 I am with Parky, there is WORLD of difference in the two comparisons. MILLIONS of people "ramble" and all it means is that they have been given the right to pass through the land leaving "nothing but footprints," and with a minimum of disruption for others. So if we use the 1932 as a comparison, does that mean that decades down the line there will be forests of tents competeing for the ever decreasing camping spots? Yeah I know, if the suffragettes hadn't thrown themselves in front of King's horses, then women wouldn't have the vote, but hang on, the minority of wild campers participating without any REAL problem is hardly in the same league as denying basic rights to a whole nation's gender eh?
|
 |
Mmmmmm...forests of tents...it can happen....
|
|
 musn't be much space in that part of the world. or a lack of imagination  brrr! what a horrible vision.
|
|
Next to the hut where the food and beer was....oh....and...it is illegal to wildcamp in this National Park
|
|
 Devil of a job to get pegs in as i recall.
|
|
Are you the poor one then Ed?
|
|
Indeed; despite the fiscal riches his paucity is alas incurable.
|
|
I'm assuming the pic is of an OM meet? 
|
|
 Dont think so, doesnt look liek the UK to me. I reckon the windy meet may look similar to that 
|
|
no no no... it was a jibe based on the theme of the thread... y'know, illegally camped and all that... ;_)
|
|
 Nooooooo John - that's an IN for all those terrible yachting puns now ;-)
|
|
 I haven't made up my mind yet. The petition says: "Currently without the landowners concent it is illegal to wild camp on the moors, mountains, National Parks and MOD land. It is time to give people the same rights as those given North of the Border in Scotland to allow them to wild camp in these places without threat of legal action." Presumably I'd have to have access rights to the land in order to wild camp on it? So this isn't an across the board "legalise wild camping" petition, it's just for areas we have access to? In other words the act would come with conditions, and those conditions might be enforced more rigourously than the current tolerant situation. If it becomes legal in some areas, then it becomes explicitly illegal everywhere else. Please tell me my fears are unfounded, I'd love to camp where I like without fear of being accosted. John
|
| Edited: 05/02/08 12:22 |
It's already as good as illegal elsewhere.
I'm not sure exactly what solution petition-founder Darren would propose but I'd see one possibility being an amendment to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2001, which appears to have outlawed the previously tolerated practice of camping in "wild" places.
The amendment might ideally be worded similarly to the Scottish Access Code which neatly defines wild camping and at the same time makes it clear that anyone not behaving responsibly, or in accordance with the ode, is acting illegally and loses the right of access and to camp.
While the best solution might be to link this right to the increased access which we were granted access by the CROW Act, I'd also like to see some tolerance of wild, leave-no-trace camping in other places - particularly areas of our coastline, as I believe a round-UK coastline hike to be one of the potential jewels of Britain's hiking network.
|
|
I find that last bit "without threat of legal action," a bit odd too. "We" have been here before on this site, but as soon as someone on another person's land/ in another person's property does something that the owner of the land does not like or allow, they become a trespasser under civil NOT criminal law, (with a few notable exceptions such as aggrivated trespass and on certain land named in statutes) and can be "asked to leave" OR if they refuse, they can be forcibly removed using as much force as is "reasonable" in the circumstances. So a farmer comes along and tells a wild camper "GET ORF MY LAND." Under civil law, it would be wise to do so, BUT, in the great scheme of things, unless he is built like a brick s**those, with hands like shovels, shoulders like tallboys and has a double barrelled over and under tucked under his arm and he is accompanied by a pair of the most vicious rotties that have ever been seen by man, I would assume that the exchange would be fairly innocuous and fall in line with the land owner's "right" to exclude that person. (It might well be that the wild camper is built like a brick s**........... etc etc) Other than the landowner suing for damages caused, which of course HAS to be proved, what possible "threat of legal action" exactly is being referred to here? Responding to "get orf my land" might be a great inconvenience, but it is NOT going to get the "offender" a criminal record!
|
| Edited: 05/02/08 12:48 |
"I'd also like to see some tolerance of wild, leave-no-trace camping in other places - particularly areas of our coastline".......John Well you can't legislate for people to be more tolerant John.
|
|
Agreed... I think the last phrase might have been composed before there'd been clarification that it was a civil, not a criminal matter. I think I too was caught out by the same definition in some of my own earlier postings here and elsewhere.
But the spirit of the petition is no different, to my mind: that we be allowed to camp responsibly in wild places without having to worry about the threat of being moved on, or facing legal action - in the form of civil proceedings.
And I don't really think it's a lot to ask. As so many people have been pointing out, it's already tolerated in most if not all instances. If you like, it's just a matter of setting the record straight.
|
|
I think the main reason that wild camping is "tolerated" as you say is because those who do it are generally respectful people who have the correct motivations and reasons for wanting to do it. Most landowners "tolerate" it at best and couldn't care less at worst because it is perceived as being of no harm. At the end of the day, the land owner knows that he/she has the right to exclude someone if they so wish because after all it is their land. The balance I think is about right. I know that the perception of the "yobo" element suddenly raising up and demanding the right to camp from legislation giving the RIGHT to do so has probably been overplayed, and I don't think honestly that it will lead to hordes of Chavs taking to the wild places, but where I see a danger is upsetting the camper/landowner balance in taking away the perceived right for the landowner to exclude undesirable elements from their property. It would prove more difficult and at the end of the day NO ONE, camper or landowner alike likes being told what to do and forced into a corner. I still think there is little wrong with the way it works now, and there could be some backlash or unwanted side effect from publicizing the "discrepancy!"
|
|
The funny thing is, and the way that landowners see it, this petition is not really there to legalise wild camping, since with the owners permission wild camping is NOT in itself illegal. This petition would be seen as taking away the landowner's rights, but not balancing stripping those "rights" with the associated responsibilities of the land ownership! We have to admit that on the flip side of the coin, in this day and age, even wild campers don't like having rights taken away from them and complain about Government legislative interference in daily life!
|
|
John, I'm not sure it is just a matter of sorting the record straight. I don't know what the law is at present, but I get the impression that it's pretty much up to the land owner if he/she doesn't want you on his/her land. And I also get the impression that most landowners are reasonably tolerant about this. If we get a legal right to wild camp in certain areas, does that imply that it is illegal to wild camp outside those areas? "that we be allowed to camp responsibly in wild places without having to worry about the threat of being moved on, or facing legal action - in the form of civil proceedings...... And I don't really think it's a lot to ask." I haven't got a problem with the idea that we be allowed to camp where we like. I have a problem with us only being able to camp in certain areas, because that implies that it's illegal to camp outside those areas. We could find that we are at liberty to wild camp in uncultivated areas of national parks, but unab;le to wild camp in the other 98% [guessing] of the country. I seem to be making up my mind about the petition with each post.
|
| Edited: 05/02/08 13:25 |
 This wholly depends on the concept and definintion of ownership Tony. This is where there is a gulf between Scotland and the southern UK. Ownership here is the rights of prolonged habitation, agriculture, gaming - NOT exclusive access. There seems to be legal and more importantly, a general acceptance down there of a more exclusive set of right for the owner, needing their permission to access YOUR country. The right of access comes balanced with responsibility to the owner not to disrupt their legal and wholly appropriate use of their land. It also recognises the right to privacy within the domicile and surrounds.
|
|
