There is a scene in the classic film Apocalypse Now TAG feel drawn to.

The lead character, Captain Willard, has met his nemesis Colonel Kurtz. Kurtz was out of control running a renegade army deep in the jungles of Cambodia and conducting a war on his own terms. The conversation goes like this:

Kurtz: “Are my methods unsound?”

Willard: “I don’t see any method at all, sir”

A rather bloated and rambling Marlon Brando played Kurtz. TAG wonder if DIO are using the film and character as a guide to public engagement with cyclists? The Standards of Public Office are clearly defined yet when it comes to cyclists DIO appear to pay them only lip service and the Ombudsman finds no fault despite the evidence TAG has supplied.

TAG see a selective and discriminatory approach to recreational user groups with some are given the red carpet treatment and VIP access whilst cyclists are at best treated as a social leper. Here’s a good example from the government website covering access to the training estate:

We welcome external groups such as ramblers and horse societies to contact our access forum and make agreed arrangements about access in advance of any activity taking place. More information can be found on our Access Forum.

Here’s a list of the known user groups DIO recognise in some form or other, and how their otherwise illegal activities prohibited under the byelaws are permitted:

Group or Practice	Forbidden By	Enabled By
Equestrians	Section 4(2) – ride a horse	Section 8(3) DIO authorised permit
Commercial Dog Walkers	Section 4(3) – engage in trade or business	Section 8(3) DIO authorised permit
Ramblers	Section 4(5) – Assemble and walk as a group	Section 8(3) written permission

The first two – horse riding and walking dogs for money – operate on a commercial basis. This is not something TAG would wish to see applied to casual recreation. TAG firmly believes the beneficial mental and physical health benefits for individuals and society at large far outweigh any fee DIO might earn.

But the Ramblers are a different kettle of fish as there is no commercial agreement and there is very good reasons to think DIO are applying discrimination and have as yet been unable to provide TAG with their justification.

But first, lets have a look at how the Ramblers got where they are and what service they receive today from DIO.

Red Carpet for Ramblers

The earliest record of the Ramblers engagement with DIO is the Ramblers own website. Back in 2014, at the same time as the now infamous Crookham Parish Hall meeting (where DIO announced cycling bans were in force) the Ramblers were also seen as troublemakers and were being stopped by DIO staff for walking in a group.

Yes, thats right. For the crime of walking in a group.

The Ramblers – just like cyclists – pushed back and didn’t back down. The outcome was written authorisation signed by Mark Ludlow agreeing that Ramblers could indeed walk en masse and not be bothered by DIO staff unless there was military training going on.

You can read the document for yourself here:

Contrast this to how cyclists were graded just one step above dog mess with the mantra “cycling is against the byelaws” repeated at every opportunity.

Why didn’t cyclists get the same treatment?

We think there are two primary reasons.

Firstly, the Ramblers are better organised and their national body is not only vocal but is prepared to challenge and are able to draw upon legal advice to pressure DIO. Note how the liability for any deviation from the planned route is gently pushed onto DIO – the legal implications are clear and it’s a smart move, moving the risk of DIO instructions back onto DIO.

Secondly, TAG firmly believes there is a negative bias against cycling and cyclists at work in DIO.

Lacking any evidence to suggest cycling must be banned, whilst granting the Ramblers rights under Section 8(3) (written permission) suggests individual and collective bias is setting public policy.

Otherwise, cyclists would be treated equally or presented with compelling evidence to justify DIO’s actions. The absence of evidence and bias towards others sends a clear signal.

Or does it?

When you consider the results from the TAG 2020 Byelaws survey we know 42% of the 11,000 respondents identified cycling as an activity yet only 160 equestrian permits were issued over a two year period.

The alternative explanation for DIO’s lack of engagement might be more straightforward;

Cycling and cyclists cause statistically irrelevant levels of harm or risk. As such DIO have no need to spend time trying to manage the activity.

But this does not fully explain or justify why a Section 8(3) authorisation for cyclists remains elusive.

Either way it’s difficult to see how DIO’s behaviour is compatible with the Seven Principles in Public Life.

But as we shall see neither local politicians nor the Parliamentary Ombudsman really cares too much so DIO are free to carry on.

The application of bias starts to take us into the Human Rights Act. Article 14 is a right to not be discriminated against yet DIO are doing just that and importantly without good reason supported by any evidence TAG are aware of.

The Human Rights angle is interesting – look beyond the tabloid outrage of how the HRA prevents the deportation of mass murderers because they had a pet dog or how it means prisoners can demand hardcore porn in their cells and none are true but are great examples of how to gaslight a society. Nor does it mean we are being run by Europe. Dig deeper and and you find the Act helps wronged citizens hold the powerful to account.

Until you are snagged into it the HRA really doesn’t seem important but when you are, it is of course.

TAG would wager organisations like DIO do not appreciate the HRA. It’s a tool to hold the State and its operatives to account so why would they?

We will return to the HRA in later posts as we think DIO are now playing a waiting game but that’s for a later post.

The cosy relationship with Ramblers doesn’t stop with Mark Ludlow (Security and Access) writing a nice letter and delivering up Section 8(3) authorisation. The Ramblers now have a personal contact within DIO to liaise with and a link from the introductory web page takes anyone clicking it to a form that sends a message directly to Dean Howard (Security and Access) to inform him directly of any planned walk.

And before we go down the rabbit hole of “cyclists are hostile to DIO so who can blame them?” let’s remember both groups started from the same position – a ban – but the group with a strong national body representation found a supportive attitude within DIO and is likely how the Ramblers end up in a different place.

If there was ever good evidence of bias and discrimination against one group, then it’s right here. TAG don’t begrudge or object to how DIO have chosen to engage with the Ramblers – its a sound idea – but we do strongly object to discrimination.

TAG thought a clear example of bias combined with a deliberate policy to deny legal clarity would have been enough for the Ombudsman to find fault in DIO’s behaviour.

How wrong we were.

The Complaint

In 2019 TAG raised two complaints against DIO.

One was centred around the locked gates at Long Valley (yes, that old chestnut) and one challenged the behaviour of DIO representatives. DIO staff had considered it acceptable to tell children riding their bikes at Beacon Hill to “f**k off”.

Both complaints were accepted and a meeting between TAG and DIO was held. Assurances were given Long Valley would be opened (it wasn’t – until more pressure was applied) and the staff were given guidance on what is not acceptable. TAG were assured swearing a minors was treated as unacceptable.

As the meeting broke up TAG Chair was guided into Mark Ludlow’s office. What followed was a chat that made it clear cycling was allowed and cyclists were not to be hounded and harassed. The meeting was verbal and no minutes were being taken – this rang an alarm bell. However, this was a game changer and shift in policy, one to be applauded and publicised so TAG did just that and the result was the 2019 agreement.

Prior to publication an email chain was established to provide a written record for both TAG and DIO documenting the agreement with the intent to publish and what the content was to say.

Since publication DIO have raised no concerns, objections or complaints. Nor have changes, amendments or removal been sought.

TAG are very confident the content and intent of what DIO said with respect to cyclists and cycling on the lands has been faithfully reproduced in the published agreement.

Everyone was happy. TAG were delighted with the announcement and the local community were free to use the lands responsibly and ride a bicycle.

Then we started to get reports from cyclists that TSMs (Training Safety Marshalls) had been stopping them and insisting they stick to the main tracks or fire roads.

This wasn’t mentioned during the conversation in Mark Ludlow’s office. Nor had it been part of the email exchange and final published agreement. Nor have DIO sought changes or amendments. Naturally we would have given any evidence-based and backed change or amendment a fair hearing but no contact was made and no changes were asked for.

The byelaws are silent on the matter of recreational users sticking to main track so DIO bias is kicking off again and the main tracks are the one place where vehicles are regularly driven so compelling cyclists to ride this space makes little sense.

This started to raise concerns. Where would DIO stop? Over time would the TSMs revert and start repeating ad nauseam “Cycling is banned under the byelaws“? (The answer to that is “yes” but we will save that one for another post). When challenged the TSMs simply responded “Don’t know anything about that”.

Which says a lot about internal comms within DIO.

A FOI request revealed DIO SE had no written policy with regards to cycling on the military lands. By now DIO had already wasted volunteer time soliciting reports that have been ignored and the relationship had, from an initial hope of a more collaborative approach, reverted back to deep suspicion and mistrust.

So we thought it was worth involving the Ombudsman. After all, if civil servants go back on an agreement or policy then is beyond compliance to standards in public life.

The Ombudsman’s View

The Ombudsman’s opening response was:

Under section 4(2) of the Byelaws cycling is prohibited except for on the main roads. 

Which isn’t strictly true as the byelaws actually say something different. But it set the scene and what followed focussed on how DIO had issued clear communication and guidance.

The Ombudsman considered the email chain and concluded there was no agreement to permit cycling, and that:

The advice from DIO was clear, accurate and relevant and therefore in line with our Principles of Good Administration. 

The issues of discrimination was raised and Article 14 of the HRA cited but the Ombudsman declined to consider these points as they were “new”.

When dealing with new evidence the Ombudsman was less than consistent. As we shall see in the next post qualified legal advice was needed to consider one complaint and this disclosed after the original submission – but before anyone gets too excited the Ombudsman then ignored it even when it shows a TSM stepped deep into legally questionable territory.

Further evidence was refused including the video as created for and published by DIO. The one where the mountain biker is seen cycling on everything but a fire road.

Yes, that is right. A mountain biker in a DIO video cycling on single track.

The video itself features Challenger II tanks firing on the move, Warrior armoured vehicles rumbling around and mortar rounds being fired – none of which are relevant here in Aldershot. The claim that training can occur “24 hours a day 7 days a week” is now impossible to prove or disprove since DIO delete the records after 48 hours. There is the usual statement claiming DIO welcome recreational access “when it is safe” but as proved at Long Valley it really means when they can be bothered to unlock the gates.

The only real surprise is a that a TSM does not appear in the video and tell them off. You can watch it here:

DIO Video Showing Where MTB Can Ride

So, we have a PR video showing cyclists off road, on single track, when in reality the TSMs tell cyclists to stick to the fire roads with the Ombudsman declining to review the evidence and insisting TAG have clear comms.

As communication with the Ombudsman drew to a close TAG were contacted and were pointed to the link on the Farnham Ramblers website. A second one was found on Portsmouth Ramblers and a third on the main Ramblers website.

There seemed little point in sharing this with the Ombudsman…as there really is nothing to see.

Summary

To a policy writer the idea of sticking to fire roads and main tracks might seem sound.

However, there is no definition of what a main track is and so can be anything DIO want it to be to suit the conversation. There are instances where a track terminates in a locked gate or fence. Fire roads terminate and split into a series of smaller trails. Sometimes main tracks just get smaller and smaller or disappear and lose definition. Do cyclists shrug and turn around?

Then there is a question of how much track there is. Long Valley and Caesars Camp/Beacon Hill have just 26kms of stone road (as defined on DIO’s own internal maps) yet there is over 120kms of tracks & trails ready to ride. Do cyclists really ignore the best bits just because DIO don’t like us?

If you are stopped by a TSM our advice on what to do remains unchanged but TAG would add, if possible record the encounter. Important; Make it clear you are making a recording. There may be objection but there are no powers to compel anyone to cease recording or filming an interaction with a public official or representative.

On more than one occasion DIO staff have been found to make false or misleading statements and a recording removes any doubt around what was said. This should help hold them to account, particularly if there are examples telling folk to f**k off again.

Remember, not even the police are exempt from being filmed by the public as they go about their work. The TSMs probably won’t like it and may object. But there is nothing in the byelaws and TAG are unaware of any law that prevents the recording of a public office holder in the execution of their duties.

Just as the Ramblers do, make sure you get a name and make a note of of the request. If anything goes amiss on the DIO diverted route then liability for any incident may well lie at their feet.

If it’s good for Ramblers, it’s good for cyclists too.

So sticking to the main tracks sounds great on paper. In practice its unworkable and those on foot are under no obligation to stick to a main track. But the problem goes further than just being told to ride a specific route.

Consider this; All other Section 8(3) user groups – the equestrians, commercial dog walkers and the Ramblers – have one thing in common; legal certainty.

Cyclists have no such thing and riding with friends makes matters worse. Yes, organising a group ride really does break two byelaws and not just one. As the TSM berates you and your fellow cyclists, just remember the Ramblers can point to Mark Ludlow’s letter as you listen to the tired insistence about sticking to the main tracks.

Legal uncertainty may suit DIO but the lack of clarity is not the basis for a liberal, open and functioning democracy.

If it’s good for Ramblers, it’s good for cyclists too.

Combined with DIO’s approach of “it’s whatever we say is” fire road interpretation, and limited and mixed message, ineffective communication skills, we have all the elements of a public policy that is both shambolic and not based on sound practice, irrespective of the decisions – egocentric or zero impact – applied to decline positive engagement and legal certainty.

In Apocalypse Now Willard didn’t see any methods and neither does TAG. DIO appear free to make it up as they go along using prejudice as a guide with discrimination the inevitable outcome.

TAG hoped for a more firm and sound legal basis securing Section 8(3) authorisation for cyclists and the local community. For now it has eluded us.

For now TAG will continue to maintain our code of conduct and publication of the statement on cycling.

Unless and until DIO seek changes we will stand by the record. TAG will also take every opportunity to remind them the Respect the Range video is a persistent and visual record covering where cycling is deemed acceptable…and that includes the tracks and trails that wind though the lands.

Legal certainty is needed yet no one in leadership is prepared to grasp the DIO nettle. The Ombudsman can set aside their own policy documents. Local MPs are unable to get simple things like a few gates installed and have all the appearances of taking everything DIO says without question or challenge.

If it’s good for Ramblers, it’s good for us too.

This mess is likely to continue as long as the public collectively and individually permit it.

In the next instalment we will see how DIO CEO spends their time, how leadership standards ripple down so DIO staff can really overstep the mark and ignore the laws of the land, why recording a TSM encounter is priceless, and how the Ombudsman refused to consider the complaint until qualified legal advice was shared. And then completely disregard it and the logical outcome.