@joannaccherry It's also very important to know who authorised the delay of the court case till after the election. On the face of it, it could be construed as political interference, unless there is another strong explanation.
@janepottie@fellrunningguid@Parkswatchscot I am all behind education - both of landowners and of those who exercise the rights. But the phraseology should reflect what the law and the rights are. Otherwise one person's position is affected at the expense of the other. The Court has told us the essence of the right
@janepottie@fellrunningguid@Parkswatchscot I agree that bad behaviour provides a pretext to erode current rights. Just look at Dartmoor. But if you are interested in maintaining access, let's not use phraseology that can also provide that pretext.
@janepottie@fellrunningguid@Parkswatchscot I was picking you up on your terminology. "Right to roam" has judicial approval on the meaning of the 2003 Act rights. The point you now raise as to behaviour (perhaps also behind your original comment) is a different one. 1/
@fellrunningguid@janepottie No. Sorry, wrong. "Right to roam" was the phrase used by the Ct of Session this yr in Gartmore House v LLTNPA. The 2003 Act gives rights to be on and to cross land. Whilst the rights must be exercised "responsibly", "responsible access" implies a narrower meaning @Parkswatchscot
Best of luck to the @Antarctic_ALE#MtSidley team due to leave Punta Arenas today. The party of 7 plus guides comprises 2 Romanians, a German, a Guatemalan, an Australian, a Kuwaiti and an Egyptian. 4 Everest summiters in the group. Two will complete the #V7S. #MountSidley
OK, need some help with this pic taken this morning. It looks like the cumulus cloud is casting its shadow *upwards* to the cirrus above. There is indeed a layer of cirrus above. I assume this is an optical illusion. 1/2 #StormHour#Clouds