TLDR: I love this book, and I want you to read it. ‘The Trespasser’s Companion - A field guide to reclaiming what is already ours’, is a call to recon ...
By stwhannah
Get the full story here:
Recently read the author's previous effort, The Book of Trespass. Not read the latest one yet. Previous book was an interesting read, feel sorry for canoeists as they have even less access rights than MTBers.
Quite a lot of hippy stuff in which I'll be honest I skipped over as I wasn't stoned or drunk, but maybe that's just me.
As Hannah says it's definitely aimed at walkers, be interesting to see what the Author's thoughts are on riding bikes on footpaths.
Following the lockdowns and riding local I've definitely taken to riding more footpaths when it's suitable to do so. Only bother I've ever had was someone telling me that I couldn't ride my bike down a gravel road, whch was a footpath, and leads to a bunch of houses. The irony that she was driving a sodding car down it was somewhat lost on her 😂
@jeffl very similar to your "lady in car" story .....
While on my MTB ride this morning I came across two ladies riding horses towards me on a Bridleway in Moreton Forest, I politely pulled off the track so that they could get past and said good morning.
1st lady (in a very posh voice) "you shouldn't be riding a bike on this bridleway"
me "it's a bridleway so actually I can ride on it"
1st lady "well you shouldn't be"
me "well if I can't ride my bike on it then you shouldn't be riding your horses on it either"
1st lady "ummm, errr, well, errrrr, ummmmmm .... well I don't think you should be"
2nd lady (even posher voice) "well lets just agree to disagree shall we"
We went our separate ways with me wondering what time portal I had slipped thru to be in a Jane Austen novel where only the landed gentry are allowed to use the bridleways on their horses.
You English are weird...
😉
Yep.
You English are weird…
Even the ones that live in Scotland 😜
You forgot about Wales..... 😬
It is very weird country when it comes to inherited landowners... yet it seems to be accepted. Especially the tax breaks for access....
Really interested in this. As a long time kayaker, access has been a conversation since forever.
I've been chased down a Welsh river by an irate farmer and more recently in This thread on stw I was physically barged and jostled by three female farmers from pushing my bike along a footpath.
Makes me so angry that there is so much of this country I cannot access because of rich landowners.
Mind you, you've kind of put me off buying this book if I'm honest 😂
I agree, it looks as if it's just preaching to the converted.
You English are weird
This. Or at least the access laws are. What's even weirder is how many people will leap to the defence of such an outmoded and restrictive system.
While on my MTB ride this morning I came across two ladies riding horses towards me on a Bridleway in Moreton Forest, I politely pulled off the track so that they could get past and said good morning...
Obviously, you didn’t doff your cap/ tug your forelock get down on your knees to show your appreciation for your betters…/sarcasm
The sad thing is that access is better here than in some other places.
One thing I like about South East Wales is that no-one really cares down here. The 'mountains' between the Valleys are seen as public domain even if they aren't.
that horse story has just put me in a bad mood.
That horse story has made me laugh out loud...mainly due to the thinking...very amusing. However, it is a really daft thought process...
Great that you're reviewing stuff like this Hannah. So much more interesting than the "look I found this £4,000 chainset in rainbow colours" tat that we've seen recently.
Alas I gotta partly agree with kayak23 when he says
Mind you, you’ve kind of put me off buying this book if I’m honest 😂
The hippy, lefty, flowery bit sounds a bit much!
And of course the title.... why would you write a book that pedants can't buy.... can I borrow yours?
🤔
@kayak23 and @thegeneralist Don't let me put you off! I think there's enough fact and history stuff in there that you can skip over the flowery bits and still have plenty to read. I definitely learnt a lot and thought a lot about stuff from different perspectives, and it's not like access is a new subject for me.
@kayak23 and @thegeneralist Don't let me put you off! I think there's enough fact and history stuff in there that you can skip over the flowery bits and still have plenty to read. I definitely learnt a lot and thought a lot about stuff from different perspectives, and it's not like access is a new subject for me.
@kayak23 I'm with you there. I've been a paddler since I was a wee boy and been chased off rivers all over the UK. The Seoint trespass was nearly forty years ago and we still have campaigns like PeakPaddle fighting to get our fair share. Cyclists don't know how lucky they are wrt access.
From the article:
Is walking – or canoeing – the only permissible fun, because they’re the only activities that leave no trace?
We really need to stop buying into that, because, just like us bikers, when more than one or two walkers start walking through an area they start leaving a trace on the ground. Normally, a very obvious track which is then followed by other people. The non-biking trails through the countryside didn't appear by magic.
We've had the 'you shouldn't be on here' on the Helvellyn ridge but with redsocks. 'you shouldn't be on here', 'its a bridleway, we're perfectly entitled to be here', 'well you shouldn't be'. Etc etc, for about 15 minutes.
I’ve been a paddler since I was a wee boy and been chased off rivers all over the UK. The Seoint trespass was nearly forty years ago and we still have campaigns like PeakPaddle fighting to get our fair share. Cyclists don’t know how lucky they are wrt access.
Interesting. Whilst that was true about 20 years ago, hasn't it moved on a bit in the kayaking world? In a way very similar to what I am doing WRT mountain biking.
I recall when paddlers would police each other on the Dart, and give grief if people didn't have passes. Then sense prevailed and people just paddled stuff when it was up and they were free.
All the " No canoeing " stuff was essentially ignored.
Having said which, I stopped paddling soon after so am not up to date.
Have paddlers effectively set aside the rules/restrictions or am I imagining it?
What’s even weirder is how many people will leap to the defence of such an outmoded and restrictive system.
This! What's with the "you wouldn't want someone walking through your garden" crowd?
My stock answer is yes. Yes, they're welcome to walk through my garden... there's only one place to go... straight up to my front door to knock on it or post something through it.
I was away in Madeira recently and mountain biking with a group of English lads.
Out for beers one night and I raised the topic of access rights and how compliant English mountain bikers are with the "rules" re where it's permitted to ride.
in Ireland most land is privately owned, owned by semi-state forestry companies, or national parklands. Until recently (10-15 yrs ago) there was nowhere that bikes could be "officially" ridden off road. We all just completely ignored the rules \ regulations and cycled\built trails wherever we wanted.
But in England most mountain bikers are so compliant, the argument seems to be that you need to work with governing bodies etc. to improve the situation or else current permissions might be revoked. But if you don't care about what "permissions" you're "granted" then it doesn't matter what's revoked. Just a different attitude I suppose.
The other interesting point was what happens when you get in to a "confrontation" with other trail user groups. English lads were explaining how they'd discuss the situation with the other party etc.
We'd (well I'm worse than most others) would normally just tell the angry other to get the f*ck out of my way and I'd carry on. My point being, that you're never going to change someone else's entrenched opinion (they won't change mine and I won't change theirs) so a discussion is pointless. Also, the person who stops you to give out is looking for something to be angry about so I've made them happier by giving them something to complain about later to anyone willing to waste their time listening 🙂
Just to clarify, I'm very polite with other trail user groups, pulling over to let horses, walkers, runners pass, it's only if someone is looking for an argument that above attitude kicks in.
What’s even weirder is how many people will leap to the defence of such an outmoded and restrictive system.
I wouldn't say I'm leaping to defend the system but it's mostly fine. I ride footpaths, forest tracks, animal trails, anything really. Have done for 30+ years and had 'trouble' a handful of times, and by trouble that's someone saying I shouldn't be there and me riding away. Yes I'd like more legitimate access, but also the law is pretty toothless on this matter. A reasonable status quo.
I've just got started on this, but I loved his previous book and I think Hannah is being a tad unfair on this one.
There's a whole load of people out there on all sides of the political spectrum who just accept English and Welsh access law for what it is - they want to preserve the countryside, they see access as part of that, and the idea that it upholds vested interests and contributes to social inequality isn't really on their radar. If you go along to a rights of way or parish council meeting, you'll meet loads of people like this - folk who are often dissatisfied with their access to the countryside, but view the current system as a necessary evil.
What this book does is try and unpick that (the author calls it "unspelling") with a view to reforming it. So I don't think it's as redundant as all that.
Regarding the impact of mountain biking, yes, we have some, but there's no evidence to suggest we are any worse than other users of the countryside. You're basically rolling around the hills on a pair of soft rubber cushions, not chewing through them like an open-cast mining machine.
Illegal trail building is bad in the wrong place, but in others it's a valid response to a lack of legitimate places to ride. This makes for interesting reading: https://www.bikecorris.co.uk/journal/2021/5/7/wild-trails-in-wales
But in England most mountain bikers are so compliant, the argument seems to be that you need to work with governing bodies
I'm not entirely convinced this is the case. The reality, is that you can ride mostly where you want - at least as far as footpaths are concerned - as long as you're considerate about it and don't provoke confrontation.
It's a bit like smoking weed these days - as far as I can tell - you technically shouldn't do it, but in reality, no-one gives a stuff.
Finally, the idea that walkers 'leave no trace' is laughable, as the endless slabbed sections of the Pennine Way and massive Lake District erosion scars evidence.
Finally, the idea that walkers ‘leave no trace’ is laughable, as the endless slabbed sections of the Pennine Way and massive Lake District erosion scars evidence.
Yeah, walking footpaths that are two miles wide.
Clearly an important issue, looks worth a read. I will say that access in the UK does seem better than Quebec (everything is rigorously controlled, especially national parks) and France (far more conflict, especially with hinters who are a real problem).
I'm not so keen on the tone of the article, Hannah seems to be doing her best to alienate the people she claims to want to bring on board.
Well, I've actually ordered the first one, 'The Book of Trespass' so we'll see how that one is.
Some of the reviews on Amazon very much echo what Hannah infers in the article 😅
Fascinating, informative & passionate -despite being rather over written.
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 30 August 2020
The book is about far more than the title might suggest. The idea and activity of trespass are no more than a frame within which the author explores England's long history of theft of common land - the rightful property of the 99% - by monarchs, aristocrats and the super rich. It is a process that began with William the Conqueror and continues to the present day. As the author takes us through the history, he also takes us with him as he trespasses on vast country estates to explore and to reveal something of what we the people have lost. The material is well researched and full of insights and telling detail of a kind that certainly raised the temperature of my indignation at how, over the centuries, the elite have stolen land and riverine access from the people of England and of other countries. Passages dealing with wealth & aristocratic titles built on colonialism and slavery are integral to the theme. So far so good. The book has significant faults, however, which is why I have only given it three stars. Perhaps the worst of these is that it is over written - full of purple passages"about landscapes, full moons and camp fires that are both repetitive and much less poetic than perhaps the author believes. They distract from the book's theme and direction of travel, and quickly become tedious. There are also irritating excursions into languages the author clearly doesn't speak with the aim of providing etymologies the reader doesn't need, An example of the latter is that we are told the word "madrugada" is of Portuguese origin. Well that's partly true, but it is equally a Spanish word and has the same root as the English verb " to mature" ("madurar" in Spanish, "amadurar" in Portuguese). Similarly there are some ad hoc references intended apparently to display the author's learning which are irritatingly misconceived: "Hamlet's teenage nihilism" merely suggests that the author has no idea what that Shakespearean masterpiece is about, and there's a reference to Rousseau's "Discours sur l'Origine et les fondements de l'Inégalité parmi les hommes" which shows that he either hasn't read the text or hasn't understood it. In summary, the book is strongest when it concentrates on its main subject, weakest when it meanders into literary excursions and ill-advised attempts to display erudtion. Worth adding that towards the end of the book there are passages of questionable coherence that make one think they might have been composed under the influence of weed - a far-from fanciful impression given that the author refers to preparing and smoking "joints" round the camp fire. I think the book would have benefitted from the work of an editor with a vigorous red pencil. Finally, a word about what I feel is missing - which is a discussion of the tendency of the English (in particular) to fly-tip, and to leave rubbish strewn over those parts of the countryside to which they have access. Any argument in favour of strong "right ot roam" legislation on the Scottish model, for example, will doubtless encounter the objection that the English are too filthy to deserve such a right and that the 1% are the guardians of a countryside that would otherwise be despoiled by ****less barbarians.
^ That review is spot on. I noticed in the Trespasser’s Handbook that he plays down the litter issue and says it’s a consequence of there not being enough bins.
but there’s no evidence to suggest we are any worse than other users of the countryside
I mean there is in certain conditions... but I know what you mean.
As for walking and canoeing being "leave no trace" it rather depends how good you are with the old biosecurity. Which is everybodies responsibility but watercourse in particular are phenominal spreaders of nasties and non native invasive species.
Free responsible access for all! And tell the miserable sods to **** off! works for me
Yes..horse riders do seem to be a particularly patronising group of ****s.
Yes..horse riders do seem to be a particularly patronising group of ****.
and all bike riders jump red lights.
I've had some pretty patronising cyclists while walking along the tweed bike path where do they sit on the scale?
Yeah, every group will have a percentage of di**heads.
I have met a few of them over the decades, they all get the same response, “phone the police”
Nobody ever has.
No point discussing anything with a halfwit.
And, if they start a conversation with “you can’t/shouldn’t” etc, they’re probably a halfwit.
Telling them to call the police really takes the wind out of their sails, because it’s not the response they expect.
I have been bothered once, but have done little paddling outwith Scotland. Was very amusing given that it after a morning stacking hay bales in the field behind the idiot. My dad was the riparian landowner.
Been challenged on our farm for walking too. There are a lot of busybodies out there only too willing to enforce the crap access laws on behalf of others.
We would not have challenged in either case had we encountered a walker or paddler in those situations. Sadly the river has been sold on and is in the hands of a neighbour who constantly moaned at us for allowing access.
Mad country, Glad I got out.
Trespass, there are laws against that aren't there?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/28-29/56
Can someone recommend a book on smuggling?
Suggest a book about speeding?
Is there a shop lifters guide?
How about a poachers pamphlet?
Trespass, there are laws against that aren’t there?
That's the problem.
https://www.nfumutual.co.uk/farming/ruralcrime//blockquote >
Hard to see how that relates to access.
@paton, I'd suggest you read this book and it's predecessor. Also a few points. 1 not all land is owned by farmers, book one gives a good breakdown. 2 me walking round the edge of a field doesn't cause any loss of earnings or such that would require an insurance payout.
We really need to adopt the Scottish access laws here in England.
Had my first discussion with someone about rights of way for a long time last week, as is always the case for me, it was a pensioner bemoaning bikes being used on 'footpaths', when showing that it wasn't a footpath it was then because of wild flowers and erosion, as it was a forest track this was a bit of a lost argument, then it was because 'the Duke wouldn't like bikers on his land', even though there are bridleways either side of this short track!
My biggest gripe with rights of way is the amount of times you follow a bridleway and it suddenly turns into a footpath or 'disappears' for a couple of hundred metres or so, so you can't get to the next one, there's a lot of badly thought out routes unfortunately.
I'm not suggesting anyone read this full thread but it might be interesting to scan it to see just how deeply tribal this issue is and just how resistant some individuals and groups are to the idea of wider access rights.
If you do choose to click on it prepare yourself for all the tired old tropes about mountain bikers.
It's interesting the comments about horse riders. Like any group there are good and bad people. The BHF are actively campaigning to stop the loss of bridleways and get more paths designated as such.
https://www.bhs.org.uk/our-work/access/campaigns/2026
I think a lot depends on where you are. In Northumberland you never see anybody so rarely have an issue. I have a liberal approach to rights of way on the bike or on foot*. I occasionally get stopped only once or twice have I diverted from my plan. Maybe once or twice I've had a bit of verbal but never any physical threats. Worst culprits are the shooting estates who don't like you riding on the gravel roads they've build over the moors?
*Ground condition more than lines on a map.
Worst culprits are the shooting estates who don’t like you riding on the gravel roads they’ve build over the moors?
In fairness having lots of people using those roads does increase the chance they will be spotted carrying out wildlife crimes especially killing raptors.
The BHF are actively campaigning to stop the loss of bridleways and get more paths designated as such.
Very much agree with this - cyclists and horse riders usually have very similar access goals. Most of the improved access rights near me (e.g. the restricted byway across Wolsingham South Moor past Pawlaw Pike) have been the result of BHF or related campaigns.
> with clear signs saying no cycling is awful. I really don't know the solution
The solution is obvious, remove the signs.
A fair response given some of the mental stuff being said.
> What you seem to want is outdoors anarchy that allows people the freedom to explore the limits of the harm they can cause to other ROW users as well as indulging themselves.
🦇💩
Fortunately, never seem to get any trouble around where I am (County Durham moorland). Access is good and lots to bike on totally legally without having to venture onto FP's too often.
I was once a bit lost and on a Gravel track that was designated FP. A farmer on a Quad came along, I politely asked if I was alright carrying on to where I was going. He, surprisingly, said if he was using a quad on it, then why should I have to push my bike.
The worse example I have come across was a guy I worked with who had "come into a bit of land" lets say. It was criss-crossed with PROW mostly FP. It was a bit a lovely spot and people often stopped for a sit down, take photos, picnic. He would go out of his way to berate them, while holding a shotgun (but open and clearly unloaded, I'll add), and get them to move on as it was a 'Footpath, for walking upon, and going to somewhere else!'. Tosser.
What you seem to want is outdoors anarchy that allows people the freedom to explore the limits of the harm they can cause to other ROW users as well as indulging themselves.
There was a fair amount of frothing on that thread but that was probably peak froth. 😀
The authors previous Trespass book despite the flowery bits was an interesting read. Being from Scotland the land reform act has made access much simpler for walkers, cyclists, paddlers etc. One of my few forays south of the border ended in my wife & I being asked to leave a pretty substantial forest by an irate land owner as we were trespassing on his land. There were Landrover tracks everywhere in this place & I could hear his van bombing round but didn't realise he was actually looking for us. He tried to block my exit after I had already acknowledged that we had made a mistake and agreed to leave via the quickest route. It's a travesty that the majority of the open land in England according to the authors opinion is legally off limits without specific permission. Is access south of the border as bad as he portrays in his book?
There was a fair amount of frothing on that thread but that was probably peak froth. 😀
Agreed. Sadly, hysterical as it is it seems to capture the "anti" mindset perfectly. I think these people honestly believe Scotland is as big as the Northern Territory with a similarly uniform population density. They also seem to think we can only access a small amount of public land with the rest being private shooting estates. Where do they get fed this shit, it's 2022 FFS?
A fair response given some of the mental stuff being said.
Eek. I've been tracked cross forum. 🙂 I have to admit that in the end I just wanted to wind them up on UKC. As people have said, you've got nochance of changing hardset minds.
I recall some cretinous **** berating my wife and I for taking our 7 & 9 year old kids on a footpath instead of the deadly A road between Chapel Stile and Coniston.
The ironic thing was that I'd just asked the kids to be extra slow, polite and careful as they passed him. He clearly took that as a sign of weakness and so got stuck in. Luckily I remembered someone's awesome advice from here to keep saying " I know, it's ridiculous" at key points in the conversation. It works absolutely brilliantly. You go around a standard debate circle with them covering the rights and wrongs of it all. Sooner or later the rambler will run out of arguments and say " but its a footpath, you're not allowed".
Give them response A above, and watch them get confused. They'll then go back to arguing that they don't mean that and that you shouldn't be there for x,y,z reason. You can easily refute most or all those arguments and they'll end up bellowing at you:
"YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED HERE. IT'S A FOOTPATH."
At which point you repeat response A in a totally 100% agreement type of way implying a kinship with the ramblers at the absurdity of it being designated a footpath and thus not allowed.
And so on, round and round and round.
Bloody excellent response if you are approached and want to have a bit of fun.
You can even do your best Cybil Fawlty impression.
" I knowwww. Yes, I knkwww"
This issue has really been getting my goat for a while now, but what can we do about it? How can we get the access laws changed in England to be more like Scotland?
I’m keen to get more involved in changing things but not sure where to start.
How can we get the access laws changed in England to be more like Scotland?
I don't think you can, too many vested interests and too many people and organisations who will argue against change.
@Pauly start with this book, it’s full of action points! Also follow Right To Roam, who are organising various mass trespass events.
He would go out of his way to berate them, while holding a shotgun (but open and clearly unloaded, I’ll add), and get them to move on as it was a ‘Footpath, for walking upon, and going to somewhere else!’. Tosser.
I think the wording on the Open Spaces Society website is that someone using a RoW is entitled to do anything ancillary to their journey while on that RoW. They use the examples of being entitled to stop for a sandwich if needed, or to compose a watercolour of a nice landscape. 😀
What happens in England regarding "walking" trespass?
Are people actually prosecuted these days?
Can't be prosecuted for (non-aggravated) trespass as it's a civil offense rather than a criminal one.
Any talk about threatening behaviour is also a non-starter - IIRC landowners actually have a legal responsibility to make sure trespassers are safe on their property?
I am currently reading the first book and I think it is brilliant. I don't think it is 'hippy' or airy fairy it is intensely political. The key point seems to be that land was essentially stolen from people who had common grazing over hundreds of years. Numerous enclosure acts cut off people from the land. The author is unashamedly political but not in no way overly whispy. In my opinion it is essential reading.
Living in Scotland we can be a bit smug about this but despite having the right of responsible access which we got in 2003, nothing has been done about land reform since which for me is one of the SNP's biggest failings.
His first book is the best book I've read in years. Fabulous. Not hippy, unless you are full-gammon.
I found myself referring to it the other day when explaining to a friend the difference between 'trespass' and 'aggravated trespass'. An the very fact that we are riding on private land could be taken as 'intimidation' and therefore the criminal offence of 'aggravated trespass'.
Cut and paste job below from Hayes, Nick. The Book of Trespass (pp. 19-20). Bloomsbury Publishing.
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 introduced criteria to arrest people for the newly invented crime of ‘aggravated trespass’.
The lawyers define ‘aggravated’ in their own breezy way as ‘any circumstance attending the commission of a crime or tort which increases its guilt or enormity or adds to its injurious consequences’. A hidden knife would be aggravated assault; and from 1994, a hidden intention had the same effect. Section 61 of the Act legislated that a police officer could remove two or more people from any private land, if they have met for a common purpose. That’s for the ramblers. Section 63 criminalises any gathering of twenty people or more who meet to dance to amplified music. That’s for the ravers. Section 68 criminalises the intimidation, deterrence, obstruction and disruption of lawful activities on land, which turns all protest on land not owned by the protesters into an illegal activity.
At the time, this was primarily to restrict the hunt saboteurs, but is used in the vast majority of protests of all flavours, from fracking, to animal rights, to war. Your right to protest is secured by Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but for the last twenty years, if you do it anywhere but your back garden or a highway, you can be arrested and sent to jail.
On top of this, since 2014, a common ruling has inserted the phrase ‘additional conduct’. If you are trespassing on land and engaging in any additional conduct, literally anything, it can now be classed as intimidation. In the words of the Crown Prosecution website: There is no requirement that the additional conduct should itself be a crime, so activities such as playing a musical instrument or taking a photograph could fall within anything. What limits the scope of anything is the intention that must accompany it: the intention to obstruct, disrupt or deter by intimidating. In short, if you are doing something that is not illegal (photography, dancing, playing the flute), while doing something that is not criminal (trespassing) you can be automatically arrested, and liable to six months in prison and a level-four fine. In this equation, two rights combine and somehow make a wrong.
^^ That's interesting. We've got a local holiday cottage owner who has recently put up signs on his gates stating that cyclists must dismount when using the bridleway which goes along his driveway, through the old farmyard and out onto the road. I jokingly suggested that a bunch of cyclists could make a hell of a noise all dismounting and getting through gates in the middle of the night, with all those cleats, bells, phones ringing, etc. That, in itself, could be a criminal offence! Wow, what a country.
As it's a bridelway you have every right NOT to dismount and carry on riding through. What's his rationale for making people dismount?
It's being courteous. Many years ago when horse-riding at a particular place, it was form to dismount and walk the horse through the grounds of the property. Can't remember if there was a sign requesting this though. Enjoying this thread anyway.
As it’s a bridelway you have every right NOT to dismount and carry on riding through. What’s his rationale for making people dismount?
Yeah, I know that. I can't imagine it's a very rational rationale (!) when he doesn't ask horse riders to dismount, or try to stop cars from using the bridleway/driveway. (It's also not a particularly busy bridleway from a cycling PoV, but could be! 😀 ) I'll probably take a ride over there on the weekend, take some pics to put on social media, and contact the authorities, plus maybe contact the landowner saying that it's an actual criminal offence to obstruct a RoW. We'll see.
It’s being courteous. Many years ago when horse-riding at a particular place, it was form to dismount and walk the horse through the grounds of the property.
Genuine question - what difference does it make being on the horse or not?
Worth engaging with him in the first instance and understand the reasons for him putting up a sign. Much better to do that instead of being confrontational. Be an ambassador for mountain biking instead.
Genuine question – what difference does it make being on the horse or not?
Would assume that it's less frightening for any people or pets. Don't forget that horses can be incredibly skittish at times and jump at the slightest sound.
Don’t forget that horses can be incredibly skittish at times and jump at the slightest sound.
Ah yes, makes sense.
Worth engaging with him in the first instance and understand the reasons for him putting up a sign. Much better to do that instead of being confrontational
Holiday cottages. I'm not knocking around the doors asking to see the owner. (Happy to have a conversation if I bump into him, though. Apparently when this happened to one of our riders last week, it wasn't the friendliest conversation.)
The routes were never "thought out". They were surveyed on something like a Parish by Parish basis circa 1950, by different people who had to follow such data as Inclosure Awards and Tithe maps, [as well as usage] which were themselves drawn up on a Parish by Parish basis, often decades apart and from the Georgian and Victorian eras. Hence the patchwork quilt.
Vote Labour. All the major reforms have come under them.