was just thinking about this case this morning, wondering what would happen if he won the case...what utter sh1te.

I really hope the popular backlash and a big protest camp helps to turn the tide. But it really does symbolise everything rotten with land rights in this crappy country. It'll positively encourage me to camp there 'illegally'.

That's that f*cked then

We live in a country run by w*nkers, for w*nkers...
BB spring bivvy in Dartmoor anyone? Yon twally turns up to chuck us off. We reply "GTF" - he phones Police, they say "we'll assign it a priority to enforce commensurate with it's impacts" i.e. zero. Stooshie ensues but we are long gone before anything can be done.

fatbikephil wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 1:10 pm We live in a country run by w*nkers, for w*nkers...
BB spring bivvy in Dartmoor anyone? Yon twally turns up to chuck us off. We reply "GTF" - he phones Police, they say "we'll assign it a priority to enforce commensurate with it's impacts" i.e. zero. Stooshie ensues but we are long gone before anything can be done.

Cnuts like this go to the same country clubs as their local MP and the Chief Constable, invite them to shoots on their land and make "donations" to the right people. The Police are there to protect the status quo, and forces will be dispatched pronto to deal with any protestors and anyone daring to camp, while the likes of you and me will be left leaving a message on an answering machine when we report a mugging or burglary.

jameso wrote: ↑Sat Dec 17, 2022 11:18 am

a barrister acting for Alexander Darwall, a hedge fund manager, argued that no such right exists as camping is not explicitly mentioned in these laws and does not count as outdoor recreation.

What a crap barrister

Well, this shows how little I know about the law

he phones Police, they say "we'll assign it a priority to enforce commensurate with it's impacts" i.e. zero.

Wouldn't be so sure.. I regularly ride past Gatcombe Park and it's where I see the most police cars aside from town centre on Friday night. There's one checking up on the place, driving in or out of the driveway leading to their home, on a regular basis. If you're influential enough you get a different level of service. Either that or Anne's on the sherry regularly causing trouble

I know what you mean but whilst the chief constable may put pressure on the local cops to respond, they will most likely be trying to stop people stabbing each other outside the pub on a Saturday night - so we should only bivvy on a Saturday night?

Of course this then throws in the discussion about what is camping? I never camp but sometimes I stop for a rest and a snooze, using suitable clothing and equipment to protect me from the elements.

Oh and as with when trump built his golf course up in Aberdeenshire, I'm tempted to acquire an old motocross bike and go for a 'ride' on this dudes garden.

I do wonder a little what effect this is likely to have on those who arrive late, leave early, abide by LNT and aim to be as 'stealthy' as possible - after all, not having a legal right to wildcamp hasn't stopped people from doing it outside of Dartmoor

Bearbonesnorm wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 3:14 pm I do wonder a little what effect this is likely to have on those who arrive late, leave early, abide by LNT and aim to be as 'stealthy' as possible - after all, not having a legal right to wildcamp hasn't stopped people from doing it outside of Dartmoor

I agree.

I have mixed emotions on this. Part of me wants to wave the banner and join a mass protest camp whilst another part of me wants to just quietly get on with stealth camping.
The bigger issue on Dartmoor now will be how other landowners view this ruling and whether they will continue to allow de facto wild camping on their tracts of land albeit permissive rather than by legal right.

Do both sneaky wild camps and direct action.
Realistically we are going to continue to camp whatever the law says and we all want ( not scotlandshire ) greater freedom/access

Lazarus wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 3:47 pm Do both sneaky wild camps and direct action.
Realistically we are going to continue to camp whatever the law says and we all want ( not scotlandshire ) greater freedom/access

We do it for scotlandshire as this gives the message that free access can be revoked

Dave Barter wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 4:00 pm

Lazarus wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 3:47 pm Do both sneaky wild camps and direct action.
Realistically we are going to continue to camp whatever the law says and we all want ( not scotlandshire ) greater freedom/access

We do it for scotlandshire as this gives the message that free access can be revoked

This is a good point as outwith National parks, access rights are slowly being eroded up here as landowners realise that Council Access officers are woefully under resourced to enforce them. Added to some of the messages coming out of the SG during the pandemic about wild camping (just responses to complaints about antisocial behaviour but no distinction was made) there is definitely a feeling up here that our access rights are not set in stone and could well be subject to change for the worse...

there is definitely a feeling up here that our access rights are not set in stone and could well be subject to change for the worse...

If they ever were lost Phil, would it stop you doing what you do?

I know it might appear as though I'm not particularly bothered by this but rest assured I am but I'm also pragmatic. Mr Hedge fund is quite obviously just a tw@t but I do wonder whether the outcome of this case was in any way swayed by the bad press of the last few years surrounding fly camping which as we know was often simply reported as 'wild camping'.?

Bearbonesnorm wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 4:37 pm

there is definitely a feeling up here that our access rights are not set in stone and could well be subject to change for the worse...

If they ever were lost Phil, would it stop you doing what you do?

I know it might appear as though I'm not particularly bothered by this but rest assured I am but I'm also pragmatic. Mr Hedge fund is quite obviously just a tw@t but I do wonder whether the outcome of this case was in any way swayed by the bad press of the last few years surrounding fly camping which as we know was often simply reported as 'wild camping'.?

The outcome was purely legal. I suspect the motivation for bringing it was the fly camping which disturbed the Fauntleroys paid for killfests

nah those who have loads of things, more than they can ever personally use, are always happy to deny others from using it for free* - how many land owners actively encourage wild camping ?

* including protected wild animals/bids as the free loaders eat the things they shoot..perhaps we should be grateful they dont poison or shoot us?

Bearbonesnorm wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 3:14 pm I do wonder a little what effect this is likely to have on those who arrive late, leave early, abide by LNT and aim to be as 'stealthy' as possible - after all, not having a legal right to wildcamp hasn't stopped people from doing it outside of Dartmoor

My sentiments exactly.

Lazarus wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 3:47 pm Do both sneaky wild camps and direct action.

Just before leaving your sneaky camp set up a cheap pop up tent and leave it. (This is a joke by the way).

Share your wild camping Dartmoor experiences with the Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... n-dartmoor

Laws only serve to control if people consent to be controlled by them

Bearbonesnorm wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 5:53 pm Laws only serve to control if people consent to be controlled by them

F I_I C K the law (and forum rules)

F I_I C K the law (and forum rules)

Ooh, you're very naughty.

I keep reading stuff ont' internet with people using the word 'illegal', my understanding is that after today, Dartmoor is on the same footing as the rest of England / Wales which means wildcamping is a civil rather than criminal act and is unlikely to ever lead to a prosecution (unless someone does something stupid of course).

Bearbonesnorm wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 6:25 pm

F I_I C K the law (and forum rules)

Ooh, you're very naughty.

I keep reading stuff ont' internet with people using the word 'illegal', my understanding is that after today, Dartmoor is on the same footing as the rest of England / Wales which means wildcamping is a civil rather than criminal act and is unlikely to ever lead to a prosecution (unless someone does something stupid of course).

Very true Stu. But there are many people who don't have the devil-may-care attitude of the typical Boner and for who this ruling has removed a "legitimate" right to experience the outdoors in a way which they had enjoyed until now.

Bearbonesnorm wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 6:25 pm I keep reading stuff ont' internet with people using the word 'illegal', my understanding is that after today, Dartmoor is on the same footing as the rest of England / Wales which means wildcamping is a civil rather than criminal act and is unlikely to ever lead to a prosecution (unless someone does something stupid of course).

Agreed. I like to correct people who say that wild camping is "illegal" in England and Wales, and not just because I'm a pedant. See also: riding on footpaths.

But:
Presumably Mr Shootytwat didn't spend all this money on solicitors just to be able to theoretically kick people orf "his" land.
As someone on the other place pointed out, it might not make a material difference to whether you can camp stealthily and responsibly, but the fact that before you had a legal basis (or so it was assumed) to do so, and now you do so knowing that you have no legal right and the landowner is clearly hostile to your presence, changes the nature of the experience.
Now, that may not bother you or I, or many on here, and some might even enjoy sticking sleeping in a ditch as an act of resistance. But it might bother someone with less confidence in these matters, and that bothers me. Also, the fact that as a reasonably normal-looking (honest) if slightly scruffy white male, I'm unlikely to get more than a stern talking to and a request to leave, whereas someone of a different gender/race/apparent background might get treated quite differently, and that definitely bothers me.

Illegal - banned by law from doing murder for example

Unlawfull - legally don't have the power to do what you did - Johnson closing parliament to avoid votes .

No idea which wild camping is but it is civil not criminal ( unless criminal trespass which it never will be if you leave when asked )

You don't even have to leave when asked, just take your tent down. If you're not camping you still have a right to be there?

Will this just apply to his 4000 acres and not the rest?

I've had a quick read of the ruling and I'm not surprised the bad guy won to be honest. He's a twonk to be sure but the National Park didn't have much legal ammunition to knock him back.
Interesting that access is all geared around being on foot or by horse and bikes are prohibited in many places.

Regardless, it's a case of carry on what you would do anywhere else in England and Wales.