future, which was kindly added to by Wayne T.
So, no, I don't think i will bother to retract my comment, and I don't think I have any apologies to make!
Of course they would not have known the exact reason for the flight*, but that is the exact point! Even though they did not know, they still complained, which is similar to some posters on this forum in regards to military operations on training areas.
Anyway CP, hope you are well, I do not get onto OM much these days and have not heard of your latest stove exploits
I won't even justify your comment: or knew what the helicopter was; just that there was a helicopter apparently playing 'silly bu**ers'.
Unless they had just come from Mars (a possibility of course) then they should recognise the "police" helicopter in it's blue and yellow colour shceme, with police written on it, and with it's night sun and IR lamp, at low level! (not to mention they did complain to the police about the use of the police helicopter)
> I see now that the onus is in fact on us to find out if we can have a peaceful walk on (limited) access lands when we are supposed to be able to anyway.
I when you compare it to other legitimate land uses on access land like swaling, stock feeding and herding, forestry, outdoor education and other users which might disturb the recreational user. Should we have warning of them too? Where do you draw the line? We only have a right of access at the end of the day on someone elses land. Do you check the land is not close for some conservation reason? open_access I don't .
> To me that would include stopping using them if a member of the public approaches the area they are training in.
I think on dartmoor(not the only place for dry firing) that could make alot of training unworkable and a wast of tax payer money as work men sit idle waiting for people to pass. If you can't keep your dog under control you don't have a right to take it.(that's the law)
> Personally I'd still ideally like to see all dry firing exercises kept within the confines of the military ranges - is there any reason why this couldn't be the case?
I think it's a bit like say climbing, if you always climbing the routes on the same crags it's going to limit your climbing. Also I think on dartmoor it's confined in the training areas (different boundaries to the firing ranges). map
How about you get off your high horse for one second.
I don't recall a personal attack on anyone. I do however remember typing a light hearted remark (hence the, for the hard of reading) about a post which only had "two faces in in"
So, just for you Matt, I will re iterate, Mos Had a post with two faces in it (and nothing else) so I made a comment that he looked a bit two faced, and then finished with an emoticon with a winking gesture (to denote a joke or humour to MoS).
I will also add, that as yet, no other poster saw this as a personal attack on Mos. But perhaps they more fully understood what I had typed, and furthermore they may have seen that I was also offering MoS some advice which I thought Would save him problems in the future, which was kindly added to by Wayne T.
So, no, I don't think i will bother to retract my comment, and I don't think I have any apologies to make!
"I see now that the onus is in fact on us to find out if we can have a peaceful walk on (limited) access lands when we are supposed to be able to anyway" probably easier than them contacting everyone in the country to ask if they may be thinking about visiting the area; with or without a pet (possibly not trained to cope with bangs)
would "dry firing" exercises spill out of the area depending upon who was doing the exercise? e.g. not much experience and so keeps them away from any possible live ordnance lying around whilst they charge about.
(my father's reaction to dry exercises, if they were called that way back when, was to get himself captured as soon as possible so he could sit in a tent and drink tea rather than charge about in the rain like a silly beggar)
Errrr Defence Estates lease the land from the Duchy.... so they tell us when they are using what is effectively their land, over which we have been granted (and always were before CROW) access.... Its not a bad arrangement.
> then they should recognise the "police" helicopter in it's blue and yellow colour shceme [...]
Ah; those were details that weren't provided with your original comment, and I'm a stickler for even-handedness... And who else would the people complain to, if not the police? I doubt if many people have the number for the CAA, and I doubt it's manned outside office hours...
I often get a helicopter flying over my house at night (a police chopper). I generally can't see what it is, because it's dark, and the sun light tends to hide the chopper itself. Granted, the light is a bit of a giveaway. I remember hearing the police saying that they quite like the fact that the chopper is obvious, as people look out of their windows, and often see the villain being pursued, and report in...
My only regret is that the chopper isn't a gunship...
"You have ten seconds to comply 10..9..8... oh what the hell...BRAAARRRRPPPP..."
.JPG)
>
