ANOTHER VOICE
Time for the ramblers, scramblers and saboteurs to decide who owns the land
1, . 1' rhe 4•-•
AUB ERON WAUG H
spirited coriesiXindence in the Times on the use of by-ways or green lanes by motorbikes and four-wheel-drive Land- rovers has been made particularly enjoy- able by the objections of ramblers to being `sprayed with mud' and 'deafened by engines' as they set about their sacred plea- sures, rambling over other people's proper- ty in bands which can be 40, 50 or even 60 strong. All the men are bearded, while most of the women appear (through no fault of their own) to be hunchbacks. All are hideously dressed in brightly coloured, shapeless garments, most carry canvas satchels on their backs. They exude a chal- lenging air, made up of a victor's territorial triumphalism with a sort of corporate men- ace. Most country-dwellers would be delighted to see them scattered or flattened by racing hooligans on motorbikes, or staid, self-righteous four-wheel-drivers deter- mined to claim the countryside for their own leisure activity. But even if we could chase the ramblers off the land and back to their own urban rabbit warrens, we would still be left with the motorbikes and the Land-rovers.
Motorised expropriators of the country- side complain bitterly that there are only 5,000 miles of green lanes open to motorists, while there are 125,000 miles of rights of way available to walkers (or ram- blers, as these people prefer to be known). Every week county planning offices receive applications from motorbicycle organisa- tions to open a new right-of-way for scram- blers. Where motorbikers blaze a path, four-wheel-drivers are not far behind. `Most off-road drivers belong to four- wheel-drive clubs,' explains Alexander C. Young, Green Roads Officer of the Scot- tish Land-rover Owners Club, based in Glasgow. At present, he points out, there is only one green road of some 15 miles (the Corrieycurain pass) available for his mem- bers to take their pleasures and practise their skills.
I do not know what persuaded these peo- ple that the countryside was theirs to dis- pose as they wished. The original purpose behind rights-of-way and byways was that they enabled farmers, cottage dwellers and villagers to reach church, shop, pub or a neighbour's house through someone else's property as a necessary convenience of country living. They were strictly utilitarian in function. There seems no connection whatever between them and the idea that they should be taken over as a further leisure opportunity for town-dwellers — on top of all the ten-pin bowling, Chinese takeaways, massage parlours, cinemas, the- atres, bridge, chess and health clubs, evening classes in cloisonné and yoga, not to mention the endless sexual interaction with which they while away their leisure moments. I can well understand that the demand should exist for this further leisure opportunity among the nation's overpaid and overprivileged town-dwellers, but not why they should expect landowners to cater for it free of charge. Politicians, in their tireless efforts to win votes, may be pre- pared to offer them free art galleries, as well as vast stretches of common land for them to wander over. But at least the state owns these properties. It does not own pri- vate land and has no business to make free with its citizens' property.
Even so, these conflicting interests might be settled easily enough within the demo- cratic argy-bargy. A minority of ramblers, scramblers and four-wheel fraternities wishes to dispossess a minority of landown- ers. The country, by and large, prefers to be run according to a system where private cit- izens are permitted to own and acquire their own property, rather than on a social- ist or anarchist system whereby nobody is allowed to own anything. There is no earth- ly reason why people should not be required to pay a charge for rambling, scrambling or four-wheel-driving over someone else's property, and I imagine that most of them, apart from the ideologues and trouble-makers, would be perfectly prepared to do so. Practically nothing else is free; why should this be? The land does not belong to them and if they think it does they are wrong.
But before a such a historic settlement between the conflicting rights of town- and country-dwellers could be reached, it would be necessary to restrict all rights-of-way and by-ways to the uses for which they were intended, namely the convenience of local residents. Local residents who no longer required these rights would be at liberty to waive them for a small consideration, if the local landowner wished to pay it.
If ramblers and scramblers and the four- wheel fraternity represent no more than their own selfish interest, the urban animal rights movement surely represents a social derangement. Once again, we may suppose it is the product of so many humans living so close together that they suddenly devel- op sentimental obsessions about wild am- mals, but on this matter I feel we are deal- ing with a psychosis. When mental illness is translated into government action we are on the verge of something very unpleasant indeed.
In a free vote in the House of Commons, on 14 February 1992, hunting was gracious- ly allowed to continue by only 12 votes. Of 28 Tory traitors, 26 were readily enough identifiable as Essex men or Tory stinkers. Four of these stinkers retired, five were quite rightly thrown out at the last election, although the unspeakable Terry Dicks still managed to creep into Hayes & Harlington by 53 votes, and the subhuman David Amess seemed to set the tone for Mr Major's administration when he bounced back from Basildon. With luck all this rub- bish will be thrown out next time round, but a Labour government would not be helpful and some idea of the new rubbish brought in may be given by photographs of Stephen Milligan, the new Tory member for Eastleigh, Hants, posing with a fox cub in his local newspaper and promising that the hunt will be banned next time round.
On the same day that W.F. Deedes argued in the Telegraph that if hunting were banned the psychotics would turn their attention to shooting and fishing, the Sun led its front page on a nannyish screech about Prince William of Wales shooting rabbits at Balmoral: 'WILLS SHOOTS BUN- NIES: The ten-year-old Prince spent two hours blasting bunnies on a Balmoral hill' side . . . '
Lord Deedes regrets that the law on pri- vate property and trespass should be so uncertain, but does not suggest anything should be done about that. He regrets that the law has required police to pay £250,00° damages to hunt saboteurs, but does not suggest the law should be changed. He thinks the Government should impose a whip at the next hunting debate, however. A fat hope: 'We have here people who are not so much animal lovers as human haters,' he concludes wisely. For my own part, I see nothing odd about hating humans. As Enoch used to say about the blacks, it is a question of num- bers. What worries me to death is this sick obsession with animals. Could not the saboteurs be encouraged to turn their attention to the ramblers and scramblers?
Previous page
