I would agree with Richard T Ketchman, who says that Britain is developing a case of tyranny of the majority, and a habit of attacking people because they are rich. Ramblers can be fanatical and pedantic, I heard of a case where they demanded the right to walk through someone's garden, rather than walk an extra 100 yards around the end. How ever in most cases I do think rights of way should be preserved, as they are a fundamental right that we should not let slip, and a LOT harder to get back than they are to lose.
Alex Stanway, England

Was I wrong in believing that our former government provided inheritance tax brakes to landowners if they provided public rights of way through their land? I have been a mountain biker for the last 15 years and have seen the demise of many of our country tracks, as they become more accessible to the general public. The responsible person whether on a bike, horse or on foot will respect the countryside, and the privacy of those who live there. Unfortunately it is the mass of weekend strollers who turn up in their cars pack lunch in tow scattering mayhem whereever they go. If anyone is _scum_ they are the culprits.
Damon, UK

As a walker, and a productive member of society, I do object to being called scum. It has been proven that walkers are healthier than people who sit about all day.
VIT, USA

Sad to hear folk willing to deny other people the right to travel freely throughout their own country on 'the Queen's Highway'. The footpath network is still a vital part of our transport infrastructure, and is still used as such. Walking is still a valid mode of transport, even at the dawn of the 21st century. If the public road, paid for by 'riff raff' was blocked on the way to Mr Hoogstraten's estate the law would be quickly enforced. This path is no different.
Richard Webb, England

In Montana, we are lucky to have a legal system that recognizes traditional rights of way. In this respect it is similar to the English system and different from that of many American States. All rivers between annual high-water marks are open to the public, and, in cases where public land is surrounded by private holdings, the landowners must allow access through their property. Some recent migrants from places like California resent this. Fortunately they are not in the majority - yet. The Ramblers may be infuriating at times, but they are performing a public service.
James Castro, USA

For the benefit of some overseas contributors who don't seem to understand, the right to use public rights of way like footpaths and bridle-ways etc., has been won by public campaigning & passed into British law. Just the same as any other Human Right that is enjoyed anywhere on the planet. This is known as "progress", something which accumulates over centuries of time by the efforts of mass organisation. The fact that some would rather we all lived in Feudal misery (though the beneficiaries of such a system would naturally be themselves) is a matter between them & their psychiatrists.
Mike, Britain

So...if private land "owners" don't want the scum on their estates, can the said scum stop the land "owners" from coming to the cities?
Thomas Brown, Scotland

I do not belong to the Ramblers' Association, but do enjoy regular walks in the countryside. I cause no intentional damage and only follow designated paths. As for my stake in society, I'm a middle aged home owner with a degree, a reasonable salary with a pension plan, drive a Volvo and have a BMW motorcycle for recreational use. Most land owners are decent people and are aware that walkers only wish to pass through their land and I wish to express my gratitude to these people here. However, this is not the case with all of them. Over the years I've been threatened with guns, verbally abused, chased by bulls, intimidated with dogs, paths have ploughed or blocked and signs have been altered to guide walkers into dangerous swamps. Clearly Mr van Hoogstraten believes he is above the law. I hope that the legal action taken by The Ramblers' Association proves that this not the case.
Geoff Halsey, UK

The Rev Simmonds wants us all to be forced to walk or use public transport - it seems intransigence is to be found on both sides of this debate! I don't WANT to walk everywhere, and if public transport is unreliable, then people need cars. But I don't think ramblers are the scum of the earth! I do, however, think that landowners who refuse access to the land should remember that the feudal system left us a LONG time ago. But that is just typical of the "living in the past" mentality which is the scourge of this country.
Nefer, UK

These ramblers need to be stopped for their own good. Out in the bush we lose two or three ramblers a week to crocs and dingos. I once saved a rambler from a herd of crazed kangeroos. It was the happiest day of my life.
Paul De Souza, Australia

Mr Van Hoogstraten's is quite cynically adopting a dog in a manger approach. His objective is to achieve the closure of a public footpath for his own personal pleasure. He has no more right to do this than I have to attempt to block off the road and footpath at the front of my house! The man typifies that group of despicable people who believe they can ride rough shod over the rights of other people whenever the fancy takes them.
Derek Reynolds, UK It is about time that people building property realise that the people of Britain have rights too.

People who think that just because they have money they can push the ordinary people of Britain around are wrong, the people of our country have rights and the most basic of them is the right to use footpaths that have existed for hundreds of years without hindrance from some wealthy landowners.

I am not and indeed never have been a member of the Ramblers association but I am intelligent enough to understand that they protect my rights as a citizen to use public rights of way and that they want to protect our countryside not ruin it unlike Nicholas Van Hoogstraten who is closing off part of our countryside for his own good.
Peter Smyth, UK

Van Hoogstraten is wrong. There may be some semblance of justification if you've just let go of a fortune for a piece of property, but for the majority of the population, the walkways/byways of this country are and should be public rights of way.
If we allow the principle of customary usage to be overridden by anyone who has the money to buy land, Britain may cease to be "home" to the majority.
Ramblers are not, I have to say, my cup of tea; but as a mountain biking, horse riding, ambulating non-estate owner, I really would prefer to see Mr Van Hoogstraten defeated on this issue. We desperately need public rights-of-way to be preserved and maintained.
Steve Anderson

Although you may get the occasional respectful rambler, most just think of themselves, going where they want, littering where they want...most are scum!!
Karen, England

Several years ago I had a victory over an arrogant farmer in Hampshire. He had blocked a Public Footpath with a barbed-wire fence, and an electric fence. I found out the exact line of the path (across a field), and then cut the offending fences every time I used the path, at the correct points. It is illegal to block a Public Footpath, or keep it in bad repair, so I was within my rights. Eventually the farmer relented, and we had a good relationship for years afterwards. I was not a 'rambler', just a village inhabitant trying to walk the shortest route to a bus stop.
John Cox, Western Australia

Clearly someone needs to get into the magistrates court and get the council to act in this case. The procedure is straightforward and, it will cost the person doing it very little.
However, to present the Ramblers as guardians of rights of way is taking things a bit far. As an organisation you are just as likely to find them trying to close rights of way. They are very active in seeking the downgrading of byways and bridleways to footpaths. In their own way they can be as bad as the person they are complaining about here.
On a humorous level I have a ROW next to my property which had been blocked for years. I didn't howl at the council, I reopened it to howls of protest from a prominent local rambler, I used a Land Rover to do the foul deed.
Rhys Hughes, Wales

The state should take action against anyone blocking public right of ways, these must be protected at all costs, they are our heritage handed down by our forbears.
J. Marland, Australia

This issue triggered a reminder of something I saw a few years ago on Cape Cod not too far from the Kennedy compound. An elderly woman was sitting on a beach chair with a whistle in her mouth. Every time a "rambler" would pass by she would blow the whistle to warn them they were walking on what she considered her turf. The trouble is that often those walking by were actually wading by in the shallow waters. She did not own the sea but from the arrogance of affluence apparently thought she did. Many countries do not give anyone the right to own seafront, all citizens have a lawful access to the beach. I remember one of the young fellows the old lady blew the whistle at put up one finger which I assumed meant that he would only be on her preserves for one minute.
STEVE BLOCK, USA

As a Brit now living in the USA I have much pride in telling my friends here about Britain's many public pathways and the right to walk on them. What Mr. Van Hoogstraten fails to realise is that the paths were there many generations before the land became his, and will be there many generations after he has gone. Here in the rural US, I live in Maryland, I cannot afford to walk in many areas at this time of year because of hunters, even my own land can be too dangerous as not all hunters are as careful as they could be. How nice it is for those still in Britain to have this wonderful right. Please don't let Mr. Van Hoogstraten and his ilk take that away from you.
Mark Jones, USA

Britain is developing a large case of the tyranny of the majority. The locals using the paths to go to town is one thing, the city dweller using the paths to wander around in another thing. Being raised in a family of farmers I can assure you that none of my family wanted total strangers wandering around damaging the crops and disturbing the live stock. Stop attacking people just because the are rich.
Richard T. Ketchum, USA

The name of the game is courtesy and communication. Neither ramblers nor the disabled win any support or indeed friends outside of their groups unless they lose the chip on their shoulders and get on with life in a caring and tolerant manner!
Michael Dene, UK

As an Englishman living in the United States I can say that we lack having an excellent organisation like the Ramblers Association. In a land where there are millions of Landowners like Nicholas van Hoogstraten who greedily hold onto their land and don't allow the general public the basic rights that millions of non-land-owning people enjoy throughout Britain. If he wants land to keep to himself without sharing then he should move to the United States. Over here he can erect his twelve foot wall and live in miserable isolation. As a boy I grew up in the hills of Shropshire and enjoyed roaming the Land of the land-owning Gentry with my father, often stopping to have a chat with the Owners we knew. The sharing of land is what made the county of Shropshire, and still does, a fine community.
Robert Sawtell, USA

When wealth becomes the necessary requirement to enjoy the shrinking English countryside, then we are lost as a civilisation. Both sides should respect rights of way and private property. There need be no contradiction. .
John Gordon UK / USA

This gentleman may be putting it a bit strongly but if these people tried their enforcement of the 'right to traverse private property' here the chances are extremely high that someone would get shot.
W Drew Clemesha, Miami, USA

We are certainly not the scum of the earth. It's a pity that the car is not banned and all people made to walk or use public transport. I would willingly go along with wire cutters and open the footpaths across van Hoogstraten's estate.
Rev. Rodney C. Simmonds, UK

I wouldn't call them scum. If they are non-property owning folk, then they should stay within the confines of their housing-estates and work and study. The whole debate regarding access to countryside for Britons is surely pointless? An island that is only a dot on the map with a need for millions of new shoe-boxes cannot have enough countryside for both the ordinary citizen and the developers of shoe-boxes to enjoy. Money should be the only right of access to all amenities. When are people going to realise that Socialism died twenty years ago?
Tom, Australia

Just who exactly are the 'scum of the earth'? Ramblers who wish to practice their right to enjoy nature, or property developers who buy up huge tracts of land in order to cover it all up with ugly concrete?
Jasmine Guha, England

An American, I visit England frequently. I enjoy hiking and enjoying the views. I appreciate the countryside and nature. If there were a proper legal fund to support opposing Hoogstraten's blocking public rights of way, I would contribute to it - generously. Perhaps van Hoogstraten needs to be taught a lesson in law: it applies to him as well as to others.
David Treybig, USA/UK

Have we forgotten that this is the man that shocked the nation with the treatment of his tenants less than a decade ago, and is mentioned by name in Carter USM's 1990 single 'Sheriff Fatman'. Pot kettle black I say.
Chris Boston, England

Mr. Nicholas Van Hoogstraton sounds like he might be a descendent of Scrooge. We can only hope that the fickle finger of fate does not find him in such a position that he may end up as a homeless or poor person.
Dave Adams, UK

Nicholas van Hoogstraten bought the land on the condition that rights of way are respected. Walking on a right of way is not trespassing. The local authority must take this man to court. If they do not, the Ramblers must sue the local authority to force them to see that the law is respected. Incidentally, much private land was in fact common land before when it was appropriated for private gain in the time of the Enclosures many centuries ago.
Alistair Clark, UK

There seems to be a bit of a willingness to generalise here. I'm sure ramblers are as diverse a group of people as any other sector of society. While Mr van Hoogstraten should of course be prosecuted for flouting the law, I can see that it may have been the bad behaviour of some ramblers which has provoked him into this course of action. Several years ago, my Grandfather sold his farm and moved into a new house with a paddock behind it. Not realising that there was a right of way across the corner of it, he erected a new barbed wire fence (which requires a not inconsiderable amount of time and effort). Rather than come and ask him to build a style so that access could be maintained, a group of ramblers simply came and cut his new fence, meaning he had to do a lot more work to put it up again once he'd built the style. As a mountain biker, I frequently hear of complaints and intolerant behaviour by ramblers. What everyone, ramblers and landowners, should realise, is that there is a need for compromise. There's enough land out there to accommodate us all.
Richard Galloway, UK

I think that he does have a point - when living in the countryside, even if you have a lot of land, it is still essentially your back garden. I am quite sure that no-one living in towns, or cities, or anywhere; who has a small garden would not tolerate, people walking through their garden.
We must also remember that, for many people who have such large estates, the land is their primary source of income - if ramblers are permitted to trample their way through a farmers land just because it is a footpath - they could be destroying that farmers livelihood. What gives people the right to wander wherever they want?
James P Hall, England

Mr van Hoogstraten's comments speak for themselves, so there's no need for me to say anything else about the sort of person he is. The main issue in this case is really the attitude of the county council. Their claim that they know Mr van Hoogstraten is breaking the law but can't afford to do anything about it is outrageous. They're saying to all other landowners "Go ahead and block off the footpaths with our blessing. We won't touch you."I wonder if the council would use the same argument if someone built a barn across a road?
Neil Tonks, Derbyshire, UK

It is an eternal sadness that the rich and greedy feel they are entitled to claim large areas of land for their sole personal use - and then exclude the rest of us. I often wonder what would happen if a bunch of shipwrecked people were washed up on a desert island and one person said "This half of the island is mine - the rest of you get out now." I don't think people would stand for it. So how can anyone think now that Mr van Hoogstraten has the right to block ancient rights of passage? Lord protect us from the rich and greedy few who care only about themselves.
Stanley Knill, UK

Wamblers, as I like to call them, are an amusing bunch. I can't imagine anything worse than going on a ramble with 30 or 40 other folk. In conversation with a wambler recently he expressed outrage that whilst crossing a field a bull attacked a wambler's dog that was wambling unleashed!. I would say that wamblers, mostly city folk, have little real understanding of the countryside, farming and farmers, and whilst they have the right to enjoy a weekend walk, I cannot help but think that their 'outrage' is about a bunch of desk bound executives looking for a cause. Maybe they should put their Sainsbury's bags, used to cover their shoes when they descend on a pub in droves, to better use!
Hunt McCauley, UK

Nicholas van Hoogstraten's comments indicate that he is the most arrogant and undesirable type of landowner. I think his views are disgusting, completely unjustified and inconsiderate.
I live in a house on a piece of land in Hampshire which is crossed by a footpath that passes close to the house. Of course I think from time to time, wouldn't it be nice to move the footpath to another route to increase our own privacy. But Mr van Hoogstraten is completely out of order with his comments about ramblers and he makes me feel completely opposed to him even though I am in somewhat similar position.
Chris Harborne, UK

What venomous people these ramblers turned out to be! It turns out we have the "my right is more important than your right" argument even among the ramblers. Shall we have the "Ramblers Liberation Front" soon, fire-bombing landowners for their "misbehaviour" as the ramblers see it? And I thought it was all red hiking socks and trekking poles.
Graeme, UK

I would expect Mr squiggle whatsisname to protect his land from others, much as penguins don't like other penguins in their territory. But he's not a penguin and should grow up. Besides doesn't the queen own all land? - you only lease it from her.
Chris, UK

I do not ramble but Mr van Hoogstraten's depiction of ramblers as having no stake in society is a disgrace. Ramblers are often the types of people who contribute to society in ways which he lacks the selfless depth of character to do himself - as teachers, social workers, carers, environmentalists, etc. The fact that he is wealthy beyond most people's dreams does not necessarily mean that he contributes to society in any meaningful way; if anything the reverse is more likely.
Ivor Knox, London, UK

My wife and myself, together with a small group of friends, all retired, enjoy regular walks in the countryside. We are careful of the country code and respectful of crops and property.Our numbers include school governors, a member of the local hospital board and voluntary workers. If we are 'scum', then we are proud of it.
George Smith, UK

Mr van Hoogstraten has a right to deny people access through his property.I after all he paid for it,I live in S.A. in there is no way we can allow vagrant's to trespass for the sake of our safety. so with all due respect the man is within his legal right's.
Millie, South Africa

All this is about is power. Mr van Hoogstraten is obsessed with power. I am equally angry with E Sussex Council. If they took Mr van Hoogstraten to court it seems that they would be successful and he would have to pay their costs. More importantly, the right of way on a public highway is a basic human right - the right to travel, trade and, yes, leisure. The highway authority - E Sussex Council - should be at the forefront of the defence of that right. They are letting us down.
Rick Johnson, UK

Do we really "own" land? As Chief Seattle said so long ago "Who can own the land, the water the air around us?" To deny Rights of Way to people who simply wish to walk and enjoy the countryside is incredibly selfish. Already too much of the countryside is "Owned" by the wealthy and thus privileged, and access denied to the majority.
Dr John Ross, Newfoundland, Canada

In my opinion Nicholas van Hoogstraten's comments are highly inflammatory and likely to result in considerable friction between ramblers and landowners. It should also be remembered that there are far more ramblers, numerically, than there are landowners and if co-ordinated action were to be taken by ramblers in response to such comments a considerable degree of civil unrest with damage to property would be the result.
Peter Kaye, UK

When a land owner makes a purchase of land, he/she are made very aware of any existing rights of way that must be observed. Any attempt to ignore those rights is a blatant theft of another persons rights. For a local county authority to not respond swiftly with the proper action sends the wrong message to the land owner. The land owner is in breach of contract and should be subject to forfeit the entire land purchase. It should not matter whether the right of way is large or small, used often or not, there is a precedent that must be upheld.
Sam Simpson, Texas, USA

Name calling is not necessary; 'trespassers' will do. Laws were created to protect a man's/woman's 'castle' and surrounding property. In this situation, the landowner has the say-so, not the Ramblers. Those rambling should and must show respect as to where they are treading. And, have they ever thought of asking permission too tramp upon someone else's land? Historic, or no, they definitely should. Custom and usage does not give them the right to do as they please!
Joan Lisa, USA

Most ramblers are not "scum of the earth", but footpath fanatics are typical of those groups who want to impose their own eccentric views on everybody without having to subscribe one penny of their own time and effort. I have no land myself except my garden and we are surrounded by redundant pathways which used to connect villages when their were only winding lanes deep in mud and people had to walk. These days they are used by very few except when some activist group exercises its rights at the expense of the farmers who earn a meager living by their hard work. If the people involved had to subscribe to the costs of keeping these useless paths going, they would soon shut up! Properly planned footways like the Ridgeway and the Nene Way are a different matter, as are the many footways provided by Councils on disused railways.
Derek H Broome, UK

Like, alas, most property-developers, van Hoogstraten displays that poisonous combination, swinishness and myopic stupidity; he is claiming rights not granted to a mediaeval baron. Rights of Way, like the presumption of innocence and pork pie, are an English birthright, to be defended to the last breath.
J Horn, New York, USA

Mr van Hoogstraten may sadly be in the wrong, but the open slather rambling which is now demanded on all heath and down would be pestilential for SOME landowners. Not all Ramblers are well behaved or desirable individuals to have on one's land. Private sites of particular accessibility and/or beauty will very likely come under increasing pressure. Limited access has served the countryside well. YES, access should be increased, but the current rambler demands are merely the politics of envy.
James Henson, Australia

Nicholas van Hoogstraten does not own any land, he just has stewardship for the next generation.
Hugh Jones, UK

In Russia we see the results of the abolition of private property. The consequent breakdown in civilisation after 1917 there will take hundreds of years and millions of lives to correct. Mr van Hoogstraten, in spite of his foreign name, seems to me merely a still somewhat free Englishman with the guts openly to defend his rights. That is a rarity these days. I should be proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with him in this matter if needs be, but he is probably quite capable of taking care of himself - against the whole flock of ramblers.
Keith F Goodenough, UK

It seems strange that someone should have such a mediaeval attitude in today's world. Civilisation has moved on. Mr van Hoogstraten has apparently been left behind in a time when people had ill-founded delusions of grandeur and superiority. Each of us is only here for a short time; to claim an exclusive right to ownership of land which has previously been open to access is childish, arrogant, and preposterous.
Iain Maidment, UK

For many years I have told my fellow countrymen in the US that one of the special qualities of the English countryside is the freedom to walk the traditional footpaths. The inflamed rhetoric used by the landowner calls into question his sense of balance both mentally and culturally. Keep the footpaths free. They are an endearing quality of a great culture.
Winn Price, USA

The outrageous attitude of this arrogant man must be challenged under any circumstances. Now this matter has received so much publicity it is becoming an important precedent which will be vital for the survival of the rights of people who enjoy the countryside. The Ramblers' Association should apply for legal aid to either prosecute Mr. von Hoogstraten direct or the Council for failing to prosecute. Millions of legal aid have been granted for less deserving causes.
Hans Tauscher, UK

Who does Mr van Hoogstraten think he is? He is a boorish, rich man and his attitude and actions are those of the well known Christmas character: Scrooge. If all landowners followed his lead, there would not be much left of the British Isles to traverse. Ancient paths and rights of ways should be protected from such vultures as this Scrooge and those like him. They should be protected for future generations.
K Haigh, UK

Ramblers have to remember that rights of way are just that - rights of WAY not rights of STAY. If someone wants to use a footpath because they have a need to get from A to B then that's fine. I use the footpath over the field behind my house to get to the post office, for instance. What I object to is people who just wander randomly about the countryside simply as a leisure activity, without paying their fair share, damaging the countryside, damaging farm and estate businesses, then get back in their cars without putting a penny into the local economy or environment.
If large numbers of townsfolk want to wander around the countryside, why don't they pay for proper footpaths like they have in towns, and stop the damage? Leisure activities are not a right. Pay your fair share, ramblers.
Andrew Oakley, Cotswolds, UK

Is this man crazy? No-one owns the land. The land is free and we are only here for a tiny moment in the life of Earth.
Bill Dewar, UK

The British (and the English, in particular) are free people and have a long history of common rights. It is vital that these rights are defended against encroachment by egotistical individuals like Mr. van Hoogstraten. Good luck to the Ramblers' Association. Mr. H. would be wise to back down now.
John Pavey, UK

Nicholas van Hoogstraten is an ignorant and pig-headed anachronism. Feudal times are over. Somebody should tell him it is nearly 2000 AD. The lords and masters of the 1200's were savage and selfish brutes then and their wannabes of today still are.
John Yates, UK

Now, I have heard everything! A millionaire is upset by a handful of quiet people who walk a path through his estate. Is he a modern Scrooge? I should remind him that God did create the Earth and all on it and he should reserve his bile as this may shorten his time here to enjoy his wealth.
Gary E. Davis, UK

To me, living through the uncertainties of the last few decades, it's the property developers who are the scavengers. East Sussex County Council can't afford not to prosecute van Hoogstraten.
Stewart C. Russell, Scotland

If a historic path exists, the public should continue to be able to use it. The most upsetting point of this article is Mr Hoogstraten's use of language. It's a shame that someone who probably works very hard and is quite intelligent has to revert to such shallow comments. Belt-up Mr Hoogstaten! I'm sure if there is a valid point to this topic, the law courts of England will justly settle the matter.
Paul Martin, Switzerland

Mr. van Hoogstraten is spot on. Landowners should have absolute authority over their land. Moreover, as Mr. van Hoogstraten stated, those who own nothing do not have a stake in society. Such riff-raff should not only be banned from rambling over the property of others, but should be disenfranchised as well. For that matter, we should consider a return to feudalism to keep these pesky commoners in their place.
Richard Russell, UK

I feel strongly that owners of private property have the right to restrict access to their land. Public roads and community purchases, parks, etc. are adequate for "ramblers".
Dan Chamnes, UK

Back to top | BBC News Home | BBC Homepage | ©