So is the Telegraph article inaccurate?
If these rights were taken away in 1835, what did they just do?
Forestry Commission scrap right to forage
- Thread starter Shewie
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
So is the Telegraph article inaccurate?
If these rights were taken away in 1835, what did they just do?
What a load of bolleaux.
To ensure folks safety in the woods and forests they would have to fence them off and ban all entry.
There are dozens of ways to get damaged in the woods if you try hard enough.
IMO any practise which has gone on for hundreds of years enters into common law even if it's not written down in a fancy book. I would imagine if left your truck at home and carried your wood out by hand no one would bother you.
They have said you can't do it, so that should help absolve them of blame if you pull a tree down on yourself.
To ensure folks safety in the woods and forests they would have to fence them off and ban all entry.
There are dozens of ways to get damaged in the woods if you try hard enough.
IMO any practise which has gone on for hundreds of years enters into common law even if it's not written down in a fancy book. I would imagine if left your truck at home and carried your wood out by hand no one would bother you.
They have said you can't do it, so that should help absolve them of blame if you pull a tree down on yourself.
They have said you can't do it, so that should help absolve them of blame if you pull a tree down on yourself.
Sadly not
The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 sets out the duty of care you owe to people you have not invited or permitted to be on your land, such as trespassers.
if you know there is a danger, and do nothing to prevent it from happening, then you are liable. So for example if you know that, where people are collecting (stealing) your wood from there is a real danger to them from falling over, then it is your responsibility to take such steps as is reasonable to prevent them from hurting themselves.
If you expect people to trespass, and you put up a sign saying “do not trespass” you are basically acknowledging your “duty of care” to prevent them from hurting themselves
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 at wilipedia
These problems always stem from the false concept of ownership of land. If it was either unowned, or owned by the public, then no one would have to trespass in the first place.
Whatever happened to the Right (not) to Roam Act?
Whatever happened to the Right (not) to Roam Act?
you have a right to roam, you just don't have a right to stop, or to collect firewood
Nice one - presume you won't mind me foraging the turf from your back garden then?
Or are you only talking about the land you don't own?
Nice one - presume you won't mind me foraging the turf from your back garden then?
Or are you only talking about the land you don't own?
This is an extreme example, as neither my home in the UK nor my flat here in CZ are areas of natural wilderness of benefit to the public. I do in fact intend to invite students (one day) of the outdoors to our relatively small, but never the less larger than most's garden because I believe that when certain projects are up and running they could benefit from our fortunate 'ownership' of this place.
But sure, if you want to wander around our garden then I don't see why not. If it's to collect firewood that we might use ourselves then it would be a little unfriendly, or if you chose to walk over the vegetable patch it might be a bit upsetting, but why should I expect you to do these things? You seem a nice enough person.
And anyway, if it weren't for the concept of land ownership then I wouldn't even consider telling you not to, so your point is slightly out of kilter with my argument. In order just to USE the land we own, we have to own it, through no fault of our own. If things were different then so would we be.
I am aware of the reality, I just believe that it is necessary to understand these problems which seem to malign the UK more than other European countries. I believe it also to be related to over-population...but that's another can of worms best left unopened.
Unfortunately, were there to be no land ownership, youd have no say in who you invited. They the people could just a well dump the contents of their midden on top of your land, as dig up your root crop.
Land ownership is a fact, and all the wishing in the world will not make that fact go away. Sadly some of the land is owned by people who see it only as what they can get out of it short term.
I'd not say the Uk is over populated, just that there are to many people in the wrong places
Thank you. My open-ended question deserved to be dealt with in this way. I just mourn the actual Right to be outdoors, if you know what I mean.
Has anyone heard of the roundhouse story in west wales? They recently won the right not to knock down their carbon neutral dwelling, built in National Park status forest. Small victory for now, but heartening. They're actually friends of friends...etc. It's a very interesting story to follow:
4 years ago: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/feb/16/sciencenews.welshassembly
Now: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/25/ethicalliving.greenbuilding
Yeah, I know, that's what I said in response to Wallenstein.
I have admitted there is a reality to accept.
I'd not say the Uk is over populated, just that there are to many people in the wrong places
If you open your eyes to the impact on the countryside we've had, it's clear we're over-populated, without even going into tedious details. I believe we're a net importer of both food and oil, which goes someway to explain this.
Why wouldn't the socialist bushcrafter carry Earl Grey in his brew kit?
He didn't believe in proper tea.
He didn't believe in proper tea.
I'd actually say the problems stem not from the concept of land ownership, but from the entirely, completely and utterly nonsensical concpet that when someone is on your land, and they hurt themselves - it's your fault.
If I swing an axe in my back garden and remove one of my legs... it is my fault.
If I swing an axe on Forestry Comission land and remove one of my legs... it is STILL my fault because I did it to myself.
If I swing an axe on Forestry Comission land and remove SOMEONE ELSE'S leg... it is my fault for not taking care.
In no way whatsoever is the Forestry Comission at fault for anything I do that hurts myself or someone else while on Forestry Comission land.
Now - if someone at the Forestry Comission felled a tree badly so it become hung up, clocked off, went home for his tea... and it later fell down and crushed someone - THEN the Forestry Comission would be at fault - as they CAUSED the accident.
The whole duty-of-care thing is fine in some situations (and they are few) but this whole thing just stinks.
When I'm in charge of this country (hey - I can dream alright - I'll be the finest benevolent dictator known to man) one of the first things to go will be lawsuits where someone doing something dangerous hurts themself and then sues. If you're not capable of taking responsibility for your own actions and the injury they might cause you, you've got no business existing outside a padded room.
Ok - so I made it up - I just want to be left alone and not have to fix the screwed up system we're subject to - but the point still stands; when H&S stretches beyond certain limited scenarios and gets into leisure there's been a major cock up.
Public liability should extend not to something you didn't do (i.e. you didn't prevent Billy from foraging and he got hurt), only to things you did (like felling a tree in top of a passer by) or neglected to do (like neglecting to fell that hung up tree properly before going home for your tree).
Bah - I'm going to get something to eat and try to forget that such MORONS exist. I'll probably just remember with fondness the time a salesman for an ambulance-chasing law firm was badgering me to claim for several injuries that were my own fault - and I asked if he'd like a personal injury of his own - becase I'd be glad to help.
He looked shocked and left - that was fun.
If I swing an axe in my back garden and remove one of my legs... it is my fault.
If I swing an axe on Forestry Comission land and remove one of my legs... it is STILL my fault because I did it to myself.
If I swing an axe on Forestry Comission land and remove SOMEONE ELSE'S leg... it is my fault for not taking care.
In no way whatsoever is the Forestry Comission at fault for anything I do that hurts myself or someone else while on Forestry Comission land.
Now - if someone at the Forestry Comission felled a tree badly so it become hung up, clocked off, went home for his tea... and it later fell down and crushed someone - THEN the Forestry Comission would be at fault - as they CAUSED the accident.
The whole duty-of-care thing is fine in some situations (and they are few) but this whole thing just stinks.
When I'm in charge of this country (hey - I can dream alright - I'll be the finest benevolent dictator known to man) one of the first things to go will be lawsuits where someone doing something dangerous hurts themself and then sues. If you're not capable of taking responsibility for your own actions and the injury they might cause you, you've got no business existing outside a padded room.
Ok - so I made it up - I just want to be left alone and not have to fix the screwed up system we're subject to - but the point still stands; when H&S stretches beyond certain limited scenarios and gets into leisure there's been a major cock up.
Public liability should extend not to something you didn't do (i.e. you didn't prevent Billy from foraging and he got hurt), only to things you did (like felling a tree in top of a passer by) or neglected to do (like neglecting to fell that hung up tree properly before going home for your tree).
Bah - I'm going to get something to eat and try to forget that such MORONS exist. I'll probably just remember with fondness the time a salesman for an ambulance-chasing law firm was badgering me to claim for several injuries that were my own fault - and I asked if he'd like a personal injury of his own - becase I'd be glad to help.
He looked shocked and left - that was fun.
I'd actually say the problems stem not from the concept of land ownership, but from the entirely, completely and utterly nonsensical concpet that when someone is on your land, and they hurt themselves - it's your fault.
If I swing an axe in my back garden and remove one of my legs... it is my fault.
If I swing an axe on Forestry Comission land and remove one of my legs... it is STILL my fault because I did it to myself.
If I swing an axe on Forestry Comission land and remove SOMEONE ELSE'S leg... it is my fault for not taking care.
In no way whatsoever is the Forestry Comission at fault for anything I do that hurts myself or someone else while on Forestry Comission land.
Now - if someone at the Forestry Comission felled a tree badly so it become hung up, clocked off, went home for his tea... and it later fell down and crushed someone - THEN the Forestry Comission would be at fault - as they CAUSED the accident.
The whole duty-of-care thing is fine in some situations (and they are few) but this whole thing just stinks.
When I'm in charge of this country (hey - I can dream alright - I'll be the finest benevolent dictator known to man) one of the first things to go will be lawsuits where someone doing something dangerous hurts themself and then sues. If you're not capable of taking responsibility for your own actions and the injury they might cause you, you've got no business existing outside a padded room.
Ok - so I made it up - I just want to be left alone and not have to fix the screwed up system we're subject to - but the point still stands; when H&S stretches beyond certain limited scenarios and gets into leisure there's been a major cock up.
Public liability should extend not to something you didn't do (i.e. you didn't prevent Billy from foraging and he got hurt), only to things you did (like felling a tree in top of a passer by) or neglected to do (like neglecting to fell that hung up tree properly before going home for your tree).
Bah - I'm going to get something to eat and try to forget that such MORONS exist. I'll probably just remember with fondness the time a salesman for an ambulance-chasing law firm was badgering me to claim for several injuries that were my own fault - and I asked if he'd like a personal injury of his own - becase I'd be glad to help.
He looked shocked and left - that was fun.
It's a good argument, and I agree wholeheartedly with your points, but I chose the words 'stem of the problem' carefully. Now, this is all based on what I percieve, which may or may not be entirely true, but from my point of view it is, unfortunately, not as simple as defining the responsibilities of the FC, since if they are not being forced to adhere to these H&S rules in the first place, then they are simply abusing them, and quite possibly have had wood fuel merchants lobbying with them for the rights to gather all the wood themselves. Like I said, I can't say whether or not this is true, but it is my feeling that H&S rules are more to do with abusing the law to the advantage of a few, than even with covering anyone's back, let alone actually making sure no one gets hurt.
So, although the sound moral guidelines you have set out are what the FC should adhere to, they won't I don't think.
But anyway your point is about responsibility, and I agree.
The distinction that the H&S Act was in reference to the Work place is an important one, but since the FC own the woodland, then that is their work place and so the same rules must apply, logically.
Or on the other hand, the H&S may have nothing to do with this, and it is just a story invented by the news papers to sell their junk
Bushtuckerman...
...good points about the potential for abuse of H&S stuff. Having had to deal with risk asessments and the likes in the past I have a deep rooted hatred for the easy-come lawsuits that can spring up any time someone gets short of cash within 3 years of something going wrong. I've never had personal experience of them being abused in the way you mention though - makes you wonder if that is the main issue.
I'm no conspiracy theorist - but that kind of thing does make me wonder sometimes.
...good points about the potential for abuse of H&S stuff. Having had to deal with risk asessments and the likes in the past I have a deep rooted hatred for the easy-come lawsuits that can spring up any time someone gets short of cash within 3 years of something going wrong. I've never had personal experience of them being abused in the way you mention though - makes you wonder if that is the main issue.
I'm no conspiracy theorist - but that kind of thing does make me wonder sometimes.
You're right, I don't exactly know what the main issue is...but it got my bristles up as you can tell.
I am no conspiracy theorist either. In fact I think that government bodies have worryingly little caution in being open and telling us what we can and can't do. We are in a police state (I write all of this as if I were still in the UK...things are a bit different over here).
On the other hand, it could be yet another useless piece of legislation which has slipped through the net.
I am no conspiracy theorist either. In fact I think that government bodies have worryingly little caution in being open and telling us what we can and can't do. We are in a police state (I write all of this as if I were still in the UK...things are a bit different over here).
Tadpole said:
On the other hand, it could be yet another useless piece of legislation which has slipped through the net.
Yes, I remember that. They put solar panels on its roof, and when a OS plane flew over they noticed it, and hence why the found themselves neck deep.
Ah its website is still up, http://thatroundhouse.info/
I think that the main issue is a little bit o' crafty skulduggery on the part of the Forestry commission. Back in 2000 the H&S executive published a guideline proposal called "Managing Health and Safety in Forestry. This is, I think, the document that the Forestry commission is using to make money from firewood. The Forestry commission is trying to sell the rights to collecting firewood on a commercial scale, in rural areas.
Now why would you pay hard cash for your firewood when you can just pop along to the local wood and pick it up for yourself?
The FC know this, which is why they stopped issuing licences to collect firewood back in April 2008, not just in Wales but across England. Under common law you could, if you were a freeman, collect wood for your fire and to repair your building from your local forest.
Now it seems that the FC wants to make a bit more cash from people turning going green. Nothing to do with elf and safety just plain and simple money.
It appears that the person who whipped the newspapers in to a firewood feeding frenzy is the same Mike K on this.
forum
