The difference we have in our views on the way forward is probably not so great I suspect, but we clearly place different emphasis on what has lead to the current position. As a former resident of Suffolk (that possibly explains a lot ) I do wonder why you are so forgiving of those who have put us in the current position; should they not be held to account in some way?
I too wonder why it is so difficult, in a forum of those dependent on access to the countryside for our pleasure to level criticism at those, who oppose us. Much of my posts have been based on the 2012 CLA manifesto on Access and my subsequent observations of the resulting attitudes of the opposition.
At the risk of repetition, there are two powerful lobby groups supporting the views of those occupiers of our countryside, who feel they need to control access. One lobbies for property rights and the other for the production of food. The latter needs our support because we are their customers. Andies looks for a way forward, I think that there several ways forward and the ideas that fuel them are interlinked.
Again, if you want to be heard then you need to get the message right. Do you want to bring to attention the possibility of regaining rights of way, or do you want to satisfy yourself by slagging off the landowners? Pick one of the two. You will get very few people to listen to both. If you are clear and concise and focus on the benefits, you are much more likely to gain support.
Too often walkers fail to differentiate between the farmer and the landowner,
before we can get to clear and concise focus, there is a need to understand this difference. Perhaps my efforts to draw attention to this difference has been
interpreted as slagging off landowners.
I still maintain that interpretation of the 2012 CLA document titled
common sense needs more attention by those, who wish to appease the cause of our difficulties and cannot see the link between 1950's
Ancient History , with a current if 8 year old policy.