The Right to roam

[Jjm]

I was out down the fields snapping some lone trees and when I returned to my car I was confronted by a man in a Range Rover asking for ID and asking why I had been taking photos of his house!! which was a good few hundred yards away in a different direction.He said he had seen me pointing towards his house on cctv and that I was lucky I wasn't shot.I showed him the photo's on my camera and he apologized saying he was a bit touchy as a pal had recently been burgled,he was lucky I couldn't be arsed with the hassle of reporting him

 

[Tigger.ufo]

I was out down the fields snapping some lone trees and when I returned to my car I was confronted by a man in a Range Rover asking for ID and asking why I had been taking photos of his house!! which was a good few hundred yards away in a different direction.He said he had seen me pointing towards his house on cctv and that I was lucky I wasn't shot.I showed him the photo's on my camera and he apologized saying he was a bit touchy as a pal had recently been burgled,he was lucky I couldn't be arsed with the hassle of reporting him

If he was that bothered why didn't he call the police and do it properly?


Heather

 

[Jjm]

It was odd, I've never been harrased for taking pics before

 

[Stuart M]

It was odd, I've never been harrased for taking pics before

Congratulations! ... you've just encountered your first paranoid nutter. Well done!

 

[jon ryan]

Was the field private land?

 

[Shine On]

Or someone concerned about the activity of an unknown person after knowledge of recent criminal activity?

They've approached the OP, he explained, they apologised and everyone gets on with their life. How does that then constitute harassment or a paranoid nutter?

Unless there is a part of this the OP isn't telling (and as he was the only one there apart from this other chap, we can only take it on face value), I can't help but think this is a complete non-event. It's one thing to bang the 'I know my rights' drum, but a bit of polite decency goes a long way. And to be fair, it sounds like the OP was perfectly polite and therefore got a perfectly reasonable response and apology from the other person. Don't blow it up into some sort of hysterical over reaction.

 

[ernesto]

Be polite by all means but also report him. I don't think threatening to shoot someone for walking close to their house is acceptable behaviour...

 

[Stuart M]

Be polite by all means but also report him. I don't think threatening to shoot someone for walking close to their house is acceptable behaviour...

This ^^^

The paranoid might think twice in future about such veiled threats if an armed response team descended on him.

 

[Steve Smith]

Be polite by all means but also report him. I don't think threatening to shoot someone for walking close to their house is acceptable behaviour...

It's probably enough to have his shotgun licence taken away.


Steve.

 

[jon ryan]

You never know whose land you may be on if you don't check. Some years back I did a press shoot for a story about the appointment of a new Lord Lieutenant. That's a ceremonial rank, the holders of which represent the Monarch in a given area. Nice old boy, lived in a big old house in the country, high walls, electric gates, none of which is that unexpected. I was though surprised to see two armed coppers wandering around the place. Turned out that the appointee was a former Chief Inspector who was still on an IRA death list. Just as well I rang first, really.

 

[Stuart M]

Not so easy out in the countryside though, is it. Fields don't have signs giving owner's names and contact numbers. They're not necessarily owned by the nearest farm either. I went and knocked at a farmhouse door a while back asking for permission to enter a field close by only to be told it wasn't theirs but was owned by some bloke that lived 20 miles away and, no, they didn't know how to get hold of him.

 

[boliston]

I think the second someone threatened me with being shot then my cooperation would end there and then, and they would certainly be reported to the police.

 

[modchild]

Way over the top reaction threatening to shoot someone, even if he had taken photos of the house, and something the OP has to decide upon whether to inform the police. The OP doesn't actually say the person had the shotgun with him at the time though so whether it was an 'off the cuff' remark or a threat is debatable.

It does work both ways if you are civil, I wanted to take some shots of a straight line of trees and the only vantage point to get the angle was from someones yard. I knocked on their door and politely explained why I wanted access and asked if they would mind for a few minutes. 'No problem' they said, and I got my shots and gave them a wave as I was leaving. Not everybody is 'paranoid' and anti photographers these days, but it is getting worse.

 

[Deleted member 34016]

I own several Acres of and-I have a Hhotgun Certificate and a section 1 Fire Arms license ( 3 shotguns + various calibre rifles 17 HMR .223 & .243)

Maybe the landowner was expressing concern , that as shooting maybe be authorised on his land that indeed the OP could have been shot accidentally :shrug:

If I see dog walkers - hikers- even Photographer's over my land I personally would have concern's for these peoples safety as I shoot regularly on this land and have warning signs depicting such

If Trespasser's are not made aware that such activities occur, then its an accident waiting to happen in my opinion

My advice to the OP is Don't wander onto private land, without 1st seeking the landowners permission, simple!

Right to Roam YES on Private Land NO

Les

 

[Shine On]

I think the thing here is context.

John reporting that the person said he 'was lucky he wasn't shot' followed by a smiling smilie is rather different to 'the man approached in an aggressive manner threatening to shoot me'.

You could argue that that those two statements are the same (and this being the Internet, I fully expect that's exactly what will happen), in reality they are very different. One is potentially a throw away jovial comment of someone who has found a suspected wrong doer is actually an innocent photographer, the other is an intimidatory threat to harm.

 

[Shine On]

Les, right to roam in Scotland is different. Providing you don't cause damage entering an area, you have the right to wander through someone's land, or indeed garden. However, the landowner also has the right to ask you to leave, at which point you are obliged to do so directly, again without causing any damage.

 

[Stuart M]

Maybe the landowner was expressing concern , that as shooting maybe be authorised on his land that indeed the OP could have been shot accidentally :shrug:
Les

There is nothing in the OP's post to suggest that the person that confronted him was the land owner. He may well have been nothing more than a local nosey parker completely unconnected with that piece of land at all.

I think the thing here is context.

John reporting that the person said he 'was lucky he wasn't shot' followed by a smiling smilie is rather different to 'the man approached in an aggressive manner threatening to shoot me'.

And I wouldn't necessarily assume that just because the OP put a smilie there , the bloke made his comment in a jokey way and was smiling when he said it.

 

[admirable]

Les, right to roam in Scotland is different. Providing you don't cause damage entering an area, you have the right to wander through someone's land, or indeed garden.

Are you sure about this? Have you got a link?

 

[ghoti]

Les, right to roam in Scotland is different. Providing you don't cause damage entering an area, you have the right to wander through someone's land, or indeed garden. However, the landowner also has the right to ask you to leave, at which point you are obliged to do so directly, again without causing any damage.

Strictly, you don't have to leave if the landowner asks you. However, you're not allowed to cause the landowner any trouble or inconvenience which, if he does decide to make a fuss, makes it very difficult for you to legally defend staying on the land.
It's technically legal to camp overnight* in someone's back garden in Scotland. However, again, you'd likely fall foul of the law with respect to "inconveniencing" the resident. On a large estate it's not so much of a problem. I've camped out on unused farmland and private islands many times as a yoof.
The only exception is a stretch of the banks of Loch Lomond where a recent by-law has made wild camping illegal due the droves of youths heading up there from Glasgow to camp and get wrecked, leaving the place in a mess.

*you're not allowed to "occupy" private land, though. Camping is fine for a night or two but setting up a permanent camp (occupation) is a no-no.

 

[Shine On]

I'm not the one doing the assuming Stuart, I'm suggesting there are two sides to a story. As a photography enthusiast I appreciate my rights to pursue my hobby, and would seek to defend them as necessary. However, I feel that on the whole, threads like this just illustrate a generally defensive and combative attitude from some people that I strongly believe either alienates photographers, or turns a a situation from a nothing to a something. We're all very keen to defend our rights, what about the rights others though? The right to (politely) engage with someone to enquire as to what they're doing when it might be outside the normal, because you don't wish to become a victim of crime for example? If that person was rude, aggressive, or threatening it somewhat changes things, but a polite reasonably response still usually diffuses it very quickly.

As I say, context is the key, and from the sounds of it, John did exactly what I'd have done - 'Hello, I'm doing nothing wrong, here have a look', 'ok thanks, sorry for bothering you', done.

 

[Shine On]

Are you sure about this? Have you got a link?

No I don't have a link, that is what I understood to be the case from a friend who I visit regularly near Inverness. If I have that specific bit wrong, then I apologise and will be happy to stand corrected. In either case, it's not something I'd look to do because I think it would just be rude.

 

[erictearle]

I found it laughable that he thought he had the authority they demand you for ID

 

[arclight]

Les, right to roam in Scotland is different. Providing you don't cause damage entering an area, you have the right to wander through someone's land, or indeed garden. However, the landowner also has the right to ask you to leave, at which point you are obliged to do so directly, again without causing any damage.

Not quite correct, Paul. Gardens are considered to be within the curtiledge of a house and access rights are excluded.

Part of the code is here:-
http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/B621366.pdf

The actual legislation is much more detailed, of course, and photography (as in hobby and educational purposes and not for commercial purposes) is specifically mentioned as a legimate activity for which access my be taken.
Generally speaking, in Scotland the public have a right of access, on foot, pushbike, horseback - canoe etc., too) to almost all land and water provided they behave responsibly and exercise a bit of common sense.

If the OP believes he was threatened with being shot, then he really should report the matter to the police since that is a very serious event. It may go nowhere due to no witness, but if the "offender" has a history of such threats then is a different matter.

 

[ernesto]

I think the thing here is context.

John reporting that the person said he 'was lucky he wasn't shot' followed by a smiling smilie is rather different to 'the man approached in an aggressive manner threatening to shoot me'.

You could argue that that those two statements are the same (and this being the Internet, I fully expect that's exactly what will happen), in reality they are very different. One is potentially a throw away jovial comment of someone who has found a suspected wrong doer is actually an innocent photographer, the other is an intimidatory threat to harm.

Get what you are saying, but not getting shot by someone whose house you are close to is not a matter of luck, jovial or not.

I haven't got a gun but I have kitchen knives so should I say "lucky you didn't get stabbed" when I approach someone near to my house. I would say it in a jovial manner but that wouldn't stop me being seen as a nutter would it...

 

[London Headshots]

I was out down the fields snapping some lone trees and when I returned to my car I was confronted by a man in a Range Rover asking for ID and asking why I had been taking photos of his house!! which was a good few hundred yards away in a different direction.He said he had seen me pointing towards his house on cctv and that I was lucky I wasn't shot.I showed him the photo's on my camera and he apologized saying he was a bit touchy as a pal had recently been burgled,he was lucky I couldn't be arsed with the hassle of reporting him

He was lucky you didn't report him for approaching you and asking you what you were doing?

 

[London Headshots]

Get what you are saying, but not getting shot by someone whose house you are close to is not a matter of luck, jovial or not.

I haven't got a gun but I have kitchen knives so should I say "lucky you didn't get stabbed" when I approach someone near to my house. I would say it in a jovial manner but that wouldn't stop me being seen as a nutter would it...

There's every chance, given it was the country, that the guy was lucky he wasn't shot simply because it's legal to fire great big guns at stuff in that locale.

 

[Deleted member 34016]

Les, right to roam in Scotland is different. Providing you don't cause damage entering an area, you have the right to wander through someone's land, or indeed garden. However, the landowner also has the right to ask you to leave, at which point you are obliged to do so directly, again without causing any damage.

Oh I see- I didn't clock the OP was North of the Border Thank you for clarifying

Les

 

[Deleted member 34016]

There's every chance, given it was the country, that the guy was lucky he wasn't shot simply because it's legal to fire great big guns at stuff in that locale.

Very true- I do the self same thing on my land and would dread to think of someone getting shot ( Accidentally) as opposed to my intended target, just because they wandered over my land

Les

 

[Jjm]

I walked onto this land from a public footpath I had no fences or obvious boundaries to cross.His property Iam assuming as it was far enough away for me not to even notice it has a well defined boundary and I think he falls into the nutter with too much money categorie

 

[Deleted member 34016]

I walked onto this land from a public footpath I had no fences or obvious boundaries to cross.His property Iam assuming as it was far enough away for me not to even notice it has a well defined boundary and I think he falls into the nutter with too much money categorie

You may well be right :nuts:- I personally have no objection to people on my land and if I happen to be shooting- I clearly sign the gates and styles that enter

Les

 

[4wd]

You may well be right :nuts:- I personally have no objection to people on my land and if I happen to be shooting- I clearly sign the gates and styles that enter

Les

Depends on past history doesn't it, here we have a range of undesirable types will be all over the place lamping rabbits with dogs - without asking - when cows and calves are panicked through fences, or taking the odd sheep to butcher if not occasionally challenged.

Others think it's fine to remove any fallen branches for firewood, and if a fence is inconveniently in the way it will be cut - and take that for firewood too.
Often they won't close gates and livestock can get onto roads potentially very dangerous for night drivers.

Then there's the ones who can't walk 50 yards without dropping cans, bottles or even more unsavoury/dangerous items.

If people were responsible and knew how to behave there would be no need to worry about what that car and passenger were up when stopped down the lane.

 

[northernbiff]

Sociable lot you land owners with guns, aren't you!

 

[big soft moose]

Does the right to roam in scotland automatically confer the right to take pictures ?

In england and wales public access rights don't automatically confer anything other than the right to 'freely pass and repass by permitted means' with if you wish a usual acompaniment a long list but not one that includes photographic equipment (includes dogs under control for example)

Technically they don't even confer the right to stand still - although in practice no one is going to do anything about that .

Doing anything which is outside of the permitted activty is an act of trespass against the landowner (a civil offence not a crime, unles you agravate it by behaving like an arse)

 

[kendo1]

Does the right to roam in scotland automatically confer the right to take pictures ?

Who's going to stop you? There's no-one up here!
As far as I am aware there are no restrictions, in general, about taking pics. The only ones I can think of are the usual restrictions about military establishments, though this is pretty lax as you can take pics of RAF planes or RN ships quite freely.

As long as you don't upset the livestock at certain times of year landowners don't mind. In the shooting season it's wise to heed any restrictions for your own safety. Notices are required to be put up to warn of grouse/deer shoots.

Once you get up in the highlands you can walk for ten or twenty miles and not see a soul. Ben Lomond is another matter though, it's like the M25...

 

[weybourne]

Does the right to roam in scotland automatically confer the right to take pictures ?

According to a previous post, yes:

...The actual legislation is much more detailed, of course, and photography (as in hobby and educational purposes and not for commercial purposes) is specifically mentioned as a legimate activity for which access my be taken....

(my emboldening)

 

[boliston]

Does the right to roam in scotland automatically confer the right to take pictures ?

In england and wales public access rights don't automatically confer anything other than the right to 'freely pass and repass by permitted means' with if you wish a usual acompaniment a long list but not one that includes photographic equipment (includes dogs under control for example)

Technically they don't even confer the right to stand still - although in practice no one is going to do anything about that .

Doing anything which is outside of the permitted activty is an act of trespass against the landowner (a civil offence not a crime, unles you agravate it by behaving like an arse)

I can't see any reason why photography would be treated any differently with any other "normal activity" that footpath users would do.

For example is it permitted to use a mobile phone whilst on a public footpath? I can't see anything in the legislation about mobile phone use.

Would using a pair of binoculars breach the rules?

How about using an mp3 player to listen to music as you walk?

 

[big soft moose]

I can't see any reason why photography would be treated any differently with any other "normal activity" that footpath users would do.

For example is it permitted to use a mobile phone whilst on a public footpath? I can't see anything in the legislation about mobile phone use.

Would using a pair of binoculars breach the rules?

How about using an mp3 player to listen to music as you walk?

a mobile phone would come under usual accompaniements , as would an MP3.

Binocs/ cameras don't however because the sailent difference is that you don't use them as you are walking, you walk to a point and then stop to use them - as soon as you stop you are no longer freely passing and repassing but instead on the land engaging in another activity which is technically trespass.

of course 99.9% of the time no one gives a good **** - the trespass through non permitted activity is most usually implemented against people cycling or horse riding on footpaths , but the 0.1% of the time is where you get a landowner that doesnt like the activity, and has a perfect right to prohibit it on their land

(the other common falacy is that a public right of way is public land - it isnt it is private land to which you have a right of access for a specific activity)

THe other thing to bear in mind is that you only have a right to freely pass and repass on the definitive line of the path (which is often not where the path actually is on the ground), and only within the corridor of the path (usually 3ft width for footpath or 8ft for a bridleway - but not always definitive widths vary )

and lastly you don't have a right to obstruct the passage of other path users , so setting up a tripod or even standing still for a long period of time could be a no no (again mostly no one cares, but ocassionally you get a landowner who does)


(incidentally I'm not relying on interweb/wiki armchair expertise here - I was a rights of way officer for 5 years, and I've acted as an expert witness in trespass cases - Just to stress though everything I'm saying here is under English or welsh law - scotland is different)

 

[boliston]

a mobile phone would come under usual accompaniements , as would an MP3.

Binocs/ cameras don't however because the sailent difference is that you don't use them as you are walking, you walk to a point and then stop to use them ...

OK, how about using a map while on a walk? Many a time I have seen ramblers stopping to look at a map - is that a big NO NO?

 

[ernesto]

Whatever you do, don't stop as it makes you an easier target for those shotgun happy types.

 

[kendo1]

Whatever you do, don't stop as it makes you an easier target for those shotgun happy types.

lol