I wrote a favourable review about this book – click here – and I now see that the book has stirred up an interesting strong response from Right to Roam – click here.
It’s difficult for a reader to choose sides in a dispute like this as one rarely knows the ins and outs of the matter, and quite often the reader isn’t nearly as bothered as the protagonists.
The claims made by Right to Roam are pretty strong and I can imagine that a lawyer or two might be reading the book and the response it produced.
[registration_form]
A similar thing happened with his previous book so there is some history here. Difficult to judge, as you say, but when a number of decent, trustworthy people have the same issue, it starts to add up. Patrick’s books have an agenda. They are carefully planned to represent a particular narrative and it seems that the views of others may be tweaked to fit that narrative when it suits. Interesting!
Ian – yes, but it is difficult to know who these decent trustworthy people are… Can you provide a list?
And, in the gentlest possible way, it might well be that a collective called ‘Right to Roam’ has an agenda too.
Someone on social media, who often disagrees with me, described my review as ‘thoughtful and honest’ but it would be nice if he realised that I am usually thoughtful and honest – it’s just that often he doesn’t agree with me!
That’s the way of the world and having an agenda and selecting facts to fit it is a long way from the sort of outright lies we’re expected to get used to. And objections like Right to Roam’s never work – better to study what has been written – and quoted – and think about your own message