Re: Open Spaces Society
Nick Hopton
submission to DEFRA on the use of 'green lanes' by recreational motor
vehicles. This was a few years ago, but if I remember correctly they
gave what was, in effect, unconditional support to the off-roaders.
They'll have to do without my subscription I'm afraid (which I'm sure
won't bother them one iota).
Regards,
Nick H.
Ken
no...@snotmail.com writes
>On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:04:57 +0100, AJH <ne...@sylva.icuklive.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>I don't normally cross post but I'd just like to ask for a bit of
>>support for the open spaces society, it seems strange to me that this
>>organisation has low membership yet has championed the public's rights
>>to access for so many years. Despite being a statutory consultee on
>>rights of way and openspaces they are funded by membership and
>>donations. As a body they were involved in obtaining public access
>>and, important to me, won individuals the right to preserve commonland
>>where the la won't.
>>
>>Apart from winning high profile cases like Hoogstraatens blocked path
>>where the LA had given up, they are supporting locals on a number of
>>obstruction issues, one where the landowner has forced up the ante
>>such that the case has become costly for the individual involved to
>>see the cards, all because the CROW 2000 act had a sting in its tail.
>>
>>I reckon an additional 4000 members are required for financial
>>stability, that's a 200% odd increase!
>>
>>No need to respond Pete ;-)
>>
>>Andrew Heggie
>
>I cannot resist it. The OSS is 140 years old and yet most folks have
>only heard of the Ramblers Association which I also belong to. I would
>very much like to see the membership of the OSS increase and I believe
>it will as folks become more aware of green issues and the importance
>of saving RoW.
>pete
Just to try to establisah the facts, I recollect the case was an appeal
by Kate Ashbrook, an officer of the Ramblers Association, against a
Public Path Diversion Order, made by East Sussex County Council.
It is not clear to me how the OSS won the case. Moreover, I was not
aware that the area surrounding Footpath Framfield No 9, apparently
owned by companies controlled by Hoogstraten, were open spaces or
germane to the open spaces issue.
The County Council, far from giving up, were actively supporting
Hoogstraten. In my view it was ESCC, not Hoogstraten who were the real
villains.
The ESCC may have made a further order, but it seemed to die a death
when Hoogstraten was sent to prison.
I'm not trying to denigrate the OSS, I just want to establish the facts
of what happened. Perhaps you could say exactly what they do do.
--
Ken
Nick Hopton
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 19:16:55 +0100, Ken <K...@dasha.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I think the difference in the organisations is that OSS champions all
> public rights on both public open spaces and rights of way, which
> obviously brings some disagreements between user groups, and the
> ramblers are more specifically interested in the rights of walkers.
As you say, Kate Ashbrook is (or perhaps was, I'm not sure) an officer
of the Open Space Society and an officer of the Ramblers' Association.
These two bodies have fundamentally differing views on the question of
the use of rights of way by recreational motor vehicles. One thing
that has puzzled me is exactly how she manages to reconcile these
opposing views. Two hats, perhaps?
Regards,
Nick H.
Paul
news:57lra45s821if2lqf...@4ax.com...
>I don't normally cross post but I'd just like to ask for a bit of
> support for the open spaces society, it seems strange to me that this
> organisation has low membership yet has championed the public's rights
> to access for so many years. Despite being a statutory consultee on
> rights of way and openspaces they are funded by membership and
> donations. As a body they were involved in obtaining public access
> and, important to me, won individuals the right to preserve commonland
> where the la won't.
>
> Apart from winning high profile cases like Hoogstraatens blocked path
> where the LA had given up, they are supporting locals on a number of
> obstruction issues, one where the landowner has forced up the ante
> such that the case has become costly for the individual involved to
> see the cards, all because the CROW 2000 act had a sting in its tail.
>
> I reckon an additional 4000 members are required for financial
> stability, that's a 200% odd increase!
>
> No need to respond Pete ;-)
>
> Andrew Heggie
I was a member for many years and found them very helpful until one day last
year when they were extremely unhelpful regarding an (admitted fairly
minor - though important to me!) local rights of way matter. Their local
correspondent failed to support me when asked to do so and even gave me what
appeared to be incorrect legal information. (I suspect this was out of
genuine ignorance, but he clearly didn't take kindly to anyone disagreeing
with him)!
I complained to HO and they (in a nutshell) seemed to want to sweep it all
under the carpet without fully investigating what I had said - preferring
to believe their official's version of events rather than their member's
version of events, without any proper investigation of the rights and
wrongs. (They'd had no other complaints about him was the basic argument
for inaction, as I recall).
I assume they'd rather lose me as a member than lose their correspondent by
investigating what I said and consequently risk upsetting him (he admittedly
does a lot of generally worthwhile work for them)!! I can understand that
attitude to some extent, but things could have been handled in a much better
manner and both parties 'kept on board' by way of a proper investigation and
polite apologies as appropriate.
A bumptiously worded and condescending letter written to me by one of their
committee finally made me decide to resign - as it became totally clear that
I as an individual member had no 'clout', what I said was basically of no
consequence and that I was considered entirely expendable!
So, if that's their attitude towards individual members when it comes to the
crunch, it's perhaps not surprising that they haven't got many (I don't know
how many they've lost in the way they've lost me - but regardless of that,
bad news travels faster than good))? The problem may be that they are run
on a very centralised and autocratic basis, with no (or very little) real
day-to-day 'input' on matters of policy and decision-making from members in
the locality. For example, why aren't local members alerted to rights of way
proposals (etc.) in their locality, with an invitation to make their views
known? This could be done by means of a weekly (or so) email to all members
in a certain locality. As far as I know, there is no regular contact between
local members and local correspondents - which has to be a bad thing, if
only because a local member may have some important information which the
correspondent doesn't (as in the case referred to above).
To cap it all, even though I had it in writing from OSS that my membership
and direct debit were cancelled, they tried to debit me again for the
following year's membership and wrote asking why I'd cancelled the dd at my
end. When I wrote back enclosing a copy of the cancellation correspondence
and asking for an apology (this is back in June 2008) I received absolutely
no response - and certainly not an apology for trying to debit me when I'd
already cancelled my membership!!
Not a proper way to behave, even towards an ex-member?
Anyway, I still think they are a worthwhile organisation, although in some
ways not well enough organised and not sufficiently 'democratic' - I'd
rejoin if they were to mend their ways and improve their procedures.
A Walker
Paul
(Various comments)
Many thanks for thoughtful and interesting comments, Andrew.
I agree that OSS is a worthwhile organisation, despite flaws, etc.
By resigning I was trying to make the point that members shouldn't be
ignored and ought to be taken notice of (more deeply involved) - otherwise
they'll vote with their feet (as I decided to do).
If a membership organisation values its members it will do its utmost to
retain them - which OSS doesn't seem to do at the moment.
I attended one AGM and found it very useful/interesting - but I must say I
was deeply unimpressed by some of the longstanding 'old guard' members of
the committee - with certain very honourable exceptions, such as the
excellent Donald Lee.
Oh well - it's probably got to change for the better if it wants to remain
in existence!
Meanwhile, having concluded that whatever I say will be (most politely)
ignored, my only alternatives are to shut up and accept things as they are
or to use the only weapon in my armoury and resign (that is, hit them in the
pocket - which they might just possibly notice, especially of others react
in the same way). All a matter of tactics really.
Best wishes.
Paul (alias A Walker!)
Ken
<ne...@sylva.icuklive.co.uk> writes
>>by Kate Ashbrook, an officer of the Ramblers Association,
>
>the council in a personal capacity, she's a feisty lady. As I said in
>my original post the 2000 act has a sting in its tail and that's to
>do with costs, Kate may have decided to act personally so as not to
>prejudice the finances of the organisations mentioned, I don't know.
If the society she represented is organised as an unincorporated members
club could she have acted in any other way?
In any event, the judgement described her as officer of the Ramblers
Association.
--
Ken
Paul {Hamilton Rooney}
The steam has been taken out of the red-socked wrinkly movement now
that they have the right to roam (if they can cope with being off the
road, of course), so rural tracks and roads can safely be returned to
the vehicles that suit them best.
So don't start! My diff. lock is engaged!
Paul
news:9093d4l626sj646e1...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:36:10 +0100, "Paul" <pa...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Meanwhile, having concluded that whatever I say will be (most politely)
>>ignored, my only alternatives are to shut up and accept things as they are
>>or to use the only weapon in my armoury and resign (that is, hit them in
>>the
>>pocket - which they might just possibly notice, especially of others react
>>in the same way). All a matter of tactics really.
>
> and I know a new web site is taking the staff resources up. There are
> only five staff and some of them are part time. Hopefully things will
> look up after December when the new web site comes online. Please
> stick with the society and work from within it to improve it and
> increase membership and members satisfaction.
> pete
> http://www.oss.org.uk
Hi Pete. Thanks for information, but I have already resigned, in protest at
lack of support on a certain matter, unwillingness to even seriously
consider/deal with the entirely legitimate points I made, whilst arrogantly
taking the word of a badly informed local correspondent against mine (an
extremely well informed member who knows a sight more about rights of way
than the local correspondent - who had quite simply got his facts wrong,
whilst denying that this was the case)! Final straw was a stupid and
condescending letter from one of the committee, talking down to me as though
I'm some sort of well-meaning but deluded idiot and patting me on the head
like a good dog, whilst entirely failing to deal with the points I had quite
clearly made in correspondence! When (pardon my frankness) total prats like
that are running the show there's not much hope left!!
Anyway, best wishes,
Paul
Paul Rooney
> <turt...@defmap.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
They always ignore people who say 'whilst'. It's indicative of someone
who has a bee in his bonnet and is convinced that he is right.
tur...@defmap.com
>Hi Pete. Thanks for information, but I have already resigned, in protest at
>lack of support on a certain matter, unwillingness to even seriously
>consider/deal with the entirely legitimate points I made, whilst arrogantly
>taking the word of a badly informed local correspondent against mine (an
>extremely well informed member who knows a sight more about rights of way
>than the local correspondent - who had quite simply got his facts wrong,
>whilst denying that this was the case)! Final straw was a stupid and
>condescending letter from one of the committee, talking down to me as though
>I'm some sort of well-meaning but deluded idiot and patting me on the head
>like a good dog, whilst entirely failing to deal with the points I had quite
>clearly made in correspondence! When (pardon my frankness) total prats like
>that are running the show there's not much hope left!!
If you believed you were wronged you should have stayed and written to
the General Secretary. You would have received a correct reply that
way.
pete
http://www.oss.org.uk
tur...@defmap.com
<PaulV...@gmail.com> wrote:
>They always ignore people who say 'whilst'. It's indicative of someone
>who has a bee in his bonnet and is convinced that he is right.
It doesn't matter one bit. If you are right it would have been good to
hear about the issue.
pete
http://www.oss.org.uk
Paul
news:d52ad49cirdf0p2at...@4ax.com...
Hi Pete,
I did everything you suggest and was still fobbed off. I wrote to the
General Secretary several times!
Judging by what was said in writing, nobody at OSS HQ was interested in
actually considering the points I was making.
The General Secretary's own comment to me was:
" It is really difficult to investigate an individual case. If we had had
a number of complaints of this nature about an LC we would have to get
involved, but none of us has the time to go and look at XXXX and I don't
have a local person with the authority to do this."
I did offer to send photographs of the site, clearly showing that what I
said was factually correct and what LC said was factually incorrect. Despite
this offer of 'hard evidence', they weren't interesting in seeing the photos
and they flatly refused to investigate the matter (see quotation above).
I'm happy to accept that the LC made a genuine mistake and to accept an
apology - in which case there would have been no hard feelings and no
resignation.
What I'm not prepared to accept is a flat refusal even to look at easily
available evidence (photos) and to take seriously a quite genuine complaint
made in entirely good faith by a member (me).
An organisation which doesn't take seriously complaints made by a member
(indeed, doesn't even want to see the evidence - let alone investigate the
matter in an open-minded way) and, apparently, believes its officials are
bound to be right in any disagreement with an individual member, arguably
doesn't deserve any members!
Kind regards,
Paul
tur...@defmap.com
>An organisation which doesn't take seriously complaints made by a member
>(indeed, doesn't even want to see the evidence - let alone investigate the
>matter in an open-minded way) and, apparently, believes its officials are
>bound to be right in any disagreement with an individual member, arguably
>doesn't deserve any members!
The problem is OSS is such a small organisation and they really
wouldn't have anyone to investigate your claim. What is necessary is
to get more members so it can afford more staff and more LC's to
follow up issues. In your case why not re-join and investigate the
issue yourself and then ask for the information from OSS to take the
matter further?
pete
http://www.oss.org.uk
Paul
news:4qrdd45j5ohdl9504...@4ax.com...
Many thanks Pete,
I don't think you've fully understood the matter as I have given them
chapter and verse already and I've offered them photographic evidence (which
they've not wanted to see). They clearly want to wash their hands of the
matter so even if I rejoin nothing will change!
Anyway, kind regards,
Paul