TheFox wrote:I think it's perfectly reasonable. In most parts of the world private land is considered private, and as such the owners have any right to use it exclusively and don't need to let others pass over it.
Scottish people (and the people of a select few other countries) are very privileged in having legislation in place that makes it legal for them to walk pretty much everywhere they please, with the provision that it's not right past someone's window/through someone's front- or backyard. As such the owner in question should have any right to request/demand that people don't walk right past a building on his own land that he is staying in a considerable amount of time. It's HIS land. Plus the detour seems to be only a couple hundred metres.
It's a very complex subject but Scotland has this great access legislation because that's what the people of Scotland wanted. I think many people who live in Scotland see the landowners as privileged custodians of the land looking after it for everyone to enjoy responsibly.
Anyone who visits Scotland has these access rights also.
It's true that in many parts of the world private landowners can bar the people from vast areas of land and if the majority of the citizens of these countries are happy with that then fair enough, but if not it is up to them to change the laws.
TheFox wrote:
Yeah, if the path is a public right of way, technically the land owner would be in the wrong, but so what? Respect people's privacy ...
If the land owner is in the wrong, people are entitled to use the path - end of story. You can walk on a right of way past someones property and still respect peoples privacy, it happens thousands of times every day in cities, towns, villages, and rural areas all over the world.
I guess your view is fairly common, and very common in places where access and right to roam is very strict.
It's a mindset.
I cant really comment on this individual case without knowing the location.