 I think the wild camping police have already got to Cameron, just click on his link!
|
 |
John
I think the exact area up for discussion needn't be defined yet - that would be part of the process of the legislation that would be necessary. Originally I'd thought that opening CROW access land to wild camping would be sufficient, but postings on this and other threads have made me think otherwise.
I don't see it being finalised until after a lengthy process of debate and refinement etc.
For now, it's the principle of wild camping that we ought to support - it's specifically banned by CROW; whether that ban applies just to CROW land or to other land too is perhaps something that this petition is going to give us the chance to define.
As for the wild camp police nabbing Cameron, Hedgehope Aztec, I just hope they let him slip out of his sleeping bag with dignity before they slapped the cuffs on!
|
|
 John, semantics possibly, but as I read it CROW doesn't 'ban' camping. It just specifically doesn't allow it, which is subtly different. Paraphrasing the clause on the last page, surely it's saying "CROW gives you the right to be here to walk across this land, it doesn't give you the right to be here to camp on it" which is simply spelling out the camping situation as it already existed i.e. it's a civil wrong unless you have the owner's permission, exactly as it was before. Stating that "CROW banned wild camping" implies that CROW made the situation worse than it was pre-CROW, which isn't in any way how I take it to be.
|
|
 The petition is surely a device for opening up debate on the perceived need, or otherwise, for a right to camp to be enshrined in law - an aim which appears to have been successful. Policy makers will not be taking any notice of an e-petition, but relevant lobbying groups might.
|
|
Good point Matt C,
I'd interpreted it as implying that if you camped you lost the right to be on that land, which would be the same as banning it.
Either interpretation means, in my eyes, that there's a need for a legitimisation of what we do.
|
|
 Somebody may have mentioned this already, but if you look at the DEFRA blurb, it is noticeable that they lump camping in with the "high impact" activities like cycling, fishing, horse riding and driving a vehicle. There'll be consultative documents and responses lurking somewhere on t'internet summarising what considerations were - allegedly - taken into account in deciding that all those things were equally evil, but that paper chase is causing me to lose the will to live, so someone else can have a look. 
It seems tolerably clear that it's the perceived impact of camping that was/is the problem, mind you...
|
|
 "Policy makers will not be taking any notice of an e-petition, but relevant lobbying groups might.".......NNPP Okay, you've convinced me. Signed up.
|
|
 There still seems to be a hell of a lot of confusion and misinformation here. Just so as we are clear as to what is being referred to:- 1 Wild camping DOES NOT exist in law. It was a term that was initially used to describe exactly what it sounds like, that is camping in "wild" places with the minimum of facilities. Many people camp in less "wild" places, and the term has been broadened to include basically any OFF CAMPSITE camping that takes place. 2 It is NOT a criminal Offence to "camp" on someone's land without their permission But engaging in ANY activity on private land (and until the crow act, that included just walking) that the owner disproves of and/or will not give permission for is a CIVIL tort and makes the perpetrator a trespasser. There is no legal penalty for the Civil tort of trespass, merely the right of the owner to "remove" (by reasonable force if necessary) the "offender." Technically a "wild camper" who camps without the landowner's permission is committing no offence at all, until he/she is asked to move by the owner, and then it is a CIVIL offence with absolutely no penalties. Any legislation that would forthcoming would merely be taking away the landowner's right to ask someone to leave under common/civil law, it would NOT make something legal which technically is not illegal in the first place. Even if a wild camper has only assumed that he/she would have permission, he/she does not become a trespasser until asked to leave. The only complication to this of course is if the person is camping where he/she knows that the landowner would NOT give permission such as the BBNP for example. Even then, they have nothing to fear from the law, but should merely move if asked!
|
|
 There is no legal penalty for the Civil tort of trespass, merely the right of the owner to "remove" (by reasonable force if necessary) the "offender." Civil indeed
|
|
Is it just me, or is everyone just getting a blank photo place holder in Jon's post above?
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with you on that cysgod-du, but I'm also convinced that NNPB is absolutley spot on when he/she says "Policy makers will not be taking any notice of an e-petition". Meanwhile the front page story on the Western Morning news (main daily paper for Devon & Cornwall) is: FURY OVER RIGHT TO ROAM Farmers and landowners in the Westcountry will not be compensated for losing land if Government plans for coastal access go ahead. Whilst it does seem odd that (if the story is correct) land will be acquired with no compensation, I also find it odd whose side the media is on. This is front page stuff remember. Presumably most of the readers aren't coastal land owners, but like most people they think a land owners land is his castle. The story goes on to say that: " A public survey had shown that 74 per cent thought there was enough public access to the coast already." So I doubt there'd be much support for wild camping from the general public, who probably think the worst. I doubt if the media would be sympathetic either. Not that this is an argument for or against Darren's petition. It just brings back to my mind that if we encourage some sort of legislation wild camping will either be made legal or illegal, probably a combination of both, whereas at present it isn't illegal. John
|
| Edited: 09/02/08 20:26 |
"For now, it's the principle of wild camping that we ought to support - it's specifically banned by CROW; whether that ban applies just to CROW land or to other land too is perhaps something that this petition is going to give us the chance to define.".......John M
Although I signed the petition on the grounds of supporting the principle, it's that last phrase that worries me. Will it be defined as legal or illegal? If it's a 50/50 chance then it's not a chance worth taking (because risk equals chance x consequence). But I would say the chance of it being made legal over the majority of the country is very small. How could it be otherwise when there's no right of access to most of the country? And how could there be?
So this leaves us with it being defined as illegal, and that's a very different situation to the one we have now. Can anybody point me to an argument that says this won't happen?
John
|
|
 A quick update if I may........ The votes continue to pile up & will pass the 600 mark later today One of the supporters has recently posted a piece to try to clear up the ambiguities & answer many of the recurrent concerns being raised within the outdoor community. I'd really recommend working through this article if you feel so inclined Nailing my colours to the mast
|
|
