Potential ban to wild camping on Dartmoor.

[Ystranc]

I would recommend reading 'The Book of Trespass' by Nick Hayes.

The way we (the commoners) view ownership has be formulated by hundreds of years of oppression and theft from the aristocracy. People talk of rights and possession as immutable facts but the reality is actually far more nuanced.

Why should we not be permitted access or the right to camp on lands that, in some interpretations, are 'ours' by birth right. Especially considering that these estates are a so frequently ill gotten, stolen, or funded by slavery and plunder. Many of the government acts that made our current land ownership situation possible were enacted in a time were most of the country were disenfranchised. A redistribution of land is required, from the wealthy one percent to the state and by extension the people - making it common land once again.

Nick Hayes is an author, a business man selling a book not some sort of messiah….if you treat it as some sort of bible or reference book you’re going to land yourself in hot water. Contrary to what you’re saying, a large proportion of the countryside is owned by “commoners” (examine the etymology of the word commoners and the background of commoner‘s rights, it may surprise you)

 

[gibson 175]

I would recommend reading 'The Book of Trespass' by Nick Hayes.

The way we (the commoners) view ownership has be formulated by hundreds of years of oppression and theft from the aristocracy. People talk of rights and possession as immutable facts but the reality is actually far more nuanced.

Why should we not be permitted access or the right to camp on lands that, in some interpretations, are 'ours' by birth right. Especially considering that these estates are a so frequently ill gotten, stolen, or funded by slavery and plunder. Many of the government acts that made our current land ownership situation possible were enacted in a time were most of the country were disenfranchised. A redistribution of land is required, from the wealthy one percent to the state and by extension the people - making it common land once again.

I would hazard a guess that most ordinary people in the UK would agree with your suggestion.

 

[Ystranc]

I would hazard a guess that most ordinary people in the UK would agree with your suggestion.

Of course the majority of people who don’t own land would like to see it redistributed...everybody wants something for nothing. If you’re redistributing land fairly does this mean that the clueless Ned’s that start wildfires, hack at living trees and dump litter get a share (after all it would only be fair) best hope someone like that isn’t your neighbour.
As to common land, common land is in fact owned by someone, it is just that some people who live in properties that are adjunct to that common land may assert rights by registering those rights that are granted to them in the deeds of their property. Those rights are valuable to small farmers and are often jealously guarded. So many people are completely clueless when they start on the subject but those rights may be simple things like the right to graze sheep or cut hay, there may also be ancient rights that once benefited the local economy such as the right to gather and hold a horse fair… but my point is that these rights are not universal and don’t mean that the land is owned by the people to do what they see fit with.

 

[Wander]

If you’re redistributing land fairly does this mean that the clueless Ned’s that start wildfires, hack at living trees and dump litter get a share (after all it would only be fair) best hope someone like that isn’t your neighbour.

Yes, that's at the nub of the problem to the 'the land should be for everyone' argument.
Who, exactly, is responsible for cleaning up after the litterers and vandals? It's their land as well, presumably, so you can't start denying them access or you'll be just as bad as the current lot of landowners refusing access.
So could one of you, who think the land should be for everyone, kindly explain how you get around that?

Trouble is, I essentially agree that people should be allowed to roam. Even though I own a paltry amount of land (just over 8 acres) I spend a good amount of time on other's land - yes, that includes trespassing in some cases. So I am fully sympathetic. But owning that bit of land means I know the problems and costs involved and when I do go somewhere that, technically, I shouldn't be, I do act responsibly. In return, if I see someone on my land, so long as they are being responsible, I turn a blind eye.

But if the land is for all, then could someone kindly explain who is responsible (in time and money) for those who decide to act irresponsibly? I'd be very interested to see what you have to say.

 

[Broch]

I would hazard a guess that most ordinary people in the UK would agree with your suggestion.

The vast majority of ordinary people in the UK don't give a hoot about owning land that they have to spend time and money managing to maintain or grow food on.

38% of the Britain is arable farming - growing food
34% is improved pasture - growing food
That 72% of the land is a green factory managed extensively to feed the 70 million and we still import nearly 50% of our food.
10% is heath, moor and wetlands
13% is forest with only 5% woodland

I own/manage 20 acres purely for conservation - that's for biodiversity and wildlife, stuff the humans. Managing the land is hard work and costs money. I started my working life as a farm labourer, since then I have worked 60 to 80 hour weeks pretty much every week for forty years so that I could do what I do now.

When the moaners and groaners who feel they should be given the land out of 'right' have dedicated the effort to deserve it (even the effort to understand the land's needs), and are prepared to continue to work to maintain it, then they can have it. But most of them wouldn't pick up a spade to earn the 'right'.

 

[Suffolkrafter]

Another point which I think hasn't yet been made. It is possible to be land 'rich' but cash poor. It's too easy to stuff people into categories and boxes and assume that anyone with land is a wealthy aristocrat who has inherited all they have.

 

[gibson 175]

The vast majority of ordinary people in the UK don't give a hoot about owning land that they have to spend time and money managing to maintain or grow food on.

38% of the Britain is arable farming - growing food
34% is improved pasture - growing food
That 72% of the land is a green factory managed extensively to feed the 70 million and we still import nearly 50% of our food.
10% is heath, moor and wetlands
13% is forest with only 5% woodland

I own/manage 20 acres purely for conservation - that's for biodiversity and wildlife, stuff the humans. Managing the land is hard work and costs money. I started my working life as a farm labourer, since then I have worked 60 to 80 hour weeks pretty much every week for forty years so that I could do what I do now.

When the moaners and groaners who feel they should be given the land out of 'right' have dedicated the effort to deserve it (even the effort to understand the land's needs), and are prepared to continue to work to maintain it, then they can have it. But most of them wouldn't pick up a spade to earn the 'right'.

Shall we put it to the vote?

 

[Broch]

Shall we put it to the vote?

Happy to. As long as the invite says "are you willing to spend £X and XX days a week to work for free on the land so that you can have access?"

 

[Mesquite]

Happy to. As long as the invite says "are you willing to spend £X and XX days a week to work for free on the land so that you can have access?"

You forgot to say 'and others can access that land as well for free'.

 

[Tony]

This point of costs and hard work are the reason I've not got a woodland, even though I'd love to have one and maybe one day will, (especially for events) but the reality is that I have not got the money or the capacity to do land owning justice, especially woodland.

 

[gibson 175]

Happy to. As long as the invite says "are you willing to spend £X and XX days a week to work for free on the land so that you

Happy to. As long as the invite says "are you willing to spend £X and XX days a week to work for free on the land so that you can have access?"

Well said,the devil is in the detail. What exactly should the wording of the question be if you were to put it to the nation? Also let's not presume people are stupid?

 

[Broch]

Around 58% of the UK population visit 'green spaces' every year. That seems like a lot but it includes just a walk in a town park. If you take out the huge number of city and town dwellers that tick the 'green spaces' box referring to parks, I would expect far fewer than 50% would even express an interest in owning land that would cost them time and money.

If we take out all the agricultural land, and distribute the rest evenly, we would each have a 25m square - but, of course, everyone is allowed to tramp over your square as well as theirs Even if you include all the agricultural land you only end up with a 60m square!

But, as I implied earlier, the land shouldn't be managed for people or people's activities (well, certainly not all of it) - we desperately need to switch emphasis in Britain to increasing habitat and biodiversity; we are way behind other countries.

 

[Dugs]

Nick Hayes is an author, a business man selling a book not some sort of messiah….if you treat it as some sort of bible or reference book you’re going to land yourself in hot water. Contrary to what you’re saying, a large proportion of the countryside is owned by “commoners” (examine the etymology of the word commoners and the background of commoner‘s rights, it may surprise you)

Ah yes, you have me. I think Nick Hayes is the Messiah.
I think the etymology is less important than what it is accepted to mean now, i.e. not somebody from the nobility or royal family- who incidentally own nearly 2 000 000 acres between them. Inherited, not earned. Or what it is coming to mean - your everyday person, not a multimillionaire hedge fund manager.
There is the old trope that they manage it, nurture it, and if they provided access the uneducated would ruin it. Nonsense, if anything the concentration of visitors to areas of natural beauty would be lessened and people would have to travel less to get out 'into the country'.
Yes, there will always be those that litter and leave more of an impact than they should but arguments like 'the whole country will be a tip' are just hyperbole which distract from the real issue.
The issue is not binary and nor should the solution be. Nobody is suggesting your vegetable patch or small holding should be free for campers and city folk to trespass. The argument of 'well i suppose you'd be happy with people camping in your back garden' is misleading and draws a false equivalent between the average homeowner or landowner and the richest one percent who own vast swathes of land. Redistribution doesn't need to mean everyone is given an equal share of land and we all get our 25m2 chunk. It could mean that the custody is passed to the people ) the government. It also doesn't mean that the government should be able to do what they want with that land. The same legislative beast that created the enclosure act could legislate for how the land could be used. Havens of biodiversity could be created, and we could abandon the damaging practices of grouse shooting etc.

 

[Broch]

The question still remains; how much of a tax increase are you prepared to pay to maintain it?

And, just because someone inherited land it does not mean they are not best placed to own or manage it. The majority of farms - the greatest land mass by far in the UK (72%) - has been passed down for generations. Why is it different that a farmer owns and manages the land than 'the richest 1%' as you put it? That 1% operate the land to make money and employ people exactly as the farmers do (actually, farmers employ very few people these days).

Where is it enshrined that we have a right to the land? It's just another asset which is bought and sold and passed on or, in some cases, taken by force. It has been since farming began and the majority of mankind stopped roaming. As soon as mankind started working the land, boundaries went up, and arguments started

 

[Dugs]

The question still remains; how much of a tax increase are you prepared to pay to maintain it?

And, just because someone inherited land it does not mean they are not best placed to own or manage it. The majority of farms - the greatest land mass by far in the UK (72%) - has been passed down for generations. Why is it different that a farmer owns and manages the land than 'the richest 1%' as you put it? That 1% operate the land to make money and employ people exactly as the farmers do (actually, farmers employ very few people these days).

Where is it enshrined that we have a right to the land? It's just another asset which is bought and sold and passed on or, in some cases, taken by force. It has been since farming began and the majority of mankind stopped roaming. As soon as mankind started working the land, boundaries went up, and arguments started

If we had a tax system that was less skewed to rich and super rich there would likely be more than enough money to fund such maintenance. A steeper inheritance tax and the closure of the many loopholes for avoiding it (a 100% tax over a certain point) would also go some way to funding it.

Nothing is enshrined, or more accurately 'we' decide what we enshrine. It's all constructed. The trickle down economics argument just doesn't stand up in my opinion.

 

[Suffolkrafter]

I'd be willing to pay tax for the state to manage land for my benefit. Equally, I'd be willing to pay fees for usage of private land, e.g. for wild camping, mountain biking and so forth, so long as it is clearly coupled to upkeep of the land. I'd rather pay a fee than sneak around hoping not to be caught. For the same reason, I'm happy to be a member of local wild life trusts and support the work they do.

 

[Broch]

If we had a tax system that was less skewed to rich and super rich there would likely be more than enough money to fund such maintenance. A steeper inheritance tax and the closure of the many loopholes for avoiding it (a 100% tax over a certain point) would also go some way to funding it.

Nothing is enshrined, or more accurately 'we' decide what we enshrine. It's all constructed. The trickle down economics argument just doesn't stand up in my opinion.

That's the daft thing though - which is why all governments have trouble getting the balance right. The rich and super-rich as you define it pay a phenomenal amount of money towards the health system (that they don't use), the schooling system (that they don't use) and other local authority services. They also head up some of the biggest employers in the country. If we tax them too far they'll just take their money and skills overseas.

 

[Tengu]

In my limited experience with these folks they do an awful lot of good; most invisible.

And thats how they like it.

 

[Ystranc]

I'd be willing to pay tax for the state to manage land for my benefit. Equally, I'd be willing to pay fees for usage of private land, e.g. for wild camping, mountain biking and so forth, so long as it is clearly coupled to upkeep of the land. I'd rather pay a fee than sneak around hoping not to be caught. For the same reason, I'm happy to be a member of local wild life trusts and support the work they do.

The simplest way forward for you is to ask to wild camp and offer something in return. As a for instance I have a permission in the Irfon valley in return for pest control and storing a few tools from time to time while the owner is away. Camping, shooting and fly fishing with free firewood thrown in…does it get much better? A trust relationship with a landowner can bring real dividends and costs nothing…compared to waving placards and shouting “I want, I want” like some members on the forum.
Learn skills like lambing, hedging, fencing etc…just offer to help out and build trust. Many farmers are happy just to have a conversation with another person or a spare pair of hands.

 

[Dugs]

That's the daft thing though - which is why all governments have trouble getting the balance right. The rich and super-rich as you define it pay a phenomenal amount of money towards the health system (that they don't use), the schooling system (that they don't use) and other local authority services. They also head up some of the biggest employers in the country. If we tax them too far they'll just take their money and skills overseas.

That's just not the case. There are ties other than money that keep these people here. Empirically, as long as it remains financially profitable for them they will stay - even if there is a higher tax burden.
You've just rephrased trickle down economics which is a myth. They say the bath the rich person is sat in fills up and eventually overflows, leaving us with the benefits trickling over the side. In reality the rich just buy a bigger bath and we're left scratching our heads wondering why the wealth gap is getting bigger.