Warning!

[Roburite]

Instant contradiction stolen from Extreme Pedantry on Facebook

[pleb]

It's not a Contradiction.

[GoneWest]

It's not a Contradiction.

Technically not, but to state "no exceptions" then raise an exception to that is a little strange.

[barewirewalker]

I see a symptom that is caused by a state of mind. The frequency of such symptoms is measurable and has been increasing over the last 2 decades and not for me to identify the source without causing trouble.

However my query, which I would try to add clues to from passing observation, would be does the motivation of the temper of this sign come from farmer or landowner. If a person, who clearly dislikes people straying onto 'his private land', feels it necessary to be so blunt, then I would feel that I would not wish to buy the product of that farm.

There have been great advances in the product identity and public relations of the British Farmer to identify sources back to farm gate. Such visual examples would have far more value if they were tagged with location, to encourage identity of the occupier.

[WhitstableDave]

It's not a Contradiction.

Agreed, it's not a contradiction.

Furthermore, I believe that a dog must be kept under close control and not be allowed to stray from the PRoW. A lead may ensure that's the case, but I don't think it's a legal requirement.

[GnP]

I dislike signs showing exclamation marks..red letters and underlining , but then I`m funny like that.

The information it shows though , makes perfect sense and I can only hazard a guess that the landowner has had a few problems with some inconsiderate people .

[fernman]

I can only hazard a guess that the landowner has had a few problems with some inconsiderate people.

Or that he is absolutely fuming that he can do nothing about the indignity of a right of way used by proletariats to cross HIS land.

[shortwalker]

That sign seems perfectly acceptable to me. Some people do need reminding that a public right of way is just that, it is not an excuse just go wherever you want. I see so many dogs that are not on leads and dog walkers throwing things into the middle of fields so their dogs can get them.

[pauldawes]

That sign seems perfectly acceptable to me. Some people do need reminding that a public right of way is just that, it is not an excuse just go wherever you want. I see so many dogs that are not on leads and dog walkers throwing things into the middle of fields so their dogs can get them.

It’s not the worst I’ve seen by any means...but I think it does tend to show an anti-walker bias.


Another farmer might convey exactly the same info this way:


Please keep to Public Footpath
And dogs on lead


I know which wording I’d prefer to see.

[Pomster]

Or that he is absolutely fuming that he can do nothing about the indignity of a right of way used by proletariats to cross HIS land.

Maybe the landowner thinks we are all patts on his field, we all are not fortunate enough to have land handed down to us? Has for being uneducated thats another discussion


The landowner is probably just peeved off for one reason or another ... Possibly because he cant charge £££'s the person on his land


Near to where I live their is a green lane running through a someones back garden. The owner gets very agitated to say the least when the local TRF pass through ... He should of thought about that when buying the property

[Bigfoot_Mike]

We don’t know that the land owner had the land handed down to him. We can’t confirm whether it was the land owner or a tenant farmer who created the sign. Out of control dogs are a menace on public or private land - it is the owners rather than the dogs that are the issue. Maybe the sign could have been worded slightly differently, but there is nothing wrong with the sentiment.


Some of the claims of entitlement by the land owner are ironic considering the entitlement of some of the replies on here.

[pdstsp]

To me the sign is antagonistic, and the sentiment could be better expressed , ie may engender an empathetic response, were it toned down.

[Mel]

Is it not a sort of contraindication rather than a contradiction?
 
Because of the exclamation mark, I read the sign with a kind of ironic humour. 
 
Without the exclamation mark it would read completely differently, to me.
 
I always understood dogs to be kept on leads around livestock…unless the livestock shows too much interest/rushes you … then you are advised to let your dog off the lead as the livestock’s interest will be in the (much more nimble than you and them) dog, giving you a chance to get to safety.  And that is how I interpret that sign.
 
Link for anyone who has never heard of letting your dog go, if threatened (second paragraph in the Advice to Walkers bit):
 
https://www.nfuonline.com/cross-sector/rural-affairs/access/access-news/livestock-and-rights-of-way-reducing-the-risk/#:~:text=When%20walking%20with%20dogs%20in,dog%20to%20run%20to%20safety.
 
Seems landowners with RoWs through their land are damned if they do, damned if they don’t. 
 

[shortwalker]

To me the sign is antagonistic, and the sentiment could be better expressed , ie may engender an empathetic response, were it toned down.

But we don't know what sign was there beforehand,


We don't know how much hassle the landowner/Tennant has had.
      From dogwalkers causing not only problems with livestock, but wildlife as well.
      From cyclists who believe they can use any ROW.
      From walkers who feel they have an entitlement, to go wherever they want.

[Pomster]

Either way, people will make of it whatever they will 


Personally i find it amusing and would make me chuckle   I'd not give it a second thought to be honest