Farmer sprays cyclist wild camper.
- Thread starter Mesquite
- Start date
Depends. Can't say definitive as I only have my opinion based on convention where I wildcamp.
My wildcamping activities really only extends to Scottish highlands and the Lake District. In both instances I am camping on open land, above the last fence and in a very discrete manner. I am also using a tarp and bivvy, stove to boil water with a soldering mat underneath to prevent / reduce damage. I camp for one night in one spot only and do not stay for long at each pitch, just enough to refresh for the next day and usually a lot less than 8 hours sleep recommended.
Scotland there is a legal right for this so that is not an issue if done responsibly like I describe.
Lake District is not legal camping. It is a civil matter though and this is what you are possibly thinking about. The landowner (or renter) has very little legal rights to remove you other than polite request to vacate their land and if not legal action if the criteria to meet that is met. That is how I understand the legal situation.
In real life wildcamping is mostly done in the LD responsibly (large organisations excepted it seems). The attitude from the farmers is that mostly there is no harm being done so they do not bother with stopping it. There are popular places that can get a bit messy (large outdoor organisations take a role in causing this it seems), but mostly not significantly than the mess from day walkers doing jobbies in the woods.
It is often the case that people describe the situation in the LD as being implied permission. This has not got legal standing but has become tradition going back generations.
In my experience I have actually met farmers on the fells with obvious backpacking kit and had chats. I have never shied away from telling them my intentions. I have always had replies that in the Cumbrian way was as positive as you'd get (you might know what I mean). Sometimes I might get a tip,something like to avoid somewhere.
I have not requested permission nor had a problem with my wikdcamping. Right or wrong is kind of irrelevent because it simply is the case. I do not think that most of the farmers on the upland areas (sheep farming) of the LD are that bothered by responsible wildcamping. I think this is the only case where I have done something on farmland without landowner's permission.
One aside, the LD is not widely owned by the farm operators but by large organisations like National Trust and United Utilities I understand. With the NT I think I read something about wildcamping on a part of their site relating to LD. Something about not being legal but accepted above the fell wall. If it is still there does that count as permission?
If there is a convenient commercial campsite on my route, I will pay to use it although I have often felt exploited in England because of unreasonable fees. In practice, however, it is often very difficult to ask permission because one doesn't know where to ask, especially when bedding down for the night in remote country while on a trek. I remember once being given permission and paying to put my tent up in a paddock adjoining a house after the owner asked me what I thought he ought to charge me and twice offering to pay farmers I met after having pitched for the night unbeknownst to them: on both occasions they refused payment. Over the years I have found farmers pleasant and helpful on the whole, but I may be harking back to a time before there few of us "wild" camping and those who were knew how to behave in the countryside.
Agreed (with most) - the only time I do not seek permission is above the fence/wall/tree line in hill/mountain areas - that includes parts of Wales and the Lake District.
However, the law as currently written, allows a landowner to use 'reasonable force' to remove a trespasser. If a trespasser refuses to leave, that has been accepted (by courts) to include taking them by the arm and leading them to the nearest public access. If the trespasser resists physically, they have been removed by one or more persons lifting them. Note that the law sees a trespasser starting this chain of events by a) trespassing and b) refusing to leave. I would suggest that any further resistance requires police intervention and at no time can physical harm be legally inflicted unless the trespasser instigates it.
Personally, I would call the police as soon as they refuse to leave. However, because simple trespass is not a criminal act, the police are not required to intervene. They are required to prevent breaches of the peace.
Sadly, I suspect you are right and farmers/landowners are just fed up with the number and variety of decency of the trespassers.
Last edited:
If the land is owned by the National Trust or United Utilities you will find that there are Byelaws in place which allow them to remove or fine any person transgressing against those byelaws. These privately owned properties are either open access or permissive access, neither of which allow for wild camping. Unless you have heard that wild camping is tolerated in certain places directly from the NT or UU themselves I would take it with a pinch of salt if I were you. (From a former employee of the NT)
Yes but more often than not charges are not pressed are they?
My gist is if the law is being asked to prosecute some farmhand that hasn't fully thought things through and acted in temporary anger that results in a sentence then the same needs to be true of other acts.
Last edited:
I think it is true of other acts, isn't it?
Personally I don't think acting in temporary anger is reason enough to avoid having to answer for your actions.
True - But I would rather see the law applied equally , across the board , then specifically and somewhat discriminatory when it suits some.
I think we are in essence agreeing it just amazes me when I see protesters deface national monuments , throw various unknow liquids into politicians faces ( regardless of their politics ) and charges are not applied.
Yeah, I totally agree. I've got no respect for that kind of thing at all.
If we examine a lot of these milkshake/egg/manure assaults there is no actual injury, rather there is insult, mockery and inconvenience caused to the victims, nothing more than a bruised ego.
Imagine being someone ,VIP, Politician or Joe Blow everyman/woman in the street , in the moment feels having some unknown substance thrown in your face - maybe its milk , maybe water , maybe acid.
I think we shouldn't normalise and rationalise assaults of anything.
Following link contains shocking images ( Mods delete if considered not allowed )
Truro acid attack victim Andreas Christopheros calls for law changes
Andreas Christopheros had acid thrown at him in a case of mistaken identity.
www.bbc.co.uk
Shock, fear, public embarrassment are all 'injuries' IMO. The permanent staining of a £300 suit is criminal damage.
Similar threads
