Freeman on the land.....lawful rebellion? Anybody here?
- Thread starter bambodoggy
- Start date
A really good book on the development of an area of countryside from very early prehistoric times to the 18/19th centuries is
[h=3]The Land of Lettice Sweetapple: An English Countryside Explored (Tempus History & Archaeology) by Peter J. Fowler and Ian Blackwell (1 Jul 1998)[/h]<Around 1800 Lettice Sweetapple lived in West Overton, Wiltshire, between Avebury and Marlborough. Her house looked across the River Kennet to the chalk downs and southwards to woods once part of the Savernake Forest. She represents hundreds of thousands of largely anonymous people whose lives were shaped by this changing landscape, and who themselves changed it, over ten millennia. Peter Fowler and his team of archaeologists, historians and scientists have investigated the landscape of the parishes of West Overton and Fyfield over 39 years, not merely as local history but as a microcosm of the English countryside. In setting out to answer the question 'How has this landscape come to look as it does?', they have made use of fieldwork, aerial photography, excavation, old maps and documents, geophysics and numerous analytical techniques on everything from standing buildings to flecks of charcoal. The resulting mountain of information contradicts the persistent myth of 'the unchanging English countryside'.
The first part of the book tells the story of the investigation, in the fields, on the downs, in the valley and in the woods. One result was to raise further questions and to highlight what is still unknown. So, in the second part, using imagination and insight, the authors build on their first-hand knowledge to tell another story, that of the ordinary yet extraordinary life led in this typical yet unique patch of English countryside - the land of Lettice Sweetapple.>
Ironically in Wiltshire I left my copy out overnight and a snail ate a hole in the front cover. Quite pleased really to have fed the local livestock on their own history.
[h=3]The Land of Lettice Sweetapple: An English Countryside Explored (Tempus History & Archaeology) by Peter J. Fowler and Ian Blackwell (1 Jul 1998)[/h]<Around 1800 Lettice Sweetapple lived in West Overton, Wiltshire, between Avebury and Marlborough. Her house looked across the River Kennet to the chalk downs and southwards to woods once part of the Savernake Forest. She represents hundreds of thousands of largely anonymous people whose lives were shaped by this changing landscape, and who themselves changed it, over ten millennia. Peter Fowler and his team of archaeologists, historians and scientists have investigated the landscape of the parishes of West Overton and Fyfield over 39 years, not merely as local history but as a microcosm of the English countryside. In setting out to answer the question 'How has this landscape come to look as it does?', they have made use of fieldwork, aerial photography, excavation, old maps and documents, geophysics and numerous analytical techniques on everything from standing buildings to flecks of charcoal. The resulting mountain of information contradicts the persistent myth of 'the unchanging English countryside'.
The first part of the book tells the story of the investigation, in the fields, on the downs, in the valley and in the woods. One result was to raise further questions and to highlight what is still unknown. So, in the second part, using imagination and insight, the authors build on their first-hand knowledge to tell another story, that of the ordinary yet extraordinary life led in this typical yet unique patch of English countryside - the land of Lettice Sweetapple.>
Ironically in Wiltshire I left my copy out overnight and a snail ate a hole in the front cover. Quite pleased really to have fed the local livestock on their own history.
"Its wierd how a mud hut with a turf roof can be pulled down by council as they say it is an eyesore biult without permission yet a fracking operation and mountian side wind turbines is built without anyone who has to live with it been asked. When government is something that is done to you, not works for you, it is wrong."
Really ? In giving permission for wind turbines I feel that the Council are doing the right thing for me. Perhaps not for you. That is called society. Perhaps you feel that the right thing is what you want, and the wrong thing is what you don't. How unfortunate. The real point is that making decisions pretty much always hacks somebody off, but they must be made.
Having said that money certainly does grease the system, even in Lettice Sweetapple's day. Perhaps even more so given the legal system of the time. Local democracy can be corrupt, especially in planning matters.
Really ? In giving permission for wind turbines I feel that the Council are doing the right thing for me. Perhaps not for you. That is called society. Perhaps you feel that the right thing is what you want, and the wrong thing is what you don't. How unfortunate. The real point is that making decisions pretty much always hacks somebody off, but they must be made.
Having said that money certainly does grease the system, even in Lettice Sweetapple's day. Perhaps even more so given the legal system of the time. Local democracy can be corrupt, especially in planning matters.
Unbelievably Rik, the Land Registry still does not know who owns up to 50% of the land in the UK.
[Presumably because they've been told not to ask......] So landowners wealth comes not from farming, [agriculture only accounts for something like 3% of the UK GDP] but from trickling that [stolen] land onto the urban housing market. This land, is mainly owned by very wealthy families, held in offshore trusts and shell companies, so is effectively untaxed.
When Kevin Cahill was researching his book, Who Owns Britain, over 13 years, he became aware of a second domesday book, the 1872 Return of Land Owners, which listed who owns what, but the wealthy landowners, appalled, buried it. Even today in our supposed 'democracy' 70% of the land is owned by 1% of the population. Even organisations like the Royal Agriculutural society denied the existence of the book to Cahill.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...p_UBcN&sig=AHIEtbS_wk_6QPJUYAIys7rEGhZv1T367A
Another illuminating eye opening read, is Who Runs Britain, by Jeremy Paxman.
Thats simply not true Dave the Land Registry hold the titles of 80% of British Land - the rest will follow either when it changes hands or is voluntarily registered. The remaining land is held under deed - which is how all land was registered - but not on the searchable database. It has only been compulsory to keep an electronic record of land ownership since 1990 - and new records are generally only created when land changes hands. Since that is less than 25 years ago - the time of a mortgage - its hardly surprising that a mere one fifth of land has not changed hands in that time.
Nice conspiracy theory, but the tin foil hat is a little tight though
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HM_Land_Registry
Until six years ago our previous house and its curtilage was unregistered. Nothing sinister in a lot being unregistered but makes it handier to buy and sell. What is worrying is that Deeds become obsolete after registration and may be disposed off thereby losing vast chunks of the history of this country. It was a sketch map added to the deeds of our place way in the past that helped resolve a boundary question on registration although the Land Registry themselves do not claim to show exact boundaries.
Well Hugh, I find it difficult to believe that a respected Journo like Kevin Cahill, who spent 13 years compiling his book, which has been widely acclaimed, and used as a research tool, by the likes of the BBC, [he was interviewed by Channel 4 News], and numerous Dailys, is innacurate.
Read the first review here:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Owns-Britain-Ireland-Kevin-Cahill/dp/1841953105
http://pranavbihari.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/speculative-land-grabbing/
There are many links on respected websites, confirming it, if you search.
Country life article.
http://www.countrylife.co.uk/article/506200/Who-really-owns-Britain-.html
New statesman article:
http://www.newstatesman.com/life-and-society/2011/03/million-acres-land-ownership
Read the first review here:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Owns-Britain-Ireland-Kevin-Cahill/dp/1841953105
http://pranavbihari.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/speculative-land-grabbing/
There are many links on respected websites, confirming it, if you search.
Country life article.
http://www.countrylife.co.uk/article/506200/Who-really-owns-Britain-.html
New statesman article:
http://www.newstatesman.com/life-and-society/2011/03/million-acres-land-ownership
Last edited:
Kevin Cahill is a typical conspiracy theorist and extreme socialist - basically a tin-foil hat wearer. Even wiki alludes to this.
A typical example is his "logic" re Cornwall. Because the Government takes out more in taxation that in puts back in to Cornwall fiscally, Cornwall is doomed........ Using that logic, London must now be an economic backwater, and Liverpool should be the world's most booming city. Oh, and Germany and the UK - being the biggest net contributors to the EU re fiscal funding - should both be economies in crisis, whilst Greece, Ireland, Cyprus should be massive economic successes, being huge net recipients of EU funding............................................
A typical example is his "logic" re Cornwall. Because the Government takes out more in taxation that in puts back in to Cornwall fiscally, Cornwall is doomed........ Using that logic, London must now be an economic backwater, and Liverpool should be the world's most booming city. Oh, and Germany and the UK - being the biggest net contributors to the EU re fiscal funding - should both be economies in crisis, whilst Greece, Ireland, Cyprus should be massive economic successes, being huge net recipients of EU funding............................................
I can easily believe that the land registry doesn't have registry records of who owns 50% of the rural land area.
As said above, the land only becomes registered if it changes hands or is voluntarily registered.
Very large areas of the rural parts of England and Wales belong to the crown, 'titled' families and farming families. The ownership will have been transferred by inheritance (or not transferred when it is crown land). So it would not have been registered.
No need for conspiracies or anything weird. Just that the land hasn't changed hands since the Land Registry was set up.
As said above, the land only becomes registered if it changes hands or is voluntarily registered.
Very large areas of the rural parts of England and Wales belong to the crown, 'titled' families and farming families. The ownership will have been transferred by inheritance (or not transferred when it is crown land). So it would not have been registered.
No need for conspiracies or anything weird. Just that the land hasn't changed hands since the Land Registry was set up.
Indeed.
Rather low to try to paint a slur on someones character, you only heard of two minutes ago, just because you dont like what he has written.
Think I'll leave it there. Im sure people are intelligent enough to make up their own minds.....
Who Owns The World?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Cahill_(author)
Rather low to try to paint a slur on someones character, you only heard of two minutes ago, just because you dont like what he has written.
Think I'll leave it there. Im sure people are intelligent enough to make up their own minds.....
Who Owns The World?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Cahill_(author)
Last edited:
It strikes me as being a doddle, but like anything it is not going to be a doddle if you are focusing on 1001 little obstacles like the below instead of solutions.
OK. You've really lost me there, what has giving up all these things got to do with equality?
We still do not know who owns up to 50% of the land in England and Wales as there are no records about it in the Land Registry.
Means absoultilty nothing if your data collection system is flawed
Means absoultilty nothing if your data collection system is flawed
is a complete fantasy usually constructed by those who want more but wouldn't dream of giving anything up
Last edited:
Because most of the population of the world don't get any of those benefits. If you tried to distribute all wealth/resources equally then you'd find that nearly everyone in the West would be poorer than they are now.
Don't have any - but I can go by the 'resources' calculator that the beeb ran a while ago - where you put in your lifestyle and it calculated footprint compared to the rest of the world.
Mine wasn't too bad, but still many people from rural africa or india.
Mine wasn't too bad, but still many people from rural africa or india.
It never ceases to amaze me how naive people can be about poverty, and the difference between relative and absolute poverty.
In the UK, it's defined by the Child Poverty Act 2010, as ‘household income below 60 percent of median income’. Anyone spot the flaw there? If your household has £100,000 of income, but the median in the UK is £167,000, then you are, by definition, poor. In short, there will always be poor people in the UK, regardless of how much they own, because their poverty is relative to the national average. Some, indeed, believe that its better for everyone to have an income of £10,000, because then there'll be no gap between the "rich" and the "poor", as such gaps are "unfair".. Personally, I'd prefer to be poor and have an income of £100,000, even if most people have more!
In the UK, it's defined by the Child Poverty Act 2010, as ‘household income below 60 percent of median income’. Anyone spot the flaw there? If your household has £100,000 of income, but the median in the UK is £167,000, then you are, by definition, poor. In short, there will always be poor people in the UK, regardless of how much they own, because their poverty is relative to the national average. Some, indeed, believe that its better for everyone to have an income of £10,000, because then there'll be no gap between the "rich" and the "poor", as such gaps are "unfair".. Personally, I'd prefer to be poor and have an income of £100,000, even if most people have more!
But its not 167,000 according to google its 22,800 so 60% would be approx 13,600 which is poverty relative to U.K living if your a family on that.
Poor means you continually worry about bills, poverty is not having a pot to p in as it were which seems an understandable difference.
Of course different people manage what theyt have but the very act of having to manage points you to the poorer end of the spectrum.
Here's a funny thing, the security of a decent benefit system is alleged to rot moral fibre and can even turn people into arsonistsd according to recent statements.
But to grow up in security with family money enough not to worry about bills does not apparently rot moral fibre, apart from wrecking restaurants and Daddy paying for the repairs but for the wealthy that is just high spirits while the screw is turned ever tighter on the plebs should they think of anything deemed anti-social.
Of course different people manage what theyt have but the very act of having to manage points you to the poorer end of the spectrum.
Here's a funny thing, the security of a decent benefit system is alleged to rot moral fibre and can even turn people into arsonistsd according to recent statements.
But to grow up in security with family money enough not to worry about bills does not apparently rot moral fibre, apart from wrecking restaurants and Daddy paying for the repairs but for the wealthy that is just high spirits while the screw is turned ever tighter on the plebs should they think of anything deemed anti-social.
I would love to have that much!
So I live in poverty eh? - how come I am such a fat barsteward then?
All the folk in poverty that I worked with in Africa and SE Asia were so skinny you could count their ribs through their tattered clothing!
We are an obscenely rich country and if those screaming "poverty" in the UK could see the real thing then they might be happier with their lot in life!
Similar threads
