Pennine Bridleway Relay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fozzy

I think I am right in saying that rights of way only apply to individuals - not to organised events. Permission still has to be sought from the landowner for events.

If I'm wrong, doubtless someone will be along shortly to correct me.

---

Yes, I think you are wrong. A bridleway is, amongst other things, a highway to which the public have access on foot. It matters not whether your perambulation is as part of an organised event. CROW is irrelevant, as that deals with open land, as opposed to a highway (in case someone else invokes CROW in response to this).

It is only a matter of courtesy to ask the owner of land over which a bridleway passes for permission to run an event along that bridleway. Perhaps a discussion with UU, pointing this fact out and adding to it a reassurance that steps will be taken to prevent gate mishaps occurring in the future, will result in 2012's event going ahead?

It seems a bit defeatist to throw the towel in at this early stage.

Until someone from Rossendale (the organising club) is able to tell us how/why it came to this, we are effectively wasting our time speculating over what we would/could do next regarding UU. As am I, posting this, I expect. :o

Alan

A tletter to the council offices tasking for the status of the route might prove useful:

"County councils must keep maps showing all footpaths, bridleways and roads used as public paths, which in their opinion are public rights of way (section 53(1), Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981). Where the public has enjoyed a right of way over a piece of land as of right and without interruption for 20 years then the way is presumed dedicated as a highway (section 31(1), Highways Act 1980)"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half Seven Buzzer

Until someone from Rossendale (the organising club) is able to tell us how/why it came to this, we are effectively wasting our time speculating over what we would/could do next regarding UU. As am I, posting this, I expect. :o

Alan

---

see my post 692. As far as future events at the moment,yes the club could hold the event again next year,but without permission from UU the FRA will not provide insurance,a risk Lefty understandably is unwilling to take.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marrow

Yes, I think you are wrong. A bridleway is, amongst other things, a highway to which the public have access on foot. It matters not whether your perambulation is as part of an organised event. CROW is irrelevant, as that deals with open land, as opposed to a highway (in case someone else invokes CROW in response to this).

It is only a matter of courtesy to ask the owner of land over which a bridleway passes for permission to run an event along that bridleway. Perhaps a discussion with UU, pointing this fact out and adding to it a reassurance that steps will be taken to prevent gate mishaps occurring in the future, will result in 2012's event going ahead?

It seems a bit defeatist to throw the towel in at this early stage.

---

UU's line, second paragraph. Albeit brief...

http://www.unitedutilities.com/Recreationpermits.aspx

I must admit, if I were the UU person making the decision - after reading all the rationalisations and resistance to the simple act of shutting a gate, I would make sure the event stayed well and truly cancelled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by john doe

see my post 692. As far as future events at the moment,yes the club could hold the event again next year,but without permission from UU the FRA will not provide insurance,a risk Lefty understandably is unwilling to take.

---

I also tend to agree with Alf and I hope that Lefty hasn't given up hope to host again.

Run it as a trail race and permit it through UKA - no issue with insurance then.

There is a wider problem here though for fell running full stop. If UU can throw off the PBR for an isolated breach of a requirement then this can be done anywhere for a variety of reasons, such as the regularly debated gel wrappers, maybe a lost runner going where they shouldn't - there must be countless reasons.

Gate closure is desirable and yes it should be done, however, even if walking up through Witton's woods with the dog, if I have someone coming towards me or following on close behind I leave the gate, unless there is a clear reason not too, such as livestock in close proximity.

I would call that common courtesy and common sense.

On leg 2, at the point in question, there must have been a team coming through on average every 20 secs - with such a gap I would close the gate. But some of those gaps would be much less, sometimes perhaps 4 or 5 teams in that same timespan.

Would anyone really shut a gate they had opened on somebody just a few metres behind whether in the PBR or any other race?

What about gates that were open before any runners got there?

It's a can of worms.

Having been a organiser for the Rivington Triathlon for 5 years I know all about dealing with UU ,basically their agenda is to stop all events taking place on their land and they will use any excuse they can to do this,I understand the issues and arguments taking place but common sense should prevail,even one gate left open for a fraction of a second would be enough for UU to stop the event.
It is pointless trying to discuss and reason with them, I banged my head aganst a brick wall for a year trying to persuade them to let us continue our event which had taken place incident free for 5 years and all the income generated helped Bolton Triathlon club develop the junior section and to buy kit and equipment , they blamed a unconnected incident where a scroat jumped in the reservoir after necking a bottle of cider.
I fear this is the end of the event which is such a shame, it was my first time this year and I really enjoyed it,as I said at the time when they cancelled the Triathlon ..this is the thin end of the wedge.....it would appear so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark L

I must admit, if I were the UU person making the decision - after reading all the rationalisations and resistance to the simple act of shutting a gate, I would make sure the event stayed well and truly cancelled.

---

IMVHO absolutely spot on. This was not an "isolated breach of a requirement", but judging by the wording of PBR Rule 19 has been a cause of concern in previous years for UU and presumably for the tenant farmers they represent.

It is worth reminding those who have criticised UU and other bodies e.g. NT in the past, that this is a public forum, which may well be browsed by those organisations from time to time. Although we know the forum is unrepresentative of the majority of fell runners views, the ill informed attempts at justification simply put more races at risk. Chris K has a hard enough task as it is without undermining his efforts on our behalf. We do not have a right to go wherever we want, whenever we want, regardless of the consequences. Leave it to the RO, he's the one who has had the detailed discussions with UU, and other interested parties along the route.

I await the next salvo of conspiracy theories, justification, slagging off etc.
The bottom line is that we lost the PBR ourselves, no-one else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheGrump

IMVHO absolutely spot on. This was not an "isolated breach of a requirement", but judging by the wording of PBR Rule 19 has been a cause of concern in previous years for UU and presumably for the tenant farmers they represent.

It is worth reminding those who have criticised UU and other bodies e.g. NT in the past, that this is a public forum, which may well be browsed by those organisations from time to time. Although we know the forum is unrepresentative of the majority of fell runners views, the ill informed attempts at justification simply put more races at risk. Chris K has a hard enough task as it is without undermining his efforts on our behalf. We do not have a right to go wherever we want, whenever we want, regardless of the consequences. Leave it to the RO, he's the one who has had the detailed discussions with UU, and other interested parties along the route.

I await the next salvo of conspiracy theories, justification, slagging off etc.
The bottom line is that we lost the PBR ourselves, no-one else.

---

I'm with you on this Grump. More power to your elbow!
May the crusade continue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheGrump

IMVHO absolutely spot on. This was not an "isolated breach of a requirement", but judging by the wording of PBR Rule 19 has been a cause of concern in previous years for UU and presumably for the tenant farmers they represent.

It is worth reminding those who have criticised UU and other bodies e.g. NT in the past, that this is a public forum, which may well be browsed by those organisations from time to time. Although we know the forum is unrepresentative of the majority of fell runners views, the ill informed attempts at justification simply put more races at risk. Chris K has a hard enough task as it is without undermining his efforts on our behalf. We do not have a right to go wherever we want, whenever we want, regardless of the consequences. Leave it to the RO, he's the one who has had the detailed discussions with UU, and other interested parties along the route.

I await the next salvo of conspiracy theories, justification, slagging off etc.
The bottom line is that we lost the PBR ourselves, no-one else.

---

19 Every single gate must be closed. Teams observed not closing gates will be instantly disqualified. Do not assume that the team behind will close the gate. Even if it means closing a gate on an approaching team......close it !
We have had complaints from farmers and United Utilities rangers in the past so please ensure you follow this rule.


Seems clear to me but it's obviously not clear enough to those who can spend endless time bleating on here but cannot spare a second or two to shut a gate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woo hoo

19 Every single gate must be closed. Teams observed not closing gates will be instantly disqualified. Do not assume that the team behind will close the gate. Even if it means closing a gate on an approaching team......close it !
We have had complaints from farmers and United Utilities rangers in the past so please ensure you follow this rule.


Seems clear to me but it's obviously not clear enough to those who can spend endless time bleating on here but cannot spare a second or two to shut a gate.

---

So how many teams were as the rule says instantly disqualified?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stagger

So how many teams were as the rule says instantly disqualified?

---

Looks like all of them for 2012.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graeme78

Yes but livestock can also get lost on the hill if they wander off, it will take hours if not days for the farmer to find lost livestock, or for him to assume it's dead and spend an equal amount of time filling the claims form in. The upshot is a number of runners haven't abided the rules and there is no more race. Consider this: was it UU who made the initial complaint, or the tenant farmers who complained to UU about runners leaving gates open?

---

The tenant farmers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheGrump

IMVHO absolutely spot on. This was not an "isolated breach of a requirement", but judging by the wording of PBR Rule 19 has been a cause of concern in previous years for UU and presumably for the tenant farmers they represent.

It is worth reminding those who have criticised UU and other bodies e.g. NT in the past, that this is a public forum, which may well be browsed by those organisations from time to time. Although we know the forum is unrepresentative of the majority of fell runners views, the ill informed attempts at justification simply put more races at risk. Chris K has a hard enough task as it is without undermining his efforts on our behalf. We do not have a right to go wherever we want, whenever we want, regardless of the consequences. Leave it to the RO, he's the one who has had the detailed discussions with UU, and other interested parties along the route.

I await the next salvo of conspiracy theories, justification, slagging off etc.
The bottom line is that we lost the PBR ourselves, no-one else.

---

Yes Grump UU do represent tenant farmers and land users whom pay rent, but they should also consider the general public, that's me and you who pay their wages through water bills. ironmanuk backs up my opinion in as much as UU are against events on "their" land,I think they must have smiled through gritted teeth when the Commonweath Games was held at Rivington and only the shame of answering to the Nation compelled them to opening the area for a week.
While I'm on me soap box, I've got to say I'm getting more than a bit pissed off at fellrunners moaning about fellow fellrunners. I can see the first new thread after the Three Peaks is gona be from some bod whose found a empty gell wrapper somewhere in Yorkshire or blaming fellow runners for starting the third world war.
You forum lot need to get a grip, bad things do happen, but they aren't always our fault!!
P.S. my views on United Utilities dipsticks are my own,not of Rossendale harriers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lefty

The tenant farmers

---

Thought it might be. I have nothing else to say about this issue. Thanks for confirming what I thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graeme78

Thought it might be. I have nothing else to say about. Thanks for confirming what I though.

---

Confirmed what Graeme78? Theres a farmer a mile from me house who'd blame me for a Tsunami in Peru if I ran through his field............

As the organiser of this event I will attempt to answer some of the points raised. Each year as part of the event organisation I have to seek permission from several landowners to cross their land as well as advising several other people and organisations of the date and nature of the event. United Utilities reqiure me to send, proof of insurance, a map of the route which crosses their land, a risk assessment and a Permission for access document provided by them. My initial request was turned down as I included the word 'race' in the event description.
The section which UU are responsible for is leg 2 from the start to Gorple gate which includes only 3 gates. UU recieved complants from tennant farmers that gates had been left open causing sheep to stray. I was supplied with several photographs (downloaded from a link on our own event website) which clearly show wide open gates behind runners with not a runner anwhere in sight behind. A request for everyone to close gates is printed onto the front of each runners number, there was a large flourecent sign 10m from the start of leg 2 asking runners to close all gates and as everyone has noted it is in the rules which I worded to try to get everyone to understand the gravity of the request. There are two many gates for us to marshall and I was relying on the runners to police themselves.
As a runner myself I can fully understand the discussion around the closing of gates in the heat of competition but surely a bit of common sense is all thats needed and there can be no excuse for the situation seen in the photographs sent to me.
Our marshalls at the first changeover also had to deal with an irate farmer after a gate was left open on the final clinb on leg 1.....again there was a large flourecent sign at the start of the leg and I made a personal plea over the magaphone at the start of the leg for gates to be closed.
On no account do I place any blame on the local countryside ranger who has done she can to help us in the past.
This years event apart from this incident, which has somewhat spoilt it for me, was a success and our club received many emails of thanks. We have also received much support and regret from clubs and individuals over this incident and I would like to thank them for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by john doe

Yes Grump UU do represent tenant farmers and land users whom pay rent, but they should also consider the general public, that's me and you who pay their wages through water bills. ironmanuk backs up my opinion in as much as UU are against events on "their" land,I think they must have smiled through gritted teeth when the Commonweath Games was held at Rivington and only the shame of answering to the Nation compelled them to opening the area for a week.

---

UU set a reasonable requirement; one or more PBR competitors did not fulfill it despite Lefty's intense efforts (see above).
Own goal I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheGrump

UU set a reasonable requirement; one or more PBR competitors did not fulfill it despite Lefty's intense efforts (see above).
Own goal I think.

---

So that is a closed door on any distance event over land managed on our behalf by United Utilities where an unmanded gate is? sweet!
Pay attention you Calderdale Hikers.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by john doe

So that is a closed door on any distance event over land managed on our behalf by United Utilities where an unmanded gate is? sweet!
Pay attention you Calderdale Hikers.......

---

As Mr Grump (who is generally very wise in his postings) has earlier noted, Chris Knox "negotiates" on behalf of the FRA on matters such as access and I have in front of me an "Access Agreement for FRA insured events over UU land" negotiated by Chris.

It seems to me to be a very reasonable document and so I have little sympathy with ill-informed criticism of UU who allow a lot of races to take place over their land.

UU will always have tenant farmers with whom they must have a working relationship every day of every year and then one day a year a bunch of fellrunners run across the land.

You really have to be very dim not to have got the message from Rule 19, etc and even dimmer not to realise that if there were to be a subsequent row between long standing UU tenants and some apparently uncontrollable fellrunners, where the sympathy of UU would lie.

My usual mantra is that if you enter a race you follow the rules of the RO (kit, no EOD, etc) whether you like it or not.

Some runners think they know better. Sometimes there are consequences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by john doe

Confirmed what Graeme78? Theres a farmer a mile from me house who'd blame me for a Tsunami in Peru if I ran through his field............

---

It confirmed that the initial complaint had come from a farmer rather than UU. If you go back and have a look at my original post, I pointed out the situation described by lefty almost exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by john doe

see my post 692. As far as future events at the moment,yes the club could hold the event again next year,but without permission from UU the FRA will not provide insurance,a risk Lefty understandably is unwilling to take.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

Run it as a trail race and permit it through UKA - no issue with insurance then.

---

To my understanding getting insurance isn't the basic issue here. In any case it's the same UKA insurance whether it's Permitted through the FRA or as a Trail race

Without the landowner's permission an organised event such as this can't go ahead, full stop!

is that the gate at the end of the Dam on Ady's website?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alf

I think a sit down talk with UU by the organisers/reps of other clubs to get the full info and which legs/gates were involved and a plan provided to stop the problem happening again would be a way forward. Sometimes there are other contributing issues that are under the surface and getting these out in the open as well can help. What about bringing in UU as sponsors and call it the UU PBR, get them some publicity and on our side?

I also think that competing clubs should help Rossendale out with marshalling a large event like this. Maybe clubs who enter 3 or more teams should provide a couple of marshalls each ?

This is a marvellous event put on by Rossendale and much loved by runners and it would be a shame to lose it without any further actions being taken.

---

Maybe PBR could charge every team the race cost plus 2 marshalls per team, 100+ teams, would 200+ marshalls not cover the event ???

I do wonder how United Utilities deal with the issue of gates being left open the other 364 days of the year?
Or how how National Trust deal with parking issues at Brackenclose that are unconnected with BGR groups?

Seems to me that the biggest issue is that organisations such as these are instigating a blame culture and want someone to blame when they're not happy. In this case and that of Bob Graham Rounds they have an organisation that they can blame, regardless of who was at fault.

Did anyone from United Utilities confirm that all the gates were closed prior to the event?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dominion

Did anyone from United Utilities confirm that all the gates were closed prior to the event?

---

In a nutshell - I often find gates open and think should I close it - in fact at Lockbank farm SEdbergh last year I shut the fell gate behind me and a few minutes later the farmer (or at least it looked like he was) opened the 2 gates and disappeared back to the farm. I was there for around 20 minutes watching the fell race (English Schools Yr 7) before going back to my car.
I didn't shut the gate as I felt that the farmer had opened it for a reason.

Of course back to the PBR and racing generally, that doesn't help.

Clubs providing marshalls wouldn't work - there's already enough cars knocking about. Leg 1 and 2 would appear to be the problem, so how about 2 sweepers on these legs to follow the race behind? Sweepers are standard on many races anyway and it would help to alleviate the issue if it could be demonstrated that even IF any PBR runners did leave a gate open, that they would all be closed GUARANTEED after the event had passed by.

It should be said though, that any teams that do not shut gates on leg 2 specifically will be DQd and banned from future events.

If the UU evidence "clearly shows" a breach of the rule, have the teams involved been DQd or any action taken against them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

In a nutshell - I often find gates open and think should I close it - in fact at Lockbank farm SEdbergh last year I shut the fell gate behind me and a few minutes later the farmer (or at least it looked like he was) opened the 2 gates and disappeared back to the farm. I was there for around 20 minutes watching the fell race (English Schools Yr 7) before going back to my car.
I didn't shut the gate as I felt that the farmer had opened it for a reason.

Of course back to the PBR and racing generally, that doesn't help.

Clubs providing marshalls wouldn't work - there's already enough cars knocking about. Leg 1 and 2 would appear to be the problem, so how about 2 sweepers on these legs to follow the race behind? Sweepers are standard on many races anyway and it would help to alleviate the issue if it could be demonstrated that even IF any PBR runners did leave a gate open, that they would all be closed GUARANTEED after the event had passed by.

It should be said though, that any teams that do not shut gates on leg 2 specifically will be DQd and banned from future events.

If the UU evidence "clearly shows" a breach of the rule, have the teams involved been DQd or any action taken against them?

---

UU's evidence came off the foto link on Rossendale website.Doesn't matter if a sweeper was following the last team making sure all gates where shut,it was a rule that individual teams shut each gate behind them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by john doe

UU's evidence came off the foto link on Rossendale website.Doesn't matter if a sweeper was following the last team making sure all gates where shut,it was a rule that individual teams shut each gate behind them.

---

Lefty said the event website - which suggests the pictures taken by Ady at the end of the dam.

I also organise events, including fell, although no fell event on the scale of this. But anyone who has run XC at Witton knows we have similar issues with gates on the farm land that takes in the Saucer.
The farmer is liased with, as is his landlord (BwD Council) and we have checks to make sure that we close the gates afterwards as you can imagine shutting during the event is not feasible and the future of XC events at Witton relies on the farmers support especially as it is not a public right of way.

I would argue that it's rarely feasible to shut the gates on Leg 1 so sweepers would be a clear benefit.

On leg 2 it should be feasible to close gates as the field is more spread out by then, but where there is any risk, you take reasonable steps to mitigate the risk. Sweepers on leg 2 would, in my opinion, be a reasonable step by the RO and would most likely be acceptable to any reasonable landlord / tenant, who I can imagine gets thoroughly frustrated by the problem occurring on the other 364 days of the year.

I would also say, as in my last post, that if evidence is so clear that UU are at the moment saying no more race that evidence should also be clear enough to DQ the teams involved and ban them from future events - looking at the pictures I'm not sure it's that clear though.

It's clear this is a great and popular event and I'm sure Lefty and his team are extremely frustrated and disappointed by this - I know I get a great buzz as a RO by putting the event on and seeing everyone have a great time and want to come back for more. I hope they don't give up and seek ways to either satisfy UU that
1. they will take further steps to satisfy them (a DQ and ban may help there).
2. They explore other route options for leg 2 (many races have changed routes over the years - and it would mean Andi Jones can relax now ref the leg 2 record)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dominion

Or how how National Trust deal with parking issues at Brackenclose that are unconnected with BGR groups?

Seems to me that the biggest issue is that organisations such as these are instigating a blame culture and want someone to blame when they're not happy. In this case and that of Bob Graham Rounds they have an organisation that they can blame, regardless of who was at fault.

---

I don't know how they deal with non-BG issues. I only know how they deal with BG issues as someone on the end of their concern and anger.

Support groups were abusive to NT staff when requested to both pay for parking and to adopt some consideration for other users whilst in the car park at Brackenclose.

One of the developments with BG support groups is that some of them believe that the normal rules of good behaviour don't apply to them, even when on someone else's land. They believe this sufficiently to be quite happy to make it clear when tackled what they are about, effectively implying that NT rules and a bit of consideration for others doesn't apply to them, because they are engaged on same "great endeavour".

That's why the NT knew exactly where to come to deliver some pain.

This type of behaviour is arrogance of a high order IMHO.

The Grump metioned an own goal; this was another.

Slowly but surely goodwill leaches away in all sorts of directions.

Despite some of the rubbish written earlier in this thread, UU now and NWW before, are supportive towards recreational events, so long as they follow basic rules. Lefty has been let down by our fellow runners. Own goal, arrogance, basic lack of common sense etc., are all comments quite rightly aimed at some competitors some of the time. I'm having another meeting with UU in a few minutes, lets see how I get on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by john doe

P.S. my views on United Utilities dipsticks are my own.

---

Ooops! - there goes another race over UU land.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dominion

I do wonder how United Utilities deal with the issue of gates being left open the other 364 days of the year?
Or how how National Trust deal with parking issues at Brackenclose that are unconnected with BGR groups?

Seems to me that the biggest issue is that organisations such as these are instigating a blame culture and want someone to blame when they're not happy. In this case and that of Bob Graham Rounds they have an organisation that they can blame, regardless of who was at fault.

Did anyone from United Utilities confirm that all the gates were closed prior to the event?

---

Stop wriggling; we failed to comply with a UU requirement. Very straightforward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorganW

I don't know how they deal with non-BG issues. I only know how they deal with BG issues as someone on the end of their concern and anger.

Support groups were abusive to NT staff when requested to both pay for parking and to adopt some consideration for other users whilst in the car park at Brackenclose.

One of the developments with BG support groups is that some of them believe that the normal rules of good behaviour don't apply to them, even when on someone else's land. They believe this sufficiently to be quite happy to make it clear when tackled what they are about, effectively implying that NT rules and a bit of consideration for others doesn't apply to them, because they are engaged on same "great endeavour".

That's why the NT knew exactly where to come to deliver some pain.

This type of behaviour is arrogance of a high order IMHO.

The Grump metioned an own goal; this was another.

Slowly but surely goodwill leaches away in all sorts of directions.

---

Out of interest what could the NT actually do? They presumably can not stop anyone just turning up and doing the BG same as they can't stop someone going for a walk? Or am I mistaken

As a marshal on this event every year, I am only too aware of competitors' unfamiliarity with the event rules. I suggest that in this instance if every entrant had read the rule, heeded the on course notices and announcements, and understood the implications of the requirement, then no team would have been offended by the sight of another team closing the gate in front of them. Hopefully, it would have been seen as a shared responsibility for the future of the event. A more important factor than rivalry on the day, as is now apparent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddaddy

Out of interest what could the NT actually do? They presumably can not stop anyone just turning up and doing the BG same as they can't stop someone going for a walk? Or am I mistaken

---

That really is not the point!

Just because you are supporting a BGR or Three Peaks or any other "important" or "good" cause doesn't mean you can do what you want, especially if it involves abusing local facilities or other people wishing to use them. Just because the NT may not actually have any effective sanctions - although they could close the car park, presumably, - isn't a reason to misuse the facilities they provide.

Guess we'll have to man-up and except trial by fota then.Just as an aside during the 2009 I was watching leg one at the road crossing at 4ml,Clough Bottom res,I opened both gates at the road crossing before the first team came and closed them after the last team went through,guess I was lucky no-one toke a picture.Incidentally no teams tried to shut the gate so i suppose everyone from 2009 is DSQed.
I think there is room for a relay at this time of year but maybe the format may have to change?Lets say 5-6 teams of two but with start n finish at the same venue and teams running the same 8-10ml loop.That way the whole event is more manageable and compact and could be marshaled through-out.
As far as landowners are concerned I wouldn't object to them receiving at cut in entries fees ,they own the land to generate an income after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lefty

The section which UU are responsible for is leg 2 from the start to Gorple gate which includes only 3 gates...........This years event apart from this incident, which has somewhat spoilt it for me, was a success and our club received many emails of thanks. We have also received much support and regret from clubs and individuals over this incident and I would like to thank them for that.

---

I'd also like to thank Lefty and all the marshalls/helpers involved in this race and express my regret that it may not happen again.

I am somewhat puzzled by the fact that the entire event has been knocked on the head largely because of problems with only 3 gates and one landowner. I wonder how much UU had forewarned Lefty that they might take this action. It would have been a relatively simple matter to marshall those three gates (a plea for help from local clubs would not have gone unanswered I'm sure) for the duration of Leg 2. I suspect that UU were less than honest about their intentions, otherwise Lefty I'm sure would have taken precautions. Curiously the OS map shows only the Cant Clough Dam as not being Access Land (hence only two gates).

The comments by ironmanuk strike a chord; i remember the excellent Rivington Triathlon being shoved aside by UU, when IMUK rolled into Bolton (presumably IMUK had deeper pockets than BMTC do). UU came up with some laughable excuses at the time but it was clear to most exactly what was going on.

I hope that this hasn't left a sour taste and put Lefty off the whole business, that'd be an even greater shame. I'm sure there must be a workaround that avoids UU land. Ok, so it might miss small bits of the Bridleway but who cares?

On a lighter note; this all reminds me of the bit in 'Life of Brian' when all the different freedom fighters (Peoples Front of Judea, Judean People's Front, Campaign for free Galilee etc) collide under Pilate's chambers, all on their way to kidnap his wife. They immediately start fighting each other, everybody is killed except Brian, who is captured by the Roman soldiers, come to see what all the noise is!

UU are clearly the Romans, who are you?!

Just as an aside. If UU are so bothered about gates being left open why do they not invest in spring mechanisms that close the gates.

As the photographer who was at the gate in question let me give some facts. (I have comunicated my record of events with the RO).

I was there perhaps 30 mins before the first runners came through.
I spoke with the farmers wife about keeping gates closed and sheep escaping. I reassured her that no sheep would escape as I would monitor it. ( no sheep went through the gate)
She told me the countryside warden (Mrs. Linda Williams) would be on the gate at 10.00, she did'nt show.
Mrs Williams was the person who lifted the pics, too use as evidence, off our site (without permission) via a link on Ross. Harriers site.

Before the runners started coming through two walkers passed and left the gate open as two others were coming, some comment was made to me about leaving gates open and I reassured them also that I was keeping an eye on it.

After 6-8 runners had gone through, closing and latching the gate because they were spread out and no-one was close behind, a girl came walking down the track through the gate, left it wide open, and carried on her way.

As runners came along they found the gate mostly pulled too (ajar) but not latched and thats how it was for the entire race.

I left my place with approx 8-10 runners still too come through.

Never at any stage did I see any sheep escape, I was a matter of yards from the gate, neither did I see any countryside warden at this gate.
A chap came along in his tractor but then vanished I no not where.

I later spoke with Mrs Williams who told me in no uncertain terms that this would be the last time runners would race here, and that she had turned a blind eye in the past but would do so no longer.

There we go then.
A true and honest account by a neutral witness.
I conclude Mrs Williams to be a 1st class BITCH:angry: