Spacemonkey said:
This is the whole point isn't it? If the FC, Nat Trust etc were a little more accomodating and flexible then people wouldn't feel the need to illegally wild camp, would they? I know that most rangers etc seem to be able to judge a responsible, knowledgable wild camper from a bunch of yobs with a signal fire and a few hundred cans of beer that need to be left behind in the still smoldering fire, so is it any suprise that some people feel it is better to apologise than get refused straight away? I'm not talking about private individuals land, as to me that is no different from camping in someone's back garden, but as the FC is a government body, then surely the land belongs to the tax paying people who fund it and maybe they should be allowed to share it?? Or am I completely wrong?
This old chestnut.
I am not going to encourage law breaking, but for what it's worth, and for as long as this thread stays live, my opinion is thus:
First we must establish a reason for the law, without this we are legless:
As I see it, the law is there to help protect the woodlands from damage by people who either don't respect it, or who lack the knowledge and skills to live in it without damaging it. I'd only apply this interpretation to state-owned land, because 'private property' is a whole different issue, and there is much debate about what that term actually represents.
If someone feels that they do not fall into the category of the disrespectful or ignorant, then there is a possible case of 'conscience' for them to negotiate.
Law is not as an exact science as it is believed to be, it is not absolute. If it were, lawyers would be out of business. Law is about interpretation. Law is also designed to serve people, not the other way around, what's more, no-one is asked to sign a document which states that a person should obey the law without question, in fact, people cannot use the law of the land as a defence in human rights cases (there were many laws introduced by the nazis which infringed human rights, so the human rights convention has clauses which prevent this defence), and access to land
is a human rights issue (what could be more basic than the right of a Human to make shelter and fire?).
If someone is not acting in a way, or has no intention of acting in a way that a law was designed to prevent, then the law cannot truly be said to apply. A law cannot exist 'just because it is a law' it has to be designed to do something. A law cannot have the reason of 'because we don't want you to do it' attached to it because the 'we'
is us, 'we' do not live in a dictatorship, everything is accountable. And a law's functional definition cannot be quickly modified to outstep a growing challenge from poeple who have discovered its possible irrellivance and are determined to change it.
Also, a law cannot reasonably justify its function of restricting one group of users, because of the actions of another. And in my experience, the gangs of yobs which are potentially dangerous are not in the slight bit interested in what a law tells them to do or not, they just go ahead and do it anyway, that's what defines being a yob.
Perhaps the strongest argument from the authorities is that of fire-hazard. But this doesn't seem to be too much of a problem in other countries where their laws concerning this are more relaxed. And even if there is a negligable fire hazard, is it worth denying a basic human right because of it? Anyway, willfull damage by fire is already an offence under the arson law isn't it?
I'm not convinced that the law has much to do with what it purports to be about, although I am not exactly sure, I think it is a throwback from an age where people weren't even allowed to leave their own villages (the word 'villian' actualy originates from this, it was used to describe anyone who had fled their villiage, these people could recieve a pardon if they were able to remain fugitive for a year and a day, without being caught, and that often meant living in the woods). I may update this section if I get more info (or others can explain)
What I am trying to say is, ultimately, the law can go on trial.
Take the case of the man and woman who walk the country naked. They are 'breaking the law' but their defence is that the law is wrong, and they have lawyers who can argue the toss.
As for the practicality of 'stealth camping', it is very easy to camp almost anywhere on state owned land (I am not condoning or encouraging it, I am merely stating a practical fact), and 99.9999% of the time, you would probably be asked to move on if you were approached. But you could take your case to court, and if your defence could be argued to the degree that your interpretation held more justice than the court's, then it is possible, only possible, that you might win. This is how legal precidents are set.
It is a tricky one, and it is for each person to decide wether they can not only justify their position, but carry it through to its end (and this holds risk).
Personally, I don't see any reason for people to talk publicly about their intentions to test the law or otherwise (regardless of wether or not the MIB from the NT or FC are watching), as I said, it is a matter of personal conscience, and risk, but I wouldn't encourage people to follow laws without question if they genuinely felt that they were being denied a human right. Law requires consent to exist. It does not exist outside the psychology of the people who it is designed to serve.
I appreciate that a lot of work has gone in to building relationships with the relevant authorities, but I am afraid that the position as described by a administrator in an earlier post on this thread appears to be one-sided, extremely fragile and based on fear: ("It only takes one remark to spoil all the hard work", "The Nt get very irritated", "someone has asked us to remove the phrase "Wild camping" etc.) I suspect that the reason for this is that the authorities are interested in denying negotiative momentum and control. Threats are always a tool in this situation, and are used to invalidate potentialy effective assertions and contol the weak-minded, whenever threats start being used, you can be almost certain that your postion is stronger than you thought it might have been. Also any mutual respect that is thought to have been generated by this type of engagement is probably smoke. History is witness to the fact that people in positions of power hold very little respect for people who attempt to pacify or appease them, or are afraid of their threats or reactions.
As for a tightening of the Law as a threat, as mentioned in this thread, I find that very unlikley. Who exactly is going to enforce it? Are we realy going to see the woods patrolled by men with dogs, guard towers and the like? All extermely expensive and logistically problematic, just to protect the woods from the odd few people who might want to sleep out? I suspect that the authorities would be very unhappy with having to do that (lots of new people, a dilution of power and control).
And then there is the act of having to convince the relevant authorites that wild campers 'love the woods as much as they do', I'm sorry, but this kind of language has no relevance in a legal claim for access, and sounds quite frankly like 'pleading', another psychological signal which will have the opposite effect of what it is supposed to do.
There are other reasons why the very solicitation of permission from the authority concerned could be detremental to the long term goal of free access to land including habitual rights and natural energy resourscing:
1 law changes are much slower by low-impact lobbying than by direct challenge, and direct challenge is easier when a person or group have been put before a court to make their case. This is one reason why the prosecution of certain laws is avoided by authorites, court cases can attract publicity and provide a platform for people to air their views, which can swing public opinion.
2 Seeking permission can be interpreted as an acknowledgement that the current law is correct, although it might produce limited access for a while, it will not change the law. If the overral objective is to secure access to camp at night in a wood, as a basic human right, not a mere concession, then cap-in-hand negotiations can give completely the wrong signal.
3 Small scale accomodations from said authorities are often designed to release the pressure of public opinion and shift focus away from the general issue of land access, If the said authorities didn't feel that public pressure might effect a change in the law that was beyond their control, then they probably wouldn't even offer these concessions. They can also act to pacifiy and even defect people who exhibit an emotional or intellectual capacity which could be used against their position.
I am not suggesting that all negotiation is pointless, but negotiators need to be aware of the consequences of their actions, just the same as people who may be considering other forms of interraction, and they must be clear about their long term objectives and strategise accordingly.
I am not an expert in law, but I have been considering this issue for some time, and before I get lots of posts telling me my position on this is wrong, let me say now that it is only my interpretation of the law!
One more thing, lets just put this into perspective:
Car driving - Screws up the planet, kills thousnds annualy in accidents (not to mention the thousands of innocent civilians killed who to secure its fuel). Completely legal
Wild camping - Zero deaths (even from yobs in the woods) zero pollution. 100% educational and healthy - illegal (oh, except up a mountain, or in the middle of a huge cold moor)
I've sent at least 6 emails requesting access to a local wood, but not even a hint of a reply. 
