(04-03-2015, 02:19 PM)cregnybaa Wrote: So whats the difference between that garden and the rest of the course, the land all around the course belongs to someone have they got insurance?. soon you won't be able to watch anywhere only where they can charge you. I was always under the illusion that was why competitors paid insurance for third party claims and is it not illigal to have two claims on one incedent. so if the competitor has insurence why does the land owner need it for the same incedent.

This isn't new, its been the case for a few years now, and it came into increased focus after the Bray Hill incident.

Basically, if the organisers deem that an area should be restricted or prohibited, and that area is in private ownership, they obviously cannot enforce the restriction, or prohibition without the consent of the owner of the land or property in question.

If co-operation by the land or property owner is not forthcoming, the organisers cannot force the issue, as the organisers don't own the land, so they can't make anyone comply.

But they can put in writing that they will not be responsible for any damage or injury in that area, should the owner choose to ignore their request.

Its standard stuff.