 Any suggestion that those magistrates might be seen driving nice shiny Beamers some time in the near future are way out of line. Shame on you for thinking such things.
|
 |
 . No, but I bet them two barristers will !
|
|
.jpg) The RA seem to be fighting a losing battle at the moment.
|
|
 This kind of thing really annoys me. IMHO there should be an automatic assumption *against* moving a right of way, unless there are overwhelming grounds for doing so. Convenience of the landowner should not be permissible grounds. If a ROW is moved, then the landowner should be forced to build a proper path/bridleway (ie not just put a signpost across a muddy field), make financial provision for maintenance over, say, 5 years, and satisfy the council that there is no loss of amenity. I've seen far too many instances of paths diverted for no reason other than the convenience of the landowner, and the new path being of much inferior quality both physically (walking surface) and scenically. Grrr!
|
|
 Pardon me if I inadvertently libel or slander anyone, but I think it was Ford Halewood where I came across the following footpath problem many years ago... (Well... someone has to walk past Ford Halewood sometime!) Anyway... there was a private access road running towards the plant, with a public footpath running parallel. Now, when the road was constructed, the path was provided with a tall chain-link fence on either side, so anyone following it would be enclosed in a sort of linear cage, and wouldn't be able to 'trespass' on the road. Fair enough, you might think. But, the company made sure that the land either side of the road was mowed and maintained in good condition, while the narrow strip of land where the path ran between the fences was 'allowed' to grow wild and brambly. Naturally, walkers chose to follow the private road, rather than the public footpath, and the brambles between the fences grew seven or eight feet tall, as an impenetrable mass. Now, It might be a bit unfair to say this, but maybe the company was hoping that if ramblers gave up using the path entirely, they could close it. Thank goodness for the thorn-proof Ramblers, because one of their members made a point of dressing up to the point of being bullet-proof, and wrestled his way along that path once a year so that no-one could claim it wasn't being used!
|
|
Out of interest, does the landowner and/or the local authority have any legal responsibility to keep a right of way clear of vegetation and suchlike? I know you can't legally put barbed wire across, but brambles and branches can be just as effective!
|
|
 This news was a real set-back, and it is going to be even more costly to take on BMW again  Let's not forget the involvement of horse riders in joining with the ramblers on this matter, too. It is a shame that a roman road can get removed by a modern manufacturing company in this manner. I seem to recall some Ramblers bashers out on this forum some time ago - this is a prime example of why we need pressure groups such as the ramblers, because large corporations often try to wield too much power.
|
|
 apparently (so i heard on BBC Radio Oxford yesterday afternoon) the judge said he "couldn't see why anyone would want to walk along this path for pleasure" i'd like to be able to walk on more bits of roman road, but unfortuantly most bits of roman road don't have public access..
|
| Edited: 16/10/07 18:34 |
 but wearing a gimp outfit is pleasure.....
|
|
 Hamish reported the judge said: "couldn't see why anyone would want to walk along this path for pleasure" What's that got to do with a right of way? I wouldn't like to walk along most roads in London for pleasure - does that mean BMW stands a chance of getting them closed if it desired?
|
|
 I wonder whether the magistrates who allowed the bridleway to be closed were a little intimidated by the might of BMW and the company's legal whizzes. And what a sad reflection on society that the whims of a car manufacturer take precedence over the centuries-old right to follow a right of way on foot.
If I had a Beamer I'd take it back to the factory and demand a full refund today. As it happens, I don't have one. But I'd like a refund. Please.
|
|
Wow thank gawd for the fact that I recently traded my Beemer Motorcycle for a Honda Pan European!
(No Honda factories in the UK straddling an ancient right of way are there?)
|
|
Wow - thank gawd for the fact that I recently traded my Beemer Motorcycle for a Honda Pan European!
(No Honda factories in the UK straddling an ancient right of way are there?)
|
|
 zo ze bavarian motor wagens ave finnally taken zome englander soil......only taken zem 62 yearz. and that bloody judge sounds so far removed from reality it's not true (maybe he is a nazi sleeper agent!!)
|
|
dup removed
(sorry Kate)
|
| Edited: 17/10/07 13:34 |
 Tony, you stuck in a rut or something?
|
|
Dup removed
|
|
Nah computer playing up at work !
thought the first one hadn't gone through!
|
|
here is an article on the Ramblers Association here is an article from the British Horse Society I was aware that BMW were going to re-route the right of way, but this new path is only for walkers and cyclists and not for horses, so BMW replace a bridleway with a cycle path. Tony, I expect that the Honda factories on South Marsden airfield just outside swindon do lie right on top of some historic rights of way, however when the airfield was constructed in the Second World War I don't think that we were too bothered about losing a few rights of way.
|
|
. So Hamish, I don't have to return my "Pan" in disgust then!
|
|
