If you consider the bridge to be part of the stile, then that certainly adds a level of inevitable panache, but a bridge is a bridge and a stile is a stile, so both have to be judged separately – and this is Stuart’s stile guide, not Stuart’s bridge guide (though as my surname does begin with a ‘B’, that does also allow for a tacky use of alliteration, so who knows what the future may hold!).
As any history book will tell you, one of the most fiercely contested debates that has raged throughout British history since land ownership become a legal right is whether the plant growth along a footpath should solely be maintained by the usage (logic would state that excessive use = lack of plant growth), but positive legal covenants would defy such a primitive and naive notion. If that is the case, then this landowner is not observing their positive legal covenants as there is plenty of foliage here to sting and generally get in the way of the innocent member of the public exercising their right to ramble.
The stile itself is minimal and no-nonsense, with a single step that is hardly above ground level that is just about navigable in relation to the heigh of the single bar, but this very sub-standard effort does inevitably beg the question of why there is a stile here at all!
Stuart's Stile Guide 
Leave a comment