The Cirencester Problem Is now YOUR Problem!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 พ.ค. 2024
- Just a short one this week folks. Big edits in the process for next week as always.
We went up to Cirencester recently to take a look at a huge area of land owned by the Bathurst Family. After 326 years of permissive access, the family have now removed free access and now placing it behind a paywall. Despite receiving tax payers money for upkeep of the estate. To find out more about projects tat you can help with and get involved with regarding your access rights: www.righttoroam.org.uk/
QUESTIONS - Post Publish.
This has clearly raised a lot of questions. I will try and address the most important points for me:
“Their Land, they can do what they like”. - Of course this is very true. But then find a piece of England that is not owned. Where is your line? Would you be happy if a National Park was Closed, some open access land, your local permissive field?
“There is clearly a cost to maintaining the Park” - Yes, when you treat it like a deer park, concrete paths, finely cut grass. Perhaps if this was left to grow, minimal management it would not only encourage a wealth of wildlife but also reduce such costs.
“Mentioning Slavery reduces your point” - Slavery has created an asset than gets tax subsidies and now they want to charge people for use. It doesn’t sit well at all in this case. Which ever way you cut it.
All Drone footage: @gregory666
Images and film: www.righttoroam.org.uk/
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @pwhitewick
OR
/ paulandrebeccawhitewick
All other credits and assets:
Filter: Snowman Digital and Beachfront B-Roll
Maps: Google Maps
Maps: National Library of Scotland
Maps: OS Maps. Media License.
Stock Footage: Storyblocks
Music: Storyblocks - บันเทิง
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA W3D1 | Summer | เริ่มต้น สัปดาห์ตัดสิน](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pWsl9LhC2Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
Huge thanks to both @gregory666 for the drone footage and additional clips from: www.righttoroam.org.uk/ Go visit their website and see what action you can take to help.
QUESTIONS - Post Pulish.
This has clearly raised a lot of questions. I will try and address the most important points for me:
“Their Land, they can do what they like”. - Of course this is very true. But then find a piece of England that is not owned. Where is your line? Would you be happy if a National Park was Closed, some open access land, your local permissive field?
“There is clearly a cost to maintaining the Park” - Yes, when you treat it like a deer park, concrete paths, finely cut grass. Perhaps if this was left to grow, minimal management it would not only encourage a wealth of wildlife but also reduce such costs.
“Mentioning Slavery reduces your point” - Slavery has created an asset than gets tax subsidies and now they want to charge people for use. It doesn’t sit well at all in this case. Which ever way you cut it.
I almost sure there something in law the if you been doing something, for x time, like years, and years, like historical, like druids at Stonehenge, getting free pass in track with stone, and lesser mortalities, have to stay behind the ropes, on the paths,etc.? if bloke gave free access 300 years ago, was in evolved in the UK's slave trade the was many, many years ago? how long have modern day druids been claiming assess the to Stonehenge for there things? if okay for goose, the gander, can have some too?
To me, this begs the question how people would react if one or more crazy multibillionaires acquired every piece of land that's on sale, no matter the value, and would immediately forbid all access to everyone. And what are the other possible consequences of individuals owning pieces of land, no matter how small or large? (How) are land owners accountable?
Thanks for raising awareness of this Paul - and you are right that we need a new conversation about it. I think some of the rebuttals and concerns can be valid but only viewed through the paradigm of our current system. We need the system to change as well. Norway, Sweden and other Nordic countries have "Allemannsretten" or the concept of the Right to Roam. As you say, this doesn't mean traipsing over crops or gardens, it means having a wider respect and consideration for the land, as well as a right to enjoy it.
As I see it - we need three things to happen simultaneously -
1. Harmonising right to roam laws in the UK - modelling existing laws in Scotland, working with the public, charities and landowners to overcome concerns
2. Community engagement - ensure we have a crowdsourced, clear definition of a right to roam, what it means and what it entails
3. Education - Arguably very important to underpin the other two. This means budget set aside to post "Roamer's Rights" and Respectful Access posters, online campaigns, curriculum in schools and advertising. It means combining the countryside code with a new set of guiding principles around mutual respect for land, respect for those who work the land and those who enjoy it. Norway has the Mountain Code printed inside chocolate bars!! Perhaps we need something similar?
I am always fascinated by how polarised many can be about this, despite the fact it it is so normal in other countries. However, I also respect the concerns - which is why we need a campaign that is about community, shared ownership and shared respect.
The issue as I see it is the acceptance of tax subsidies. If they were to cease acceptance of all tax subsidies and then announce that in one year's time they would limit access to paying customers (or no customers), that would be their right... but if they are accepting tax subsidy for upkeep then they should admit people free of charge.
Absolutely. Perhaps they want to raise some funds for the upkeep of their estate? Fair enough, but if they are enjoying tax subsidies because it's freely accessible by the public then they aren't really in a position to restrict access.
Agree with you mostly but by your reasoning if somebody accepts any benefit, e.g. child benefit, do the public have a right to roam over their garden? A little extreme example maybe but I hope you see what I mean?
@@davidporter4162 Brilliant idea, make people who receive government money realise that it isnt free beer, to take from the people should also mean to give back something. Like it.
@@davidporter4162 Child benefit is nothing to do with right of access. Strawman alert.
@@jennyjohn704 Did you read my comment? I said that the child benefit argument was a bit extreme but it was used to illustrate my point that acceptance of public money should not mean that you have to open your property to the general public.
Wow, 8 years ago I used to work in Cirencester 1 day a week, and used to head out into that park (for free) at lunch every day. Disgusted to see they pay walled it and good job protesting it! I seriously need to get more involved in Right to Roam.
BTW: There are a few rights of way across actual people's back gardens round here, in many cases medium sized gardens that are close to the house (we're not talking tenement to be clear). Always feel guilty taking those paths, but hey, they bought the house with the full knowledge of the right of way.
I would have thought that if a builder buys land to build houses on and it has rights of way across it, then one of two things should happen: a) planning permission to build should be refused, or b) the builder should be required to apply to have the rights of way diverted to outside the boundaries of his land. But a house should not be sold by a builder with public rights of way across. Mind you, it is the role of the solicitor handling the purchase to check for rights of way in his "searches".
I certainly wouldn't buy a house with a right of way across it - whether it is public or restricted to a neighbouring house. I remember when we were looking to move house, we found an end-of-terrace house with a substantial garden. We noticed that they didn't seem to be alleyway by which the neighbour could access his back garden (except through his house) so we explictly asked the estate agent whether there was a neighbour's right of way across the garden of the house we were interested in. We were assured that there was not. We drove a long way to look at that house, so we were not best pleased to be told by the vendor that the neighbour had right to take his lawnmower across the garden. Such access may not be a problem with the current owners of the middle house, but it has the potential to becoime a problem if a new neighbour demands continuous access and uses it more than just occasionally.
@@Mortimer50145 I guess it depends if the neighbour's right of way through your garden is actually a legal one, and if it's limited or unlimited.
Born and bred in Cirencester. The park was my playground, my MBK trails, my running trails, walking, photography. I will continue to enter the park and refuse to pay the toffs 👊🏼
Good on you.
@@timwright5466 Maybe the French had a point.
Lived in Cirencester many years and can confirm that the Park is a much loved amenity that I have walked in many times in all seasons. It is/was possible to roam freely right through to Sapperton with its famous canal tunnel. The local community appreciated that access was permissive and treated the land with respect in my experience. A paywall will seem like a slap in the face to locals who no doubt know all the unofficial ways into the Park 😊
If they create any controversy sue them under the bill of rights. No corporate can monopolise.
@timwright5466 lol. Your assumptions are only to your detriment. And make a phool of you. Not me! Rees Mog, Johnson and other toe rags have just recently used it to get out of trouble. Best you educate yourself and comprehend your level of the Dunnings-Kruger effect. Way over the max mark. 🤣
Best start with The Wil &mar Act of 1688 then the Bill of Rights of 1689, then the Coronation Oath of 1700, The Properties Act of 1725 the Fraud Acts, the Treason Acts, and the slavery act of 1925 are all for in perpetuity. That means forever legislation. Fyi. This will blow your little cognitive dissonant mind
Legislation is for the corporate. Not the men and women.
Thank you Paul.
I am particularly interested in this issue for a number of reasons, not least of which because I live close to Cirencester Park, and often wander through it. But also because of the Thames and Severn Canal, which we both have an interest in on our channels. However, the central issue that you raise is a wider one, and a more fundamental one, whereby our rights to roam freely are slowly being removed in England and Wales. Thank you for being brave to have produced this excellent video. Cheers, Paul.
As a Finn, I just can't comprehend the lack of jokaisenoikeus, everyone's right (formerly jokamiehen oikeus).
Camping (briefly), foraging, fishing and non-motor vehicle travel is permitted when you don't damage the nature or impide the usage of the land.
Excluding the yards of residential buildings and actively farmed fields. Nature reserves also have their own restrictions depending on the type of the reserve OFC.
Especially if you get tax payer money for the upkeep of private land in common use like in this case, charging money in addittion for access to said land... Let's just say tabloids would have fun with that. And the tax offixe and consumer protection agencies as well.
Our land owning aristocracy hate everyone but their own very shallow gene pool. Their disregard for other people enabled slavery that paid for these parks. Without that blood stained income, many turn to monitizing the land to make an income, anything but dirty their hands with actual work.
As Your neighbor I chime in. But we see more of landowners complaining about people using their rights and try to limit access. The times of feudalism are over. The amount of money EU is showering landowners in is absurd. If they don't want their game and Land Rover cars they are free to sell and move to the Seychelles.
It's very much a southern (England, Wales) mess. In Scotland we behave like you. And we bloody love it.
Same in Sweden, you have very much free reign to move about as long as you do not break or disturb things.
Same rules about farmland or in other way prepared land in use and gardens, but otherwise its very free.
@@Rubicola174 That sounds like a very misguided principle.
While Sweden have very much freedom of movement, roads are a bit special in that if its a private road, you can generally walk freely on private roads or bicycle, but if the road is a private road, as in, on private land and built and maintained by the land owner and not the state, you cannot unless explicitly allowed to, drive any motor vehicle on the road. The road needs to have signs to indicate its private, and you can have a bar preventing cars, but you cannot fence it in to prevent walking.
This way you avoid all the wear and tear on the road.
Sometimes private roads are open to the public but in many such cases they have then asked for help in funding the maintenance and gotten approval. And as soon as a road is maintained by taxpayer money it cannot be closed without approval from the government, but opening the road to begin with is the land owners privilege.
the discussion around the morality of ownership of such a place is really fascinating. My back garden actually does have a public footpath running through it, it's lovely when people walk through!
So long as they don't play football on your lawn and thud the ball into your patio windows eh? They have EVERY RIGHT you know.
@@janebaker966 Sorry, but that's nonsense. They don't have every right. A right of way gives you the right to travel along it, nothing more. You don't have the right to stop and have a picnic, to stray off the right of way, to use a lawn next to the right of way as a football pitch (obviously), or to kick footballs at windows.
I believe strongly in the need to assert these rights, and increasingly live in common with each other and our natural resources
It is important that we have an open debate about this. I can't understand why some people are so aggressively opposed to even debating where we should be able to walk.
I've walked in Cirencester Park on quite a few occasions and always enjoyed the experience. This is an extremely retrograde development and sadly - in England at least - another sign of a growing tendency for corporate and other interests to restrict or deny access to land formerly open to free public access. You are doing a public service in drawing attention to this and other examples of so-called 'public access'. Let us hope that the campaign bears fruit and the 'paywall' is quickly torn down. Dare I suggest visitors enter in the 'Can't Pay, Won't Pay' spirit.
I have so many memories with this park. Picking Conker’s with my Gran, babysitting in the house just inside the park gates and being a first aider at many events held there. I can walk to one of the many entry point in 10 minutes from my front door. So sad 😢
Just catching up. Well done Paul. Good video.
You're going to LOVE Sundays.
Thanks for highlighting this. A similar thing happened here in the Chilterns a few years back, on a smaller scale. The Hampden estate maintained an excellent network of permissive paths in its woodlands. however parts of the estate were broken up an sold off piecemeal, sweeping away the permissive access in the process.
I think Brits should know who owns what in their country ... and that includes the VAST landholdings that have been discreetly owned for generations.
I don't see why working taxpayers should be subsidising these VAST estates. Why the capitals? Try digging into the scale of what the landed gentry own. Few other countries have this.
Indeed, here in the US land ownership records are all public; at worst you can look them up at the county courthouse in even the most rural of counties.
More populated urban and suburban counties like my own (Hennepin County, Minnesota) have online property maps on their websites, where you can click on _any_ property on the map and see a.) which person or entity owns it, and b.) a mailing address for who's paying the property taxes.
I think you will find that you can indeed look up who owns what in the UK. And there are records going back further than a lot of Countries. Certainly more than America. I believe most of Mayfair used to belong to one family. These hereditary peers have often had vast estates for hundreds of years. All sales are public record. Do enough digging and the information is there. As to public money going to them as subsidies. How and as what form. Farm subsidies go to all land owners. A lot of these estates are asset rich. Cash poor. A lot are greatly reduced in size as lots sold off to pay bills. It costs enough to run a two up two down. Try running a 20 bedroom house. A lot were built by the equivalent of today's billionaires. Amazing properties that should be preserved. And that costs money. Really there should be heritage funds put aside for their up keep. But I think you will find there aren't.
@@davetaylor4741 "I think you will find that you can indeed look up who owns what in the UK."
People with more expertise than you do not.
"All sales are public record. Do enough digging and the information is there."
You're being so glibly stupid, it's laughable. You are a know-nowt.
@@davetaylor4741 "Really there should be heritage funds put aside for their up keep."
Working Brits already subsidise the rich estate owners. FFS.
@@emm_arr Sorry mate you have a chip on your shoulder the size of a barn. I grew up in a family that had pretty much all been in service for hundreds of years. Only my Mother and I broke that chain. I have very personal knowledge of what it takes to run these estates. I was born on one. I have then spent my entire working life in construction as a Carpenter/ Builder. Now partially retired. Paying huge taxes all my working life. As a builder I appreciate the stature of these buildings. The same as some of the great churches and cathedrals. The church was always supported by tithes. The working man paid money to build and upkeep them. Pave your way to heaven. These huge stately homes are amazing buildings. And should be preserved as part of our heritage. I am not advocating giving un regulated handouts to the owners. But managed building preservation funds. I wouldn't have a problem with. Where and what are all these special subsidies that these rich people are supposed to get. They did away with the highest tax bracket years ago. Because all the celebs buggered off abroad to avoid tax. But you still pay according to earnings. And there are still different tax rates. Rich people are rich. Poor people are poor. As my Mum said when I was a kid. You weren't born with a silver spoon in your mouth. Get used to working. And I did. That's life. Get over it.
Thank you for your hard work ❤
I can understand why farmers are not always very happy about foot paths but in general they might just re route it around the edge of a field and maybe put up a fence to make it clear or if it is a live stock farm but big manor house estates should not be allowed to do something like closing or demanding payment on a public right of way especially if they are receiving government money for it's up keep
But that would be for a public right of way....which this is not, it is permissive access.
@@timwright5466 Which public rights of way do the National Trust demand payment? Or did you just make that up?
@@Mitch-Hendren So you are now saying the NT do not charge you to use a public right of way but do charge you to use their private facilities. Not what you originally said at all.
I've walked on public rights of way that go right through fields of livestock. It's still a risk, sure, but generally as long as you behave you'll be fine
@@timwright5466 The National Trust do it cunningly - you can walk around all you like they just charge you for car parking.
Case in point when I grew up Clumber Park was open 24/7 no road restrictions or payment. Now the roads in the central area are all blocked from vehicular traffic - save the road to the car park . Gates close off the area after dark and you are charged £5 per person to drive in during the day. (When this was first introduced it was per car). You are free to walk in but as it is miles from any bus stop you are forced to drive. At busy times they now patrol, charging those who have parked their cars in the areas away from the central zone as well.
Their excuse is the cost of upkeep and services - the only services are a few motley plants, grown elsewhere, in the garden shop and the normal collection of tat that 'gift shops' sell .
If it weren't for the fact that Limetree Avenue, which divides the Park, is a public road I'm sure they would gate each end of that and charge everyone.
Excellent video, Paul. Access to land is a very important issue!
In Scotland the Right to Roam excludes the curtelege of a house and just that.
Excellent video Paul, highlighting the need for a national discussion, before the public lose access to open spaces.
This is important thank you very much for all your efforts
Also, in the early 00s, I lived near Hampton Court Palace. My walk to work in the morning took me past the frontage of the palace, through part of the gardens, and out the Lion Gate on the opposite side. Couldn't believe it when we returned back for a visit last year and found that virtually the entire site is now closed off, unless you pay. As with your park in Cirencester, these paths had been open for as long as i can remember, and were in permanent use, which makes you wonder how they can get away with closing them off
apathy
I was thinking exactly the same. So many happy memories of visiting the daffodils and seeing the vine and the privy garden both as a child and as a parent. The same applies to Kew Gardens where the charge was minimal. Last time I saw the Lion Gate it was looking very sad, dirty - and locked. This is not the fault of Historic Royal Palaces who run it, though, but governments which have created this situation. It's a natural corollary of lower taxes and being able to choose what to spend your money on, rather than having governments making that choice for you. But when access our common heritage is threatened in this way, it needs to be rethought. A free "community pass" (£10 deposit) for Cirencester is available to all those who have postcodes GL7 0, GL7 1, GL7 2, GL7 5, GL7 6 and GL7 7 or live in the villages of Edgworth, Frampton Mansell, Ashton Keynes and Latton. That concession doesn't seem to be available to local residents of Hampton Court.
Great video 😊
I don't usually comment on your videos, but I live in Australia. When you said they have been getting taxpayer money, I nearly fell off my chair. I'm looking forward to the big video when it comes out. Keep up the good work; I do enjoy your content.
They likely also originally got MASSIVE tax-payer funded compensation, not prison time, when the slave trade was banned.
Paul and Rebecca, I'm impressed with the professionalism of your presentations. I first found your work with an interest in the pathways and railways in Devon.
I have my own channel for walks in Devon and classic vehicle shows around the southwest. They're not so good so I've been studying videography and cinematography to improve my own.
I see that you must have done the same.
Perhaps mine will be better this year. As good as yours. I guess that's planning and practice.
Practice and keep uploading!
There’s many arguments on both sides of the debate. I think it’s too simplistic to say that either side of the argument is right.
Unfortunately. some people who roam do litter, stray from paths and do damage etc - like all activities there are a small number who ruin it for others - in most cases these aren’t hikers, just people who have also taken advantage of the access to get up to no good but they are ruining it for those who just want to enjoy the countryside. I live in a town surrounded by countryside and some of the footpaths nearby are teaming with litter, dropped cigarette butts, dog faeces and unfortunately in some places human faeces along with toilet roll… where I guess some people just couldn’t wait 🤢. Point is not all people respect the land.
Of course, roads etc are littered too - but there’s a fundamental difference between who is responsible for cleaning up public roads and private land.
There is also an expectation that paths/ routes are kept maintained/ accessible and this isn’t free to the landowner. Nor is the security of a site where such activity is permitted - ultimately I think it’s fair that if access is maintained that this should be funded - whether that that is by the government or by the individuals accessing the space is a different debate.
Then of course there’s the argument that we should have as much access as is reasonably permissible to our countryside. I agree it’s a shame that so much could be locked behind closed doors (or in this case walls and gates) but there needs to be some sort of balance between the right to roam and the rights of private land owners and that’s what needs to be enshrined in law to clearly define this. I.e should access be maintained in return for a guaranteed annual subsidy so long as this is used to ensure paths etc remain accessible? I’ve no idea about the ‘right’ answer but clearly there’s a balance to address.
I don’t agree with the dismissal of the ‘you wouldn’t like people walking through your back garden’ argument - ultimately private land is private land whether it’s a small back garden or a giant estate. I think we all need to be less entitled - there is an ever growing expectation that we should get stuff for free yet nothing in life is free, which returns me to a previous point on costs and funding. Though this sense of entitlement is worrying - though it could reasonably be argued that the Bathurst’s are being entitled depriving others access to the land - so it’s not clear cut on either side.
One point that was omitted was the fact that access is only £4 - the cost if a coffee at Costa or a pint… it’s not extortionate and one might reasonably argue that this small fee is fair to ensure that the site is maintained for years to come. The irony is people accept they have to pay to access other attractions like the London Eye etc, so the question then becomes when are admission fees fair or unfair?
Ultimately however as trespass is a civil offence only, so long as access isn’t aggravated (I.e through threats or behaviour which causes damage to gates etc) there’s little that the estate owners can do - short of spending thousands on identifying and taking civil action against those trespassing which will likely cost more than they’ll be awarded - of course if issues of trespass become too problematic new laws could be passed to criminalise this so I don’t think in the long term this approach is right.
As for the debate on the morality of how this land purchase was funded - I don’t think that should ever be used - slavery is abhorrent I agree BUT we are looking at this through 21st century eyes - at the time it was a normalised practice and the reality is 300 years from now, people will be looking back at what we did in the 2020s with shock and horror. Ultimately debates on slavery etc muddy the water on the real debate which is where the line should he for the right to roam and the rights or private land owners. I honestly don’t know where it should be but clearer parameters are definitely needed.
Evidently new laws are needed to define what access rights should exist, how this is funded and what the expectations are on both sides.
As an American, this is an interesting problem that we have absolutely no experience with nor parallel to. Private property is sacrosanct here, so much so that the right to be 'secure in our property and possessions' is in our Constitution. The blurring of public and private, the deep-rooted feeling that "I have a right to walk on your land that belongs to you and you cannot say anything against it" is foreign to us. Of course, the UK is orders of magnitude smaller than the US, your constitution is 'unique,' and you have an uncomfortable thousand-year history of classism. I'll be interested to see how this turns out.
I would make a distinction based on usage of the land. If it is a private garden/yard belonging to a house, where people expect to be able to do anything they like in private, no-one would suggest that the public should be allowed to access that land. If it is privately-owned fields - eg farmland - which is not residential, then there *may* be a case for allowing the public some form of access - maybe along specific way-marked paths.
Scotland's right-to-roam is good as far as it goes, but it means that you cannot tell by looking at a map whether you will be physically able to go on the route that you want, without being blocked by impenetrable fences/walls/hedges. There is still a need for waymarked paths to say "you can go anywhere, but this is a route that has easy access without barriers" which is what public footpath/bridleway routes on an English/Welsh Ordnance Survey map denote.
The other thing to remember is that a person wheeling a bicycle is legally classed as a pedestrian, so if you are planning a cycle route where part of the route is a public footpath, you are at liberty to wheel (but not ride) your bike along it. You may, of course, encounter stiles and gates which are passable (squeeze through or climb over) by people but not by bicycles! Hence the need to make sure you are able to lift your bike over those.
U obviously know little about Scotlands right to Roam.
The "you wouldn't like it if I walked through your garden" argument comes up every time restoring rights of access across our local golf course is discussed. Like everyone is lucky enough to have a 350 acre garden...
If I had a 350 acre garden, I'd *love* for people to walk through it!
I somehow learned that it was France and England that popularized the notion that common people were not fit for the ever-increasing vast swathes of trimmed grass, reserved only for the inbred children of wealthy Europeans. After all, those kids needed to be kept from public view until they could be married off in a contract with some wealthy foreign tween first cousin.
I am a farmer and have a bridal way beside my land the arsonist walked from the bridal path and burnt down a straw barn with machinery in it, £65,000 insurance claim. When farmers go to do a job in fields we never know if the gate way is going to be blocked by fly tipping. I have a one acre field I put into wild flower meadow reversion from arable beside a road, four by four drivers used it for rallying practice one night now it has a barb wire fence between the road and field. Yes I no, it’s the idiots that spoil it for the good people.
Commenting from a Nordic perspective as I'm not from the UK: This is a double edged sword. Of course the rights of private property has to respected. I think the Nordic model works well, where there's a general right to roam everywhere, except gardens and fields where there's standing crop. At the same time it's also problematic for landowners when people don't respect their property and do harm rather than good. Leaving them with little to no options. But from a political perspective we're kind of entering into a new era of mega rich and lower class. Wealth accumulation to a few people is accelerating and the middle class is shrinking fast. This type of thing highlights it.
At the same time Britain is in demographic disorder. When British people are the minority in their own capital, crime is on the rise and a lot of old traditions have been sidelined in the name of the new diverse Britain, then the argument can also be made that the owners never intended this property to be used by everyone everywhere, but rather the locals. Complex issue but there are arguments on both sides.
I live in StAlbans Hertfordshire, and farmers are ( have been) making things harder for walkers, taking away the lil signs that indicate a public right of way.
Approaching walkers claiming they are trespassing.
"Walking across my back garden " , is one of the most common statements I hear from people who have been approached by rude farmers who jump out of their range Rovers & act all intimidating.
We have a local group who walk trails , to stop them being closed due to not being used .
I don't know why they want to stop people using rights of way that in some cases are centuries old.
There's a lot of really great farmers land owners I know in general
But not so many around StAlbans.
the main issue is dog walkers, especially around dairy farms. loose dogs can really cause a lot of problems around cattle.
@@jamiehayn that's true , it's not just cattle they can affect sheep ,scare them into miscarrying etc,
And your right it is the dog walkers , to many have no respect or consideration for things like that, they let the dogs off their leashes which allows them to run around barking, scaring the animals.
As a metal detecorist I need permission to go on land so I know a lot of farmers and even though most of them have dogs and have no problems with dogs as long as they are kept on leads , it's the Dog walkers, owners who let them off to do as they want that really annoy , anger the farmers most of all.
I love dogs ,but I don't like most owners , as well as the above they let their dogs crap all over the place without picking it up with those 'waste' bags and depositing them in the bins , which all entrances to public footpaths/ rights of way have.
Worse than that are the ones who do collect it but instead of binning it throw the bags up into the trees ,leaving them hanging from branches,, I'll never understand the mentality of those who do that.
Trouble is I never see the people who do it, but its probably a good thing because people nowadays are so ignorant, rude I'd end up losing my temper and getting myself in trouble.
That's something that happens ( not always the tree thing) but people letting their dogs crap on any green verge and just leaving it.
People have little to know respect and seem to be getting worse lately.
I own and run a small farm in Gloucestershire and it's not easy come rain and shine and we struggle a lot of the time. I have footpaths across my fields where people let off their dogs, leave their rubbish and just recently used the path to gain access to one of my barns in an attempt to take farm machinary. It reminds me of a story another farmer told me where he saw someone picking some cabbages from his field! he followed him to his house and then went into his garden leaving the gate open and picked some of his tomatoes growing in his garden! where the guy was not pleased but it's just doing to someone where you don't want it done to you. When you put it like that it does make you think and with this story smile.
@@seantaylor9758 I love that, following the guy to his home and taking some food he's grown .
I know how difficult it is for most farmers, I don't understand everything they talk to me about, but I know it's not easy , they always seem to have worries about one thing or another, weather, crops, market prices, theft , damage, and much more as I'm sure you know.
You all seem to work non stop , even at night, wether its looking after animals, new borns, or larger farms with machines and lights continue working long before and after the average person.
Range Rovers that are maybe defined as "commercial vehicles" for tax purposes. Hmmm.
Jenny Draper has an interesting video on railings which was a real eye-opener to areas of London that we think have public squares, which it turns out they aren't.
Thank's for raising this issue and joining the protest. Also anyone if they do try to conscript you in the near future, tell them this. This is not my country if i cannot access it.
Thank you as.always Paul for bringing this issue to our.attention and do join Right to Roam. Its not just fus by our children and.the generations that follow.🙏
Even here in the states we're having similar problems. For us, a lot of it is boiling down to legal liability fears, but of course there's also the usual "concerns" about homeless camping, etc etc. I do agree with The concern that there are people heading out to further and further remote areas who are not prepared to face the conditions of being in the wilderness in the modern era of Instagram and other social media showing plenty of beautiful photos, but not the reality of getting to these places. Nonetheless, most of the fear is just that, fear without merit.
For example, here where I live in western Washington state, a lot of the privately owned Forest land out here has long been held open for the public to access for general recreation at least for day use, with some properties allowing random camping and or hunting; The general standard though has been day use access is fine. A lot of these properties are being closed off to the public though now. One major company that used to hold a lot of forest lands here in Washington state was Weyerhaeuser, and they've been selling it off to other companies that close access immediately. Some of these companies even charge for seasonal permits that have a limited number and cost in the hundreds of dollars. It's absolutely ridiculous. I completely understand not wanting people to burn your forests down with stray campfires and search forth, but the general loss of access is absolutely unacceptable imho.
I've run on Cirencester park for a few years, be interesting to see if they barricade the small entrance points out in the sticks, although they have removed a lot of the spaces to park by installing soil bunts apparently due to issues during Covid
Issues during Covid were the heaven sent excuse for land owners to permanently deny access to untitled land - like old railways. Having denied you access to that land for a few years they can take ownership. You are being screwed by the powerful. "Covid issues" my ass.
Not just huge estates, There are many locations where people have purchased small properties which have a public footpath going through or adjacent to it and have then gone out of their way to stop or make it difficult for those wishing to legally use the right of way
I have found that raising such blockages to the local council ROW team will result in their quickly contacting the land owner and ensuring that the problem is rectified. It is a criminal offense to block a PROW. If necessary, the council should fund any statutorily appropriate gates for footpaths or byways.
@@41istairI’ve done a few too and luckily my council (Northumberland county and local) are very good.
Totally....a recent one in Wiltshire have won their right to close a footpath by their Manor and divert it to the outskirts of their land near Bratton in Luccombe Bottom.
I don’t know how it is in the UK, but in the United States if you are a property owner and trespassers injure themselves or pretend to injure themselves you are open for a lifetime of frivolous lawsuits. I have witnessed parents putting their children in hazardous situations for just that purpose.
Yes that is the same here in the UK, however we are less litigious than those in the USA and the costs of bringing such lawsuits are greater and less likely to succeed.
"Is that farming subsidies for 'not farming'?"
Someone (below) asked a VERY reasonable question.
It illustrates a real issue with UK land ownerrship. Farming subsidies for 'not farming' is why the UK's uplands are sheep-sh-gged, ecologically wrecked and almost devoid of forest cover.
People who work subsidise maintaining grouse moors for people who don't work.
People who work subsidise the VAST estates I referred to - keping them viable and keeping some people in a big house and their countless thousnds of acres that they acquired via conquest, using snide speculation - often on slavery - to buy land, taking our common land via enclosures and other means ... AND WORKING BRITS SUBSIDISE THIS. We can't even find out who owns what because the Land Registry is for us proles and not the landowners.
Seems amiss. No other country in Europe has this system. And there are reasons why. Do you thnk they want to keep these VAST landholdings away from scrutiny and appropriate taxation? I do.
What they don't teach you about trespass is that it's Based and you should do it.
Great work 👍
I did a 'loop' ultramarathon on the estate years ago 68 miles in 24 hours, that included me hallucinating at 03:00 at night singing 'Your Welcome' from Moana before I collapsed on the floor of my tent unable to run no more.
Shame, the forests around the estate are beautiful.
very interesting video as always , well done again Paul 😊
Access through public footpaths should never be restricted. These are ancestral rights, and landowners who deny them are guilty in effect of theft.
It’s definitely our problem! Footpaths are disappearing all the time for various reasons. I’ve had to fight with my council before for overgrown paths to which they replied it wasn’t a public footpath! Despite me pointing out the most up to date OS shows that it is they have washed their hands of it.
As houses are built around the land (and literally on footpaths, another howler in my town that wasn’t picked up until the poor unsuspecting owners tried to sell the house), the land left for the public dwindles rapidly
It sounds like metal riffs and intervals. :)
I've mentioned before, the Scottish legislation does not prevent this sort of thing. The courts have established the principle that the size of your "garden" which is excluded from access rights depends on how rich you are.
There are too many people, too little land, and not enough space to go around, for a few to horde massive acreages to themselves. Money is an irrelevance. That they might have paid money* is superseded by the fundamental right to land.
*Of course, most inherited land was stolen centuries ago using violence and murder. What right does anyone have to land taken in such a way?
1:07 this reminds me of one of the entrances to sultrume park, not the main entry the other one
Maybe they can have a trekkers association and issue ids to be carried and shown if demanded while on the estate for bona fide access-otherwise both sides have legitimate but mutually exclusive stands.
Remember kids, trespassing is still only a civil matter, not a criminal one.
I like to stick to the rules because I want landowners to have a good impression of ramblers but honestly it’s getting to the point where I just don’t care for them! A few wild camping escapades (which ties in with our right to roam) have been made and I hope to make more.
Eat the land, sleep the land, walk the land. It’s the common treasury for all of mankind
I'm guessing that the grass mowing required to keep those open spaces looking nice, cost far more than the tax money the estate receives.
Absolutely yes. So let's stop cutting the grass. Think of the wildlife one would attract
The way I see it, if someone does not want others walking on their land, they should put a formidable fence or wall up around the land. I don't mean like garden walls, I mean on countryside land whether it be farmers fields or meadows. If I get told to leave the private land, of course I will leave with no issues unless the land owner is overly rude or hostile, in which case they would receive back a few choice words.
Interesting to see what happens next
Whilst not quite the same I have seen so much barbed wire go up in the North turning rights of way and footpaths into narrow over trodden corridors. Im 70 now and many of the freedoms that helped form my childhood in the Dales are just about gone. Three years ago I sat by a stream next to the path to eat my sandwich, and was challenged by the landowner. I hadnt crossed a fence or wall. I was polite but absolutely shocked. Its the first time it had ever happened in 67 years of walking the Dales😢
Thank you for the collective information on the videos background. Always an eye opening video to gaze at. Hello to Rebecca and see you on the next, Paul! ❤❤😊😊
Great video. Unless I missed it I am struggling to understand what has changed to warrant the permissive paths to be removed ? Was there a problem with users venturing onto out of bounds area, leaving dog poo or litter everywhere ? I don’t like it that the wealth of this family was created by slavery but I would hope that there isn’t a bloody statue put up commemorating how the family were great philanthropists when they made their wealth on the backs of the exploited slaves ! Let’s hope we get a resolution and the right of access is restored. Visitors need to do their bit too!
I’m with you on right to roam, but the grandstanding about the slave trade is nauseating.
See pinned comment.
So you'd be totally fine if it was bought with drug or black market weapons money also?
@@pwhitewick Profiting from the proceeds of historical slavery could apply to a significant amount of property in Greater London owned by various foreign nationals. In some instances, currently practiced in their homelands.
An interesting Debate Paul!!! 🤔🚂🚂🚂
I wonder how this will affect the planned restoration of the Thames and Severn Canal which runs through the estate? (You can see its old bed in some of the drone shots.)
It does and it already has. They own Coates Roundhouse on the T&S and have let it rot, refusing anyone to buy it or restore it.
Great video. Though for future videos it's Bathurst - rhyming with Baffurst. [For the record my brother and I as children used to cycle (illegally) in the park every day throughout the eighties.]
As a US citizen, I don't fully understand the UK roaming laws, so I won't comment either way on that. However, we do have public parks that are maintained with taxpayer money and they also charge additional fees on site to visitors. So, the concept of what's happening to y'all doesn't seem out of line. My only caveat would be that any fees brought in should all be spent on maintaining and improving the park.
When we were looking to buy a house in Scotland we were rather bemused by the fact that quite a few (mostly the ones we couldnt afford but not exclusively) had some impressive hedges around the property. Without knowing or finding anyone to ask, my suspicious mind thinks it is exactly to counter the "right to roam" idea that people might walk through your garden. Or it maybe to stop the deer and other larger wildlife getting in to eat the daffodils.
Right to roam specifically excludes people's gardens unless there is a specific right of way through it.
@@bobstirling6885true, but there's no explicit limit on garden size.
@@gchecosse it actually excludes all privately owned farmland as well, unless there's a specific right of way over it....
Deer tend to be Enemy No.1 in most of Scotland, and not just the rural bits.
Deer don't eat daffodils, poison.
I you local region in Australia has "lost" many swimming holes and creek access, closed by land holders. No real problem untill over the 4 o 10 years when thousands of people flocked in (particually COVID refugees) and caused issues, particularly crowding
Glad to see all ages represented 👍
It’s always about the money 💰
Sadly yes.
My concern is if this works out and councils get the same idea with their land. Double dipping seems to be a growing financial model phenomenon as of late.
Hard to buy petrol for the machinery without money.
I’m not sure I fully understand this, is the park privately owned? If it is surly it’s up to the owner if it’s open to the public or no?
Find me a spot in England that isn't privately owned.
I’m not trying to be rude but there are plenty of rights of way all over the country? Is that not enough? Do you really need to trespass ?
@@iangriffiths9930 Appreciate what you are saying. But for me its a case of... where is your line? At what point do you stand up and say... "Hey I would like more than 8% of the country to walk in". In fact here in the south of the UK, as a percentage its a lot less. Yes we have footpaths. But access land like this is eroding rapidly.
I understand completly what you are saying as I use what little byways open to all traffic there are, 8% still translates to 1000s of miles though. I just think encouraging people to trespass makes these people part of the problem and not part of the solution, if you are unhappy with the situation then fight it legally?
On balance I think walker have it pretty good when compared to other open space users 🤷
Even in the US, when there is a public right-of-way on a property, it's extremely hard to remove it.
It can be done with eminent domain, if you own the property on either side of the right-of-way, but you must apply for that, and it's not given if it's against the interests of the local government.
It seems really odd that a property that has granted public right-of-way for several hundred years could be allowed to suddenly remove that right-of-way to charge for access.
There are legal limits to what one can do with their own property everywhere, and removing free public access to property, *especially* property supported by public tax money, should not be allowed.
I do admit, some of the free public path access I see in these videos seems really odd to me, as an American, but this is entirely different.
The current family needs to deal with the agreement their ancestors made, like it or not.
Right-of-way, once granted, should not be removed easily.
The original owners of the small parcels of land that make up these types of estates were so grateful to hand over their land to the impressive knight in shining armour leaning heavily on his broadsword, I can still imagine them smiling today.
Quote from Wikipedia given below. The nuances and legal limits are beyond my knowledge, but this summary is a good but not exhaustive way to interpret the current understanding. Please seek legal advice before walking/entering an area you are in any doubt about.
"In England and Wales, after a polarised debate about the merits, rights and benefits of private landowners and public recreation, in 2000 the Government legislated to introduce a limited right to roam, without compensation for landowners. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW) was gradually implemented from 2000 onwards to give the general public the conditional right to walk in certain areas of the English and Welsh countryside: principally downland, moorland, heathland and coastal land.[33] Forests and woodlands are excluded, other than publicly owned forests, which have a similar right of access by virtue of a voluntary dedication made by the Forestry Commission. Developed land, gardens and certain other areas are specifically excluded from the right of access. Agricultural land is accessible if it falls within one of the categories described above. People exercising the right of access have certain duties to respect other people's rights to manage the land, and to protect nature.
The new rights were introduced region by region through England and Wales, with completion in 2005. Maps showing accessible areas have been produced. This added to the legal right to use established public footpaths and bridleways, some common land and access to the foreshore. Land owners may prevent access to other areas (or charge a fee for access)." End quote.
And Cirencester Park is not a designated Open Access Area under CROW and there are no rights of way across it so there is no right to access it.
As a Scot, the issues down south seem so backward and restrictive, I love our open space. Have to say, this jumping on the bandwagon regarding slavery, which was a horrible period of time, should not be used as a leverage point.
When my little village had essentially its whole North sold off to the unsavoury rich bloke up the road it was such a shame. I grew up roaming those fields and woods, and others enjoyed walking their dogs, or just taking a stroll. The land isn't even usable due to it being unstable and a former coal power station's ashes, but he blocked it off to everybody anyway, and delights in saying he'd shoot any trespassers. I know he can't, but the fact he even says it is nasty.
The answer The people who want to roam there BUY IT
Should we buy, footpaths, open access areas of land, national parks. You know every bit of England is owned by someone. Where is your line?
This seems very important to me. Here in the US we do not have Right to Roam. I'm not saying one system is better than the other, but changing access and charging money in this case is disgusting.
I live in one of the few Conservative controlled areas of Scotland.
We've lost areas like this with hundreds of years of access, even with our right to roam, from wealthy English folk moving in and putting up barriers, fences and threats of prosecution.
The Conservative council grant them retroactive planning permissions, don't force them to tear down their illegal fences, and allow them to ruin the lives of the people who grew up here.
It's a disgrace.
I've spoken to so many local farmers about right to roam, and so many of them are happy to chat to hikers on their land so long as you also respect the farm, shut the gates behind you, don't let dogs hassle the livestock, and don't hike through lambing/calfing fields. The majority of people follow these simple rules, and our lives are better for it.
The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose off the common
But leaves the greater villain loose
Who steals the common from the goose.
The law demands that we atone
When we take things we do not own
But leaves the lords and ladies fine
Who takes things that are yours and mine.
The poor and wretched don’t escape
If they conspire the law to break;
This must be so but they endure
Those who conspire to make the law.
The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose from off the common
And geese will still a common lack
Till they go and steal it back.
As a Mainland European, the idea of Trasspassing is wierd... That it is a legal concept.
People don't like change. There are plenty of estates around the country where money has to be paid in order to access them. If there was no tax subsidy then I would see the need for some kind of payment to upkeep the estate but there is a tax subsidy so perhaps local residents should get free access.
So after doing some googling before I made my origninal comment, I found something interesting not mentioned in the video.
The park is still free for residents. The "restriction" comes in the form of using a card that requires a 10 pound deposit (returned to the holder when the card is returned) to receive. Up to 6 people can be on the same pass. The pass is needed because people from out of town are being charged an access fee. This access fee is being collected to help fund a conservation project for the estate. The Bathhurst estate denies receiving public funding to keep the park open.
I feel like this is important context that is missing from the video.
"The Bathhurst estate denies receiving public funding to keep the park open."
Is that the important context?
Defending the rich and greedy? Urgh, very unpleasant.
@@emm_arr That and the fact that the park is still free for the locals to use.
I also had more to say about the denial of receiving public funds but it strayed too far into speculation so I cut it out.
"According to campaigners, the Bathurst Estate has received millions of pounds in farm subsidies in recent years" is a quote from a BBC article on the topic. Farming subsidies does not equate to public funding to keep the park open. The estate owns other unrelated farmland that produces crops for consumption according to their website. So logical assumptions are that the estate receives farming subsidies (probably available to all farmer) for its farms. Therefore, I have no reason to believe that they are lying about receiving public funding for the park.
@@WalkingThroughJapan "The Bathhurst estate denies receiving public funding to keep the park open."
Is that the important context? Because if so, you've been duped by the "to keep the park open" bit.
"Therefore, I have no reason to believe that they are lying about receiving public funding for the park."
You swallowed a partial truth and ended up being a dupe.
@@emm_arr You seem to know a lot and say a lot. Are you 100% certain that you know exactly every detail of this case in regard to finances etc? I highly doubt it. Maybe it's you who has been duped. Where is your actual proof that any public money the estate does receive is not being used for what it is allocated for in the correct manner? You seem to imply the mere fact of receiving public money is somehow irregular and that they should not be getting any. Please provide links and all relevant information. Thanks in advance.
Good to hear there are others who also fight for access to our freedom to walk.
The tax-payer should request the refund of monies received then. They can't take tax-payers money and then take it away.
Wrong icon for your comment.
Depends on what that money was claimed for. It's a matter of public record that their farm received CAP or whatever the post-Brexit equivalent is, and can't be claimed back if they got it for avricultural purposes. But what other tax relief they got is unknown.
I think it could have to do with the fact the demographic of the UK is a bit different last few decades and even more so lately to put it mildly and that there could be a risk of certain 'freshly arrived' groups trying to camp out there and will be harder and harder to remove them from the property, or you would have to have some kind of gatekeeping with for example a timeslot of entering only during the day. But that requires extra resources to hire literal gate keepers and not just two persons if you see how big it is. So i understand if you are able to live on a property like that that you don't want to be on edge all the time about what is going to happen.
It is entirely possible that I'm missing some or quite a bit of information here, but if it's privately held land, why can't they be allowed to do what they like with it? I'm not British, so I've only got a passing knowledge of the right to roam movement, and I do generally agree with what I know about their movement. I'm just confused about why someone removing access to their private property is such a huge problem.
Yes, I do understand that losing a pleasant place to walk or sit while you eat your lunch can hurt, but if it's not public land, I donxt see how you could really fight it.
The family that owns it live off the proceeds of the forced labour of others. For generations the family has done nothing but hoarde wealth. They contribute nothing but live in luxury. Gammony fox hunting polo punting toffs. Own land everywhere, including whole villages (sapperton) and live off the rent. Take public money but want to charge for access to the land? The very embodiement of 'waste of space'
That is indeed the case. It is not designated Open Access Land and there are no rights of way across it. Sadly and as such the public have no right to access it.
The public don't have a "right" to anything, but were for 300 years, allowed to walk and use this land, for free. For some reason, that being greed, it's been stopped. That access is hugely beneficial to people, their health, well being and development.
When someone dies there is death duties to be paid . basically a 40% tax .
To avoid this the family who inherit can instead open the lands to the public . Theres a duty that this happens twice a year but in this case its been open to the public for 300 years .
The family have decided they no longer will have the public roaming freely so are closing the gates only to the paying public . This forefills the legal obligation and the ability to retain a 200 million pound property and estate .
@@meme4one The public have a right to roam on designated open access land and a right to make their way on public rights of way.
Your class system is still alive and well it seems.
Oh yes.
There's nothing stopping you from walking in from the various other holes in the fence.
This seems like the issue that I sent you the details of near Westbury a week or so ago.
there is a real easy way to solve this. since you folks can prove that they have been using government funds for upkeep of that place, if the Bathurst family doesn't pay the government back the money that's been used to upkeep that place then it stays public, if they can pay back the government, without charging the citizenry for continued usage, once the debt is paid it goes back to them, but they should be forced to pay back the government without limiting access and usage to that land or charging for use of that land since they've already been paid.
Sad that i don't really live all that far from cirencester and I never knew this park existed and thus have never walked there. Now I probably won't as I object to parking fee's for national trust woodlands on priciple and certainly am not going to help fund the rich anymore than I already do as a slave.
👍👍❤❤
Whilst they are receiving tax payers money the land should be open. i do support the right to roam and would like to see more river banks and woodland opened, but it does come with responsibilities. More people seem to be using the countryside since Civid but unfortunately some do not respect the countryside code. Litter and dog poo bags are a lot more common on the countryside footpaths and i am concerned this will cause more landowners to close permissive access.
If my back garden was 15,000 acres of beautiful British countryside I would be more than happy to allow free access, and I'm sure most other people would.
I live near a place where there was a deed of covenant or some legal document that required that a piece of land was given over for leisure purposes. Until a few years ago it was a public golf course with a club house that had rooms where I used to have training courses. Today, that building is a part of an academy school and most of the land has been taken up with a new large housing estate. That was expedited by local politicians and ensuring that the so called legal obligation could be neglected.
There are always two sides to an argument. My parents were keen ramblers and when I was younger would take me rambling in the Cotswolds. Dad was evacuated to a farm in the Cotswolds in WW2. He was always ready to defend the farmers and their side of this argument about roaming rights. If you want to fish you need a fishing license, perhaps we should charge for a roaming license? The money raised could be used to maintain fences etc.
Why do farmers need defending here? I know many, and the majority agree with right to roam in principle. I am not sure why there is always such a perceived "Them and Us".
You are seriously suggesting we pay to roam! Oh my days.
"If you want to fish you need a fishing license, perhaps we should charge for a roaming license?"
I'd sooner make you buy a gobbing off licence, second class, at a mere £130 a year.
Mate im of this land . This land and my ancesters are intertwined . I shouldnt need to toil and pay to be in and move around my birthright .
Freedom of movement and the ability to be in MY land has nothing to do with sport fishing .
@@nicholaspostlethwaite9554 Science has found that access to nature is important for mental health.
100% agree with you and 110% behind you
Keep up the great work
Love all your content 🙂🙃
I watched the ramblers aggressively delete the RUPPS and BOATS that represented only 5% of motorised byway access in this country. Ramblers weren't happy having 95% of access and worked hard to ban anything with a motor. What goes around comes around....
I wonder if charging for access passes them a legal 'Duty of Care' position which will mean they have to have Public Liability Insurance - any Lawyers around??
When you pointed up to the video "just here" you pointed to one on my feed about Hitler's bunker.
Awks. Need to work on that!
How much does the family pay in taxes for the property? Perhaps the cost is starting to exceed the benefit!
Traveller and roma gypsies welcome, by the owner of the estate. Free food and free benefits ,free accomadation in the large house.
Does the government charge property taxes?
Billions of pounds given to UK landowners in recent decades, and public access is worse now than it was!!! Corruption?