Baring in mind of course that if it is an "unofficial" closure, it is not illegal to ignore it and there is not a damn thing the landowners can do to prevent progress short of physical assault, which obviously puts them on the wrong side of the law.
Personally, I thought this might give the "anti crow" landowners the excuse they need and I wonder how much of this "hysteria" is genuinely linked to concerns over the spread of the disease, and how much is seen by "some" landowners as an excuse to be "awkward" with walkers.
I can understand the concerns in the already affected areas, but in places miles from the infection, it cannot yet be justified.
It seems the Government cannot win, they attempt a different approach to the last outbreak in terms of "locking down" the countryside, with the effect that landowners take the law into their own hands. Maybe that is what they were trying to avoid last time?
The only confusion of course that may arrise in the minds of walkers is telling the "officially" closed from the "illicitly" closed areas!
Posted: 08/08/2007 at 08:40
