I know what you mean, and I agree that the perceived invasion of yobs is highly unlikely; if folk minded to create damage or simply not care about the environment were going to do that they'd be doing it now regardless of whether it's legitimate or not. Legalising burglary wouldn't be likely to increase the number of burglars (I think... ).
And I agree that landowners might object to the perception that they've lost some authority over their land, whether or not they'd ever want to wield that authority or not.
As I'd see a right to wild camp, though, they'd retain the right to remove, or have removed, anyone acting irresponsibly; they'd still have the right to close that land at certain times of year (as they have under the CROW Act) for shooting, land management or whatever.
They lost some similar perceived rights when CROW opened up some of their lands for access but most have been big enough to accept it and I think the genuine resultant problems have been very few and very far between.
I agree with your points John, but I think we have the tendency to imagine that "landowners" are multi rich 4x4 driving "toffs" with huge swathes of land to "patrol." The thought of taking "rights" away from these people appeals in a perverse way to some.
However. in Wales most of the "landowners" are tenant farmers, smallholders and commoners who probably don't mind the odd wild camper, but as part of their tenancy agreement are forced to adhere to the "REAL" landowners policies. (More often or not the crown or NPs.)
This whole thing does seen to have a similar "undercurrent" to the way that the fox hunting debate seemed to polarise opinion in it being a sort of "class" war, rather than an extension of individual "rights!"
Understood... and it's a shame that many might perceive it in this way. Indeed, I believe some have manipulated the access debate to further their own ends in this matter.
Still, I'm not motivated by any glee at reducing the rights of anyone. The perception currently is that CROW took away the right to camp on wild land and I'm more concerned that we regain this right.
The fact that no-one's presented any evidence of conflict on the issue only makes me think that there needn't be a battle over this. Everyone benefits, as land "owners", be they Range Rover driving "toffs", tenant farmers , charities or whatever get some code of responsibility to which people camped on their land will have to adhere, while we get the right to camp in the places we love rather than having to head home to our beds every night.
In a way I couldn't agree with you more John, the problem is that society is becoming ever more so intolerant of opposing viewpoints today, there is no compromise left in people anymore.
Referring to another thread discussing a program about cyclists on TV recently was a perfect illustration of this. People expressing opinion were SO entrenched in their own views that they were attempting to ride (pun intended) roughshod over anyone else's viewpoint!
The irony that at some time, each and every one of them had the potential to be in any of the other groups wasn't lost on me.
That is the problem with people today, it is all or nothing it appears! Your approach would be SO much better!
I think we have the tendency to imagine that "landowners" are multi rich 4x4 driving "toffs" with huge swathes of land to "patrol." The thought of taking "rights" away from these people appeals in a perverse way to some.
Not sure what's perverse about that, as most of the large landowners have their estates as a result of ancestors taking them by force or duplicitous law (enclosures). It is becoming accepted that art treasures and antiquities looted by aggressors - whether they be Nazis or the British Empire or whoever - should be returned from whence they came. You mention 'commoners' in your post - is it not time that the historically common land is returned to the commons? Starting with the 'royal' estates!
Whether or not I sympathise with that view, I don't think that that is the precise issue in this case, and as cysgod-du (Grand Slam 2005) has pointed out, pigeon-holing those who work, own and manage the land into one category in this way could harm our cause. To use your own analogy, it'd be like saying that all subjects of the British Empire are art looters.
If you ant to campaign for the return of the land to the people, then that's your right, but it's important that you don't muddle that campaign up with the call for the right to camp where we like.
Oh, and could you please wait until AFTER we've won this battle?
pigeon-holing those who work, own and manage the land into one category in this way
There was certainly no intent to imply that those who owe their living to the land were included in my view - I am fully aware that small farmers work hard for, in many cases, little remuneration. I was taking issue with Tony's suggestion that an antipathy towards wealthy landowners is in itself 'perverse', that's all. Plus I haven't done a political post for ages!
To be honest I'll be buying my Euromillions ticket for Friday's rollover and then buying most of the Lake District, north Wales and northern Scotland with my winnings.
I will of course allow wild camping and full access, to anyone who writes a polite letter and encloses an SAE.
Actually NNPB, I didn't mean it in the context that you obviously read it, but thinking about it, it would be perverse if the only motivation for removing those rights were in the context of a have and have nots crusade and some quaint notion of righting the wrongs of the past!
My only intention with the comment was that "some" see it as some sort of class struggle and depriving the rich and famous of privilege, when in fact it is far from that!
For what it is worth, I am anti royalist and anti privilege too, I just don't like the legitimate aims of those wanting their "rights" to fuel the anti rich rhetoric.
John makes a good point. I am sure that EVERYONE fighting this cause would be altruistic enough to keep their principles if they won a fortune and became rich landowners!
Hmmmmmmm, more likely there would be a rapid switch of viewpoint me thinks!
Speaking personally I don't know anyone who'd adopt the second approach - but I do understand your point. That said, the first scenario's a bit unlikely too!
In my own experience, such encounters have usually gone along the lines of some polite banter about the weather followed by something along the lines of:
"So where you stopping tonight?"
"Well, thought I'd pitch over there for the night, then head off for such-and-such a place in the morning."
"Ah rather you than me! But you might find it's a bit more sheltered over there... and there's cleaner water there too…"
Or am I living in an unrealistic idealised Nirvana where most folks just get along in mutual respect?
I've never, ever gone up to anyone and opened a conversation along the lines of the second scenario, and though I've known some militant outdoors folk down the years, I've never met anyone else who'd conduct themselves like that either.
Actually John, you have identified exactly what I am saying. I think my first scenario is a little unlikely too and more likely to run along the line of your scenario, I was being a little flippant there to illustrate the different approaches.
So how many TRUE wild campers have actually been challenged, let alone moved on or entered into confrontation?
Do we really need the law changed with the potential for the associated alienation of the "other" viewpoint and the risk of despoiling the goodwill that exists now?
I cannot imagine the many current wild campers involved in the second scenario, mainly because they probably realise that such an attitude at the moment would be counter productive. It would not take long though for the(shall we call them) "less serious" wild camper to upset the applecart if their "Rights" take precedent over the landowners!
I really think the number of people who behave like the second scenario's character could be counted on the fingers on one manatee. It's just not normal human nature to behave like that unless there's a perceived threat and the verbal abuse action is actually a form of defensive behaviour.
From my own point of view I'd rather be on the right side of the law, civil or criminal, and would sleep easier in my Tarptent knowing that I was no matter how well disposed a landowner, gamekeeper, farmer or warden/ranger etc was towards my activity.
as a counter "view". what would opinion be if they started to enforce all the things they don't at present? just trying to explore the principle rather than the practice. e.g. rigorously enforce speed limits everywhere.
"From my own point of view I'd rather be on the right side of the law, civil or criminal, and would sleep easier in my Tarptent knowing that I was no matter how well disposed a landowner, gamekeeper, farmer or warden/ranger etc was towards my activity.".......JohnM
Well you are on the right side of the law aren't you? Is there actually a law saying you can't sleep on someone else's land?
If the landowner or their agent tells you to move on and you don't, then you entering dodgy territory, but until that time I don't think your doing anything wrong are you?
I'm sticking with my unobtrusive green tent policy.
SCHEDULE 2 Restrictions to be observed by persons exercising right of access
General restrictions 1 Section 2 (1) does not entitle a person to be on any land if, in or on that land, he— ... (s) engages in any organised games, or in camping, hang-gliding or para-gliding, or... (etc etc etc)
So no, by my reading, if you're on access land - most of the upland area we'd want to camp on - you're on the wrong side of the law.
It is an interesting twist though isn't it, without your 2000 feet proviso, would we see people setting up tents in fields in Cornwall next to recognised campsites with the landowners unable to do a thing about it. Would it be the decimation of the businesses relying on camping from such sources.
Any such changes in the law would have to be carefully thought out if applicable to such "delicate" areas as Cornwall!
Yes Jon, but that wouldn't cater for those who like camping near the coast though would it!
Agreed tony, but isn't that then the reason for having campsites?
I figured the previso would clear up alot of the concerns regarding thoughtless individuals ruining the countryside there supposed to be enjoying, i.e. keeping the masses back but giving the freedom to those who persue it as a sport, in most popular areas there is plenty provision of legal camping space , I always refered "wildcamping" as in remote areas , and to be honest nothing in the UK is remote by world standards, The way i figure it 2000ft+ is as good as it gets unless your in the middle of Scotlands grampians or Highlands where it is leal anyway
).
