cliff
regular
Reged: 15/04/2004
Posts: 5638
Loc: various
|
|
The NT have the right to charge admission to property in their care however, and I am sure someone will correct me on this one, I always understood the shore between MLWS and MHWS was Crown property and the adjacent land "owners", or should one say "carers" as in the case of the NT, had no jurisdiction on this inter-tidal zone. If this is the case, provided you did not cross the MHWS line the NT would have no jurisdiction over you whatsoever. Bearing in mind the laws up here in God's country are different from those south of the border in England and Wales (or even Cornwall).
----------
 "Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity"
|
Robin
regular
Reged: 30/05/2001
Posts: 5287
Loc: Poole UK
|
|
I'm not sure what incident was in the original post but have my own views re the NT and Srudland from way back when the land was handed over to them from the Bankes Estste. The NT tried charging us then 50p I think to land with a dinghy - they were told a few home truths then by quite a few folks. Next they built carparks where none previously existed, so more and more people arrived in their cars and not surprisingly walked the walk up to Old Harry. The NT said all those visitors they were now getting were damaging the footpaths so they widened them and reinforced bits, cutting away the natural hedges in the process and spoiling IMO part of the natural beauty.
Similar result too in North Wales where as a yoof I used to mountain walk/climb, the paths were getting worn. Paths were wearing for centuries, that is how they were made. So what if bits crumbled and new route arounds were made - that is natural progression in my view. Otherwise just take a few pics and ban visitors.
--------------------
 Sermons from my pulpit are with tongue firmly in cheek and come with no warranty!
|
hlb
regular
Reged: 16/05/2001
Posts: 17242
Loc: Any Pub Cornwall or Devon
|
|
Thats my point, whether it be Windermere Wales, Studland and no matter which beaurocratic body. Firstly they restrict access, then parking, till they have herded every one into a controlable area.
Thats of course why they dont want boats or dinghys, They are to free and difficult to regiment them into the overall master plan, whatever this maybe.
Suppose it's why most of us bought boats in the first place. To get away from the ever pervading encrochement of officialdom.
--------------------
No one can force me to come here. I'm a volunteer!!.
You get yer forum burgee here. PM me.
Haydn
|
Joe_Cole
regular
Reged: 14/02/2002
Posts: 2348
|
|
Obviously the metaphor is lost on you. Of course it is and the NT has decided that it's also not for inflatables. All this fuss about "thin edge of the wedge" etc is ridiculous. The NT has every right to manage the properties which are in its care as it sees fit. People can go elswhere if they don't like it.
|
hlb
regular
Reged: 16/05/2001
Posts: 17242
Loc: Any Pub Cornwall or Devon
|
|
Ang on a minute. Int NT supposed to mean, in trust for the nation. I might be nieve but I thort that was us?? We are now hearded about like sheep, it what I thought was our green and pleasant land. Or should that read. Green and Peasant land. 
--------------------
No one can force me to come here. I'm a volunteer!!.
You get yer forum burgee here. PM me.
Haydn
|
Joe_Cole
regular
Reged: 14/02/2002
Posts: 2348
|
|
It is for us; all of us, not just boaters. The NT is trying to manage things for as many people as possible not just particular interest groups. Personally I think they do an excellent job.
Your arguement is the same one the travellers used when they wanted to do just as they wished at Stonehenge a few years ago. (I know Stonehenge isn't NT property, but the point remains).
There are miles of beach to use elsewhere.
|
Jimi
regular
Reged: 19/12/2001
Posts: 15931
|
|
I actually live very near Stonehenge .. and the whole thing has been a dreadful case of mismanagement and inappropriate objectives by both the NT and English Heritage for the last 20 yrs. Not a good example.
|
Joe_Cole
regular
Reged: 14/02/2002
Posts: 2348
|
|
And there I was thinking you were from somewhere North of Watford. Now you tell us that you're a druid!
In some ways I agree with you about the place, but the problem is that it has become swamped by visitors. The new visitor centre was not the best planned thing and having to use both sides of the road is a planning nightmare. Now that the proposed road tunnel has been stopped it's difficult to see what they will do.
However, I wasn't saying that Stonehenge was a good example of management. I was simply pointing out that the travellers were pillocks; and I hope that you wouldn't blame either NT or English Heritage for them.
|
hlb
regular
Reged: 16/05/2001
Posts: 17242
Loc: Any Pub Cornwall or Devon
|
|
You missunderstand. I'm calling NT Wankers. I aint got around to Travellers yet!!
--------------------
No one can force me to come here. I'm a volunteer!!.
You get yer forum burgee here. PM me.
Haydn
|
BrendanS
regular
Reged: 11/06/2002
Posts: 35701
Loc: Me: Wilts. Boat: Lymington
|
|
Well get going then. Real Romany gypsies are wonderful fun and can put their horse drawn caravans on my property for as long as they want to stay!
I don't usually buy lucky heather from those delightful ladies and children in the street though, as I've my own collection of extremely rare heathers I've personally dug up from barren heathlands, and transported here to the care of my garden.
--------------------
See http://www.frappr.com/ybw to add yourself to the forum map
and as everyone else is doing it
www.plaintalkconsulting.co.uk
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
