Potential ban to wild camping on Dartmoor.
- Thread starter Stew
- Start date
Yes, yes, and communism works (not).
When the discussion ends up in statements of jealousy there is little point in continuing it. I don't blame anyone else but myself for any of the problems I have had in life and I don't expect to get anything for free.
As I said earlier, land is an asset. No one has the right to take that off someone either by physical force or by punitive financial burden. If you want it, pay for it, there's plenty for sale.
When the discussion ends up in statements of jealousy there is little point in continuing it. I don't blame anyone else but myself for any of the problems I have had in life and I don't expect to get anything for free.
As I said earlier, land is an asset. No one has the right to take that off someone either by physical force or by punitive financial burden. If you want it, pay for it, there's plenty for sale.
Its funny, all the Marxist I have known have been well to do.
Redistribution of wealth is an interesting concept.
If you receive a gross income of more than £1,000 a month (remembering to add in all benefits, credits, allowances etc.), then you are receiving more than your fair share of the global income. If that's the case and you want fairness, you can start redistributing your above average income right now.
Of course the reality should be a lower figure but £1,000 a month is adjusted for "purchasing parity" around the globe.
If you receive a gross income of more than £1,000 a month (remembering to add in all benefits, credits, allowances etc.), then you are receiving more than your fair share of the global income. If that's the case and you want fairness, you can start redistributing your above average income right now.
Of course the reality should be a lower figure but £1,000 a month is adjusted for "purchasing parity" around the globe.
Where are you on the global pay scale?
If there were no rich and poor, and everyone had an equal share of the world's total pay packet, how much would they earn?
www.bbc.com
It's simply not the case, 'rights' can be changed. One's earnings are an asset yet the government takes a decent chunk of it each month. The trouble is, not enough is taken each month which allows the rich to buy vast amounts of land or other assets..
You don't expect anything for free and nor should anyone else. Why then do we allow vast estates to be inherited by a child who has done nothing to earn it. Most would agree that a child should not be disadvantaged by being born into unfortunate circumstances. Why should the removal of the prefix 'un' change anything.
This is just a straw man argument. People are different and as such there will always be inequality, some will squander their fortunes and others grow them. If everyone had the same amount and had the same amount in their accounts this perfect wealth equality would last less than a second. Wealth inequality is growing, social mobility is woefully inadequate, and one's wealth, far too often, determines one's success.Redistribution of wealth is an interesting concept.
If you receive a gross income of more than £1,000 a month (remembering to add in all benefits, credits, allowances etc.), then you are receiving more than your fair share of the global income. If that's the case and you want fairness, you can start redistributing your above average income right now.
Of course the reality should be a lower figure but £1,000 a month is adjusted for "purchasing parity" around the globe.
Where are you on the global pay scale?
If there were no rich and poor, and everyone had an equal share of the world's total pay packet, how much would they earn?www.bbc.com
If 'perfectly fair' seems unattainable as you say, then maybe we should strive for just a bit fairer than it is now.
All of this sounds very much like a huge tangent on the original subject but it is very much linked.
But saying that some people in the UK should get money from those with more whilst giving nothing at all to the billions with less isn't "a little bit fairer"is it? Its greed masked as politics.
If we can tax more, shouldn't that extra go to those globally with vastly less than anyone in the UK?
…And a lot of the landowners that I know don’t have two brass farthings to rub together…
What is fair about taking something that somebody has worked for and “redistributing“ it amongst others who have not worked for it? I have what I have today through hard work and life choices. I’m not from a privileged background however by the meter that some members are applying to this debate I’m now considered to have some kind of unfair advantage at the expense of others.
As far as inherited wealth, if a person’s estate is valued at over £325,000 then their beneficiaries will pay 40% tax on anything over that sum, should a person die intestate without direct beneficiaries then the government can seize the lot. A great many family estates have been broken up to pay death duties over the years after an unexpected bereavement.
Last edited:
So, when I die, my house and all the rest of my assets that I have worked hard for all my life must go to 'the state' and not my children? The size of the estate makes no difference at all to the logic.
As I said, if you want land, save up for it and buy it like you buy everything else. But, if it's not about wanting land and just a 'I'm not as rich as that guy so it's not fair' discussion I suggest we just leave it there.
Actually, no, I'm leaving it there anyway; neither of us are going to change the others' mind
To go back to the origin of this thread. Dartmoor is/was an exceptional case.
The public did have the right to camp there with in certain stricture’s without having to notify the land owner or pay for the act of doing so.
The situation is now that the public will paying for it indirectly and the money going to the owner and the areas allowable have been permanently reduced.
This is a measurable reduction in public access to line an individuals pocket. Seemingly due to a rather strange definition that camping is not outdoor recreation.
I do not believe anyone on here thinks that’s desirable or “right”.
The public did have the right to camp there with in certain stricture’s without having to notify the land owner or pay for the act of doing so.
The situation is now that the public will paying for it indirectly and the money going to the owner and the areas allowable have been permanently reduced.
This is a measurable reduction in public access to line an individuals pocket. Seemingly due to a rather strange definition that camping is not outdoor recreation.
I do not believe anyone on here thinks that’s desirable or “right”.
I agree that it is neither desirable nor right that rights to wild camp have been eroded, unfortunately that is where we are at.
There is absolutely nothing preventing wild campers from asking for the permission of a landowner to camp elsewhere though. Many landowners are quite amenable as long as they are reassured that there will be no damage or legal hassle. Simply knowing who it is that is camping on their land goes a long way towards helping provide that reassurance.
The person who caused this, actually gets £187,000 per year in grants on his estate, that is Taxpayers money, yet he is is not interested in giving anything back.
It's rather ironic, that no doubt if someone called the Police because you have camped overnight, in a place you have for years, but is now in the forbidden zone, you would be carted away......yet you can sleep in shop doorways and in cardboard boxes on the streets of the capital.
It's rather ironic, that no doubt if someone called the Police because you have camped overnight, in a place you have for years, but is now in the forbidden zone, you would be carted away......yet you can sleep in shop doorways and in cardboard boxes on the streets of the capital.
I don't think you'd get carted away unless you were committing or intending to commit criminal damage. The police don't have the power to do move you on.
The public order act 1994 sections 60-68 gives the police powers to move you on once the offence of trespass has been elevated to aggravated trespass. The Public order act 1994 is a bit of a blunt instrument….a very big and heavy blunt instrument that can be invoked for a number of reasons.
Including refusing to leave; the landowner is allowed to use 'reasonable' force and resistance is aggravated trespass.
Last edited:
While people may argue the legal niceties, in practice not leaving when requested to do so by the owner or someone acting on their authority will do it.
I have to say I'd hate to be in the position of anyone having to ervict a tresspasser from their land who has refused to leave. Use of reasonable force, in practice, is no simple thing, with risk of being assaulted or ending up committing assault. Just to be absolutely clear, I'm not condoning tresspass! But I do find the legal aspects of it quite interesting. Aside from the issue of wild camping, doesn't it seem a bit crazy that the police can't do anything to move on tresspassers, other than simply observe?
It's not really the case though, which was the point I was making above. Once you've been asked to leave land and have refused, the police can take an interest and direct you to leave, refuse that and like as not you'll be going for a ride with plod. There are a lot of ifs, buts and maybes but, in general, the notion that trespass is a civil offence that police will not get involved with ends at the point that a land owner asks you to leave their property and you decline.
