Potential ban to wild camping on Dartmoor.

[Ystranc]

The last true workhouse stopped operating in 1948 but remained open as a “public assistance institution” which was pretty much only a change in name. These continued into the 1960’s

 

[Billy-o]

No, one only 'has' land if we pay for it - either in battle

You make an important point Brock.

All land ownership is based in historical acts of violence, displacement and disposession. Romans, Saxons, Jutes and Normans successively invaded and killed and otherwise disrupted the lives of whoever was settled in Britain before them. Under the Tudors and Stuarts (and through subsequent acts of enforced inclosure) different groups have been given land, others have been removed from it.

Patterns of taxation, militarism, fealty and documentation seal those arrangements. In celebration as often as fearfully, we assent to these violences, their ever-present threat and the complicated legal and other arrangements (concepts of nation, race and belonging - even the mortgage etc.) that grow like a callus of order and normalcy over those initial violences.

Those arrangements settle in to our habits and into our cowardice, and, whenever the existing arrangements are challenged they are met again with the violence of organized groups of paid, armed men; game keepers, police, army. Any claim of present or prior ownership, any such claim, rests on a threat of violence. It is unfortunate, but obvious, that all land ownership is eventually grounded in murder.

Unsurprisingly, we try to push it to the back of our minds; the fact that we have so easily surrendered our originary right to live and wander where we please. We should be, and probably are, ashamed.

 

[Wander]

Yes, but our 'originary right to live where we please' was many thousands of years ago when the population was a tiny fraction of what it now is.
How, precisely, do you envisage re-establishing that 'originary right' with population levels as they currently are?
If I decided that I wanted to exercise my 'right to live where I please' in your back garden, how would you respond to that?
Again, you are talking about your rights but, again, you fail to consider your responsibilities.

 

[Billy-o]

I don't have a back garden. I may or may not decide to camp in yours. But your claim to have me not there, to expel me, would depend eventually on the exercise of violence. That's all. It's very basic.

 

[Wander]

OK, I realise this may be a bit of a stretch for you, but try imagining that you had a garden.
What would you do then?

And the fact that you think it would come down to violence shows exactly what the problem is. Clue: it's you.

 

[Broch]

But, why do you have the right to take advantage .......


This post crashed out , see complete post below!

 

[FerlasDave]

I think what billy-o was highlighting was the fact that if you could not move him then you would most likely phone for the police who would use physical intervention not necessarily fisticuffs between you and he.

 

[Billy-o]

it would fall into disrepair

And your conscientious stewardship is appreciated, Broch.

But, fall into disrepair? Left to its own devices it would wild and revert to a natural state

 

[FerlasDave]

Because I need to insure my land in case someone (illegally) crosses it and hurts themselves.
Yup.

Volenti non fit injuria.

 

[Wander]

And I was highlighting that it's because of people like him, who rely on the intimidation of violence to get their own way (whether between himself and the landowner, or himself and police), that these problems arise.
He is relying on the fact that he can intimidate the landowner into letting him stay there to get his own way. History is replete with where that leads.

 

[Broch]

Unsurprisingly, we try to push it to the back of our minds; the fact that we have so easily surrendered our originary right to live and wander where we please. We should be, and probably are, ashamed.

But why do you think you have the right to use the land I have toiled to improve to your gain? I don't have a right to drive your car, or sleep in your house, or eat the food you've bought.

I am the current custodian of ancient semi natural woodland. I spend time and money managing it for the best conservation value possible. If I didn't do it, the wood would end up a monoculture that supports little wild life, like most small pieces of woodland that are not managed properly. I let people walk through and use it that ask, but I would retain the right to evict anybody that did not ask or did not obey the simple rule of leave nothing, take nothing.

 

[Broch]

Volenti non fit injuria.

Sadly, that does not apply - I not only have to insure against trespassers injuring themselves (by falling over a log that I left there when they expect the 'path' to be clear), I also have get employer's liability insurance for volunteer help!

 

[FerlasDave]

I am definitely sure that it would stand up in court though. It’s extremely clear how the law stands on this. It just has yet to be taken to a court.

I do however think you are still wise to keep the insurance you have, and would recommend others to do the same. - Because it has yet to be taken to a court.

 

[Broch]

And your conscientious stewardship is appreciated, Broch.

But, fall into disrepair? Left to its own devices it would wild and revert to a natural state

That is a popular misconception. And one that, 30 years ago when I started this, I believed as well. Small woodland does not have the room to host the natural herbivores and the necessary prey species to reach anything like a 'natural' state. We have to manage small woodland to provide the best biodiversity. By small, I mean less than hundreds or even thousand of acres.

 

[Broch]

I am definitely sure that it would stand up in court though. It’s extremely clear how the law stands on this. It just has yet to be taken to a court.

I do however think you are still wise to keep the insurance you have, and would recommend others to do the same. - Because it has yet to be taken to a court.

I believe, but would have to search to find it, that it has already been tested. It all hinges on Volenti non fit injuria relying on the claimant being aware they may suffer injury; their claim would be that they expect a path through a wood to be clear or they expect a path through a wood not to have hanging deadwood above it etc.

 

[FerlasDave]

I believe, but would have to search to find it, that it has already been tested. It all hinges on Volenti non fit injuria relying on the claimant being aware they may suffer injury; their claim would be that they expect a path through a wood to be clear or they expect a path through a wood not to have hanging deadwood above it etc.

If it has then it would be interesting to see the results.

Yeah, I can see that being a strong basis for their case.

 

[Billy-o]

That is a popular misconception. And one that, 30 years ago when I started this, I believed as well. Small woodland does not have the room to host the natural herbivores and the necessary prey species to reach anything like a 'natural' state. We have to manage small woodland to provide the best biodiversity. By small, I mean less than hundreds or even thousand of acres.

This is true.

As well, it highlights the way that the often monocultural purposes landowners put their land to causes the problem of isolated parcels being disconnected from each other by commercial agriculture. Though that is a different conversation.

 

[Ystranc]

You make an important point Brock.

All land ownership is based in historical acts of violence, displacement and disposession. Romans, Saxons, Jutes and Normans successively invaded and killed and otherwise disrupted the lives of whoever was settled in Britain before them. Under the Tudors and Stuarts (and through subsequent acts of enforced inclosure) different groups have been given land, others have been removed from it.

Patterns of taxation, militarism, fealty and documentation seal those arrangements. In celebration as often as fearfully, we assent to these violences, their ever-present threat and the complicated legal and other arrangements (concepts of nation, race and belonging - even the mortgage etc.) that grow like a callus of order and normalcy over those initial violences.

Those arrangements settle in to our habits and into our cowardice, and, whenever the existing arrangements are challenged they are met again with the violence of organized groups of paid, armed men; game keepers, police, army. Any claim of present or prior ownership, any such claim, rests on a threat of violence. It is unfortunate, but obvious, that all land ownership is eventually grounded in murder.

Unsurprisingly, we try to push it to the back of our minds; the fact that we have so easily surrendered our originary right to live and wander where we please. We should be, and probably are, ashamed.

Speak for yourself, I worked hard and saved my money in order to buy my land.

 

[Ystranc]

And your conscientious stewardship is appreciated, Broch.

But, fall into disrepair? Left to its own devices it would wild and revert to a natural state

Nowhere in the UK is in its natural state…nowhere. Whether it is moorland managed by judicious grazing, a lovingly planted garden or woodland/forestry managed by commercial companies it is a managed landscape. Even wilding projects are closely managed.
Then there is the way that each parcel of land interacts, all co dependent on those around it, access, drainage, wildlife corridors….all managed.
As far as I know you would have to travel to Central Europe to find the nearest thing approximating true wilderness, un-touched and un-managed.

 

[Ystranc]

When was it illegal to sleep outdoors?
Many pilgrims, itinerant traders and travellers (not the modern sort) slept outdoors for as long as they existed.

When did it become legal to sleep outdoors?

If you are going to rubbish what I say, perhaps you could give real evidence, with the dates of when these laws you claim were enacted.

I have lived and worked and volenteered on dartmoor, and presently live on exmoor, and have many farming friends on the moor know several rangers, and occasionally volunteer on projects have done so for 40 years.
I think that although many landowners have similar problems, with uneducated townies, "enjoying a bit of recreation" unless you live or work on the the moor, it's a different style of management to a normal farm elsewhere. For a start, land is not generally fenced off from the public. So you do get people roaming over the land. Some respect it, some don't. But legislation against those who do respect the land is fundamental wrong, whatever else.
Many landowners pollute their own land and rivers with all sorts of nasties like slurry and pesticides chemicals, killing wildlife. That is more of a problem than a few wildcampers, but they don't get banned from being on the land.
The land he wishes to ban wildcampers on is very wild and boggy with little cover. Not suitable for pheasant shooting anyway. There is a few shoots around here, I can hear the guns almost daily in the season and my neighbour works on the shoots as long as I've known him.
So I'm not totaly ignorant of what is needed for a shoot.
He wants to shoot reared pheasant on open boggy moors with a right of access? Ha ha!
Next thing we know he will be planting cover, and fencing it off for public safety. All access denied, the valuable character of the land changed(improved, well done) and another little bit of our heritage taken away from us.
Money talks. The plebs can go elsewhere, there's plenty left...untill there isn't. Slow encroachment.
It's wrong. Plain and simple.

I’ve looked it up, the licence to travel was known as a Pauper’s pass warrant. If you were a travelling to sell your wares you would require a hawkers licence. Being found abroad, sleeping rough, in a tent or abandoned building outside your parish without either would be a punishable offence.