Dartmoor landowner wins court case to ban wild camping.

[Makzine]

On the other hand get orff my land

 

[Millie Master]

This could be the kick up the backside required down south. I fully respect the rights of farmers, small holders etc and their privacy. But when you allow massive land owners who basically own our countryside to get away with this it’s a bad day. There are far greater problems such as fly tipping going on to be dealt with. The fact that one or two idiots leave rubbish should not prevent people the right to roam. But this judgement would still hold if not one bit of rubbish was left, the rubbish issue is not part of the judgement. Because we care, we brought this issue up. This amounts to suppression of people’s rights, and not solely in Dartmoor, throughout England and Wales. It’s time you did what Scotland did, give people the right to roam freely, with conditions obviously.

I don't know about Ben Nevis, but these days if you ever go up Snowdon, Scafell Pike, Cross Fell, Black Mountain or indeed any other similar high (by UK standards) lumps that people like to stroll up, I am sorry to say and equally as disgusted to say that litter can be found quite literally everywhere!

Just like up Everest where over many years people have strewn their rubbish everywhere, so many people believe throughout the World that it is acceptable behaviour and that too disgusts me!!

I for one can fully understand landowners who have grazing, wild roaming animals over their extensive lands, I totally agree with them getting very narked about these totally disrespectful asses dropping their litter (plastics are the worst) and crap, as they gaily trespass over their lands.

I wouldn't mind betting that the vast majority of these protestors would take absolute exception to anyone going into their own back gardens uninvited, crapping everywhere and leaving piles of rubbish!

 

[Fisherman]

I don't know about Ben Nevis, but these days if you ever go up Snowdon, Scafell Pike, Cross Fell, Black Mountain or indeed any other similar high (by UK standards) lumps that people like to stroll up, I am sorry to say and equally as disgusted to say that litter can be found quite literally everywhere!

Just like up Everest where over many years people have strewn their rubbish everywhere, so many people believe throughout the World that it is acceptable behaviour and that too disgusts me!!

I for one can fully understand landowners who have grazing, wild roaming animals over their extensive lands, I totally agree with them getting very narked about these totally disrespectful asses dropping their litter (plastics are the worst) and crap, as they gaily trespass over their lands.

I wouldn't mind betting that the vast majority of these protestors would take absolute exception to anyone going into their own back gardens uninvited, crapping everywhere and leaving piles of rubbish!

Millie I agree with most of what you are saying. But this judgement had nothing to do with rubbish, rubbish played no part in the decision.

But to compare someone’s back garden with the vastness of the countryside is an unfair and unrealistic comparison. Your back garden is private, the countryside is a whole different matter. This is about your right to do as we do up here, roam freely and responsibly through your countryside.

We should not allow the poor behaviour of some to distract from what should be your rights.

 

[Millie Master]

Millie I agree with most of what you are saying. But this judgement had nothing to do with rubbish, rubbish played no part in the decision.

But to compare someone’s back garden with the vastness of the countryside is an unfair and unrealistic comparison. Your back garden is private, the countryside is a whole different matter. This is about your right to do as we do up here, roam freely and responsibly through your countryside.

We should not allow the poor behaviour of some to distract from what should be your rights.

I am sorry, but as far as I am concerned every square inch of land throughout the UK is owned by someone, so no matter where that land is, if you don't own it yourself and can prove that you do, then it is someone elses land and the ownership of that land should be respected and in so saying, I am Scottish born but most definitely British!

I know several large farming land owners, some of whom even own their own shooting estates in other parts of the British Isles. Not one of them gets annoyed about people roaming on their lands, however all of them without exception get monumentally peed off with totally disrespectful idiots who leave litter, let their dogs run freely, most especially when grazing stock is around and whom are in general, total pains in the ass as they rebel against anyone actually owning the land they are trespassing over!!

Many, many times I have gone on walks with my picking stick and have returned with several sacks of discarded waste which I then take to a suitable disposal point. I don't enjoy doing this but I do it because if I didn't the landowner might well take steps to block access to their land.

I take no exception to people who roam responsibly, but oh so sadly, from what I have seen they tend to be in the minority!!

 

[Veloman]

I look after the public footpaths in a local parish as a volunteer for the county council. I can confirm Millies statement regarding what pee's off landowners. Litter, not keeping to designated paths, treating grass fields as exercise areas for their dogs, not picking up dog s**t which then ends up in haylage. All of which makes landowners uncooperative toward any path improvements.

 

[Fisherman]

I look after the public footpaths in a local parish as a volunteer for the county council. I can confirm Millies statement regarding what pee's off landowners. Litter, not keeping to designated paths, treating grass fields as exercise areas for their dogs, not picking up dog s**t which then ends up in haylage. All of which makes landowners uncooperative toward any path improvements.

Sorry but this decision has nothing to do with any of this.
No mention is made of this.
This is one landowner of many landowners in Dartmoor who brought this case.
They being the sixth largest in Dartmoor.
No other landowners were involved within Dartmoor.
If not one bit of paper, one dog £$%^, or anything else was on his land, he would still have won this case.
The issue of litter played no part in this decision.

 

[Millie Master]

Sorry but this decision has nothing to do with any of this.
No mention is made of this.
This is one landowner of many landowners in Dartmoor who brought this case.
They being the sixth largest in Dartmoor.
No other landowners were involved within Dartmoor.
If not one bit of paper, one dog £$%^, or anything else was on his land, he would still have won this case.
The issue of litter played no part in this decision.

But trespass did

 

[Fisherman]

But trespass did

How can you trespass, when you have what was a legal right to be on the land before this judgement Millie. The Dartmoor commons act gave the public the right to roam on foot or on horseback within Dartmoor. I don’t think we have heard the last of this. I reckon there will be public outcry and protests. To be honest I am unsure if the public still has access, possibly only wild camping is banned.

here’s the section from the BBC article covering this access.

At a two-day hearing last December, lawyers for the Darwalls argued that a byelaw in the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 which enshrined a historic custom of open access "to all the commons on foot and on horseback for the purposes of open-air recreation", excluded wild camping.

 

[Debroos]

But trespass did

Trespass also played no part in this case.
Dartmoor, as a National Park, has the right to roam over all open land, which is moorland.
All fields attached to farms are private and exempt from this rule unless the landowner allows permitted footpaths (which most or all of them do).
When the new owner (and I have read nothing to indicate that he intends to use his rights to commonage for grazing or even, in fact, whether it is just a vast second home!) bought this property, he would have been very aware of this rule.
He chose to use his wealth to change a rule that had been in place for many years. A National Park exists for the enjoyment of the Nation.
Knowing this rule he could have bought a vast tract of land that wasn't in a National Park.

The only reason we have footpaths in this country is because of the thousands of brave folk who ignored the law to stand up for what was right. A hard won right.

 

[Fisherman]

Trespass also played no part in this case.
Dartmoor, as a National Park, has the right to roam over all open land, which is moorland.
All fields attached to farms are private and exempt from this rule unless the landowner allows permitted footpaths (which most or all of them do).
When the new owner (and I have read nothing to indicate that he intends to use his rights to commonage for grazing or even, in fact, whether it is just a vast second home!) bought this property, he would have been very aware of this rule.
He chose to use his wealth to change a rule that had been in place for many years. A National Park exists for the enjoyment of the Nation.
Knowing this rule he could have bought a vast tract of land that wasn't in a National Park.

The only reason we have footpaths in this country is because of the thousands of brave folk who ignored the law to stand up for what was right. A hard won right.

I did try to explain that this had nothing to do with bad behaviour, trespass or anything else. This was based on a point of law by a judge. I hope this is appealed against, and I expect there to be protests when the weather improves. The fact that they were the only landowners to do this speaks multitudes. To me there’s a balance here between the rights of the landowners, and the public. And to say that I am surprised at wild campers supporting this judgment is an understatement. And when I say wild campers I don’t include us with motorhomes.

 

[hayhiker]

I was at the protest at Princetown in December with snow on the ground along with about 400 other people. What these so called landowners don't seem to realise is that the land was there before they were born and will be long after they are dead. They are just rich enough to have a piece of paper that says they own it and are therefore just custodians while they are alive.

This particular landowner want's to keep the 4000 acres for other wealthy people to shoot pheasants and stalk Deerfield, people with no money don't interest him. The national parks fought the case but don't have enough money for an appeal this is now being crowd funded anyone interested can find more info just Google "the right to Roam". You can subscribe free to the news letter, also there is another protest at Ivy bridge on Saturday 21st January.

We only have right of access to 8% of land and 3% of rivers in England the right to Roam are campaigning for the same rights as Scotland.

 

[caledonia]

I was at the protest at Princetown in December with snow on the ground along with about 400 other people. What these so called landowners don't seem to realise is that the land was there before they were born and will be long after they are dead. They are just rich enough to have a piece of paper that says they own it and are therefore just custodians while they are alive.

This particular landowner want's to keep the 4000 acres for other wealthy people to shoot pheasants and stalk Deerfield, people with no money don't interest him. The national parks fought the case but don't have enough money for an appeal this is now being crowd funded anyone interested can find more info just Google "the right to Roam". You can subscribe free to the news letter, also there is another protest at Ivy bridge on Saturday 21st January.

We only have right of access to 8% of land and 3% of rivers in England the right to Roam are campaigning for the same rights as Scotland.

Good on you for fighting for your rights. Draconian laws which should have been amended same time as Bonnie Scotland

 

[Fisherman]

I was at the protest at Princetown in December with snow on the ground along with about 400 other people. What these so called landowners don't seem to realise is that the land was there before they were born and will be long after they are dead. They are just rich enough to have a piece of paper that says they own it and are therefore just custodians while they are alive.

This particular landowner want's to keep the 4000 acres for other wealthy people to shoot pheasants and stalk Deerfield, people with no money don't interest him. The national parks fought the case but don't have enough money for an appeal this is now being crowd funded anyone interested can find more info just Google "the right to Roam". You can subscribe free to the news letter, also there is another protest at Ivy bridge on Saturday 21st January.

We only have right of access to 8% of land and 3% of rivers in England the right to Roam are campaigning for the same rights as Scotland.

And possibly some should remember this before justifying this behaviour. Because something meets a legal requirement does not make it morally correct, and laws are there to be questioned and changed if they don’t meet modern living. The use of land by those who wish to do so comes with responsibility, but the same burden of responsibility must be placed upon landowners also.

 

[caledonia]

In Scotland the responsibility lies firmly with the landowners to make sure access is reasonable and safe for members of the public to gain reasonable access. The local farm had a problem with people walking down from the old quarry and through the middle of the farm which they couldn’t stop and eventually had to put a sign posted path round the farm then they could lock the main farm gate.

 

[peter palance]

Law may be one thing but enforcing it is another.

sorry i mist your birthday trev so here gose happy birthday to you skwashed tomatoes ok ok. xxxxxx keep going ok pj

 

[caledonia]

In the words of the Alexander Brothers “For these are MY mountains”
It’s a modest

booklet and means a lot to a us.

 

[Debroos]

In the words of the Alexander Brothers “For these are MY mountains”
It’s a modestView attachment 117066 booklet and means a lot to a us.

Something to be proud of!
Here's an update.

‘Something beautiful has been taken away’: campaigners vow to fight ban on Dartmoor camping | National parks | The Guardian

A judge’s decision making it unlawful to pitch a tent on the moors without the landowner’s permission is set to spark a wave of right-to-roam protests

amp.theguardian.com

 

[Fisherman]

In the words of the Alexander Brothers “For these are MY mountains”
It’s a modestView attachment 117066 booklet and means a lot to a us.

You see this is what’s missing in most of the U.K. a sense that it’s their land which gives them rights, but it’s also our land to use and enjoy. What harm was being done, and if what was going on was so awful as some would have us believe, then why was this landowner alone in using the law.

 

[Fisherman]

Something to be proud of!
Here's an update.

‘Something beautiful has been taken away’: campaigners vow to fight ban on Dartmoor camping | National parks | The Guardian

A judge’s decision making it unlawful to pitch a tent on the moors without the landowner’s permission is set to spark a wave of right-to-roam protests

amp.theguardian.com

Just as I thought, people won’t take this lying down, and I hope this highlights the great injustice that’s occurring in the rest of the U.K. The days of landowners riding roughshod over what should be our rights hopefully will be coming to an end. Being super rich should not give you the right to interfere with people’s basic human rights. Every square inch of our land may well be “owned “, but that ownership should not give them carte Blanche to do as they please. I am not saying that motorhomes should be allowed to park anywhere, I am talking on behalf of people doing what I did when I was younger, with my tent on my back, enjoying our countryside, and doing so responsibly.

 

[trevskoda]

The American red Indians could never get their head around the land-owning thing when white man arrived and nicked it.