That would seem to be the hair they're now hoping to split.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... 6v2muskdsA

**** them and their law

Rich grockle[incomer] turning up trying to kick the proles of "his land"

Self entitled **** hope the judge gives us the right to bivvy on his lawn never mind his estate.

Sounds like we need the BBB Dartmoor equivalent of the Kinder trespass.... you know, a 'camp in', like a 'sit in'..... I know just the ringleader...

They've possibly scored an own goal there.
There's a legal presumption that if the legislation doesn't say you can't do something then you can. So in this case because it doesn't specifically say/legislate that you can't wild camp you can.
With most thing's the list of permitted activities/acts far outweighs the prohibited activities/acts so legislation is written to only tell you what you can't do.

RIP wrote: ↑Sat Dec 17, 2022 12:45 am Sounds like we need the BBB Dartmoor equivalent of the Kinder trespass.... you know, a 'camp in', like a 'sit in'..... I know just the ringleader...

I was thinking more along the lines of lynching and fire-bombing but your course of action is probably more reasonable.

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

Is it just me who reads 'Hedge fund manager' and instantly thinks w@nker?

Bearbonesnorm wrote: ↑Sat Dec 17, 2022 11:51 am Is it just me who reads 'Hedge fund manager' and instantly thinks w@nker?

No

Bearbonesnorm wrote: ↑Sat Dec 17, 2022 11:51 am Is it just me who reads 'Hedge fund manager' and instantly thinks w@nker?

Surely we need loads more hedges? Good for him for trying to raise the funds to replant them. Far too many have been grubbed up over the past few decades to the huge detriment of wildlife.

woodsmith wrote: ↑Sat Dec 17, 2022 10:47 am your course of action is probably more reasonable.

Blast. Bang goes my street cred there!

Reminds me of the Red Dwarf scene where they're trying to get rid of the Polymorph: "Let's get tough. The time for talking is over. Call it extreme if you like, but I propose we hit it [Darwall/Polymorph] hard and hit it fast with a major -- and I mean major -- leaflet campaign, and while it's reeling from that, we'd follow up with a {whist} drive, a car boot sale, some street theatre and possibly even some benefit concerts. OK?".

Bearbonesnorm wrote: ↑Sat Dec 17, 2022 11:51 am Is it just me who reads 'Hedge fund manager' and instantly thinks w@nker?

So, what do you do for a living? - "I bet on whether a company's share prices will go up or down and make a killing in the process. I don't care about the companies concerned, what they do or the people they employ"

Correct Stu, you could add in parasite too although that possibly insults tape worms.

I like Regs definition though. In a just world, hedge fund managers would be issued with a razor sharp bill hook, limited instruction, and told to get on with hedge managing.

To widen this slightly there is a right to "air and exercise" on common land in England and Wales

It's never been tested but I would suggest that LNT wildcamping could easily be argued to be "air and exercise"

Bearbonesnorm wrote: ↑Sat Dec 17, 2022 11:51 am Is it just me who reads 'Hedge fund manager' and instantly thinks w@nker?

No!

woodsmith wrote: ↑Sat Dec 17, 2022 10:47 am

RIP wrote: ↑Sat Dec 17, 2022 12:45 am Sounds like we need the BBB Dartmoor equivalent of the Kinder trespass.... you know, a 'camp in', like a 'sit in'..... I know just the ringleader...

I was thinking more along the lines of lynching and fire-bombing but your course of action is probably more reasonable.

Damn, I'll put the tar and feathers back in the shed then

fatbikephil wrote: ↑Fri Dec 16, 2022 10:24 pm **** them and their law

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=05FKtPJO8IQ

rufus748 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 17, 2022 8:46 am They've possibly scored an own goal there.
There's a legal presumption that if the legislation doesn't say you can't do something then you can. So in this case because it doesn't specifically say/legislate that you can't wild camp you can.
With most thing's the list of permitted activities/acts far outweighs the prohibited activities/acts so legislation is written to only tell you what you can't do.

Of course, the legislation doesn’t mention cycling either. Not once.

So you might question why the National Park introduced a Byelaw banning MTB, but go to court protecting wild camping…

riderdown wrote: ↑Sat Dec 17, 2022 6:30 pm To widen this slightly there is a right to "air and exercise" on common land in England and Wales

It's never been tested but I would suggest that LNT wildcamping could easily be argued to be "air and exercise"

Not on all common Land, only on S193 commons (commonly called urban commons, but actually includes many other places like the New Forest and Ilkley Moor)

The Billson judgement (R v SSE, ex-parte Billson (1998) EWHC Admin 189) confirmed that the phrase ‘air and exercise’ was to be given the broadest possible interpretation, subject only to byelaws or the general conditions in S193(4), which specifically excludes the use of ‘carts, carriages or other vehicles’ along with camping or lighting fires.

Thus mountain biking and wild camping are both prohibited on urban commons, (criminal offence) and excluded from other commons (which carry a right of access on foot under CROW) as they are within the list of Sch 2 restrictions that apply (not a criminal offence). Though they can still be permitted by the landowner.

If you have to think about the legal aspects of wild camping your not doing it right
I ‘accidentally’ camped in someone’s back garden once, they were non the wiser

Thus mountain biking and wild camping are both prohibited on urban commons, (

Yep looks pretty definitive unfortunately

The flip side is that the police don't know where they are otherwise they would have used the legislation to tackle MXers and off roaders instead of relying on other legislation

riderdown wrote: ↑Sat Dec 24, 2022 9:19 am Yep looks pretty definitive unfortunately

Yeah. On the other hand, the Byelaw prohibiting MTB on Dartmoor is, arguably, much more open to question. There are valid questions as to it’s proportionality and reasonableness, given the extent of the prohibition (ie. Not just banning riding done in sensitive areas, or inappropriately, but essentially all riding, even on surfaced Land Rover tracks) and also considering National Park duties. There are also some interesting questions bring posed over the interplay between byelaws and protest right… anyone interested might want to ‘watch this space’ in the coming months as the Byelaw review creeps forwards

I’d also postulate that the landowner winning the camping court case could, in the long term, be the best outcome for MTB’ers, as there is likely to be far more of an imperative for review of the legislation to reinstate the right to camp - at which point cyclists should be campaigning to ensure that they are (finally) treated fairly too.

I’d also postulate that the landowner winning the camping court case could, in the long term, be the best outcome for MTB’ers, as there is likely to be far more of an imperative for review of the legislation to reinstate the right to camp - at which point cyclists should be campaigning to ensure that they are (finally) treated fairly too.

I think you are optimistic but nothing wrong with that, the fundamental problem is there isn't the numbers, the activists, and emtb is blurring the lines with MXers. Landowners are a big issue and the Monarchy as one of them I suspect is quietly killing legislative changes that even the conservatives propose and not mention the complete absence of policies from the opposition.

Cycling needs to become the new normal before a big change will happen and that's a long way off. The user antagonism that often occurs in popular places means that human powered travellers are doing others work for them in objecting to access rights changes

Well the mega rich landowner has won.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ht-to-camp

Ray Young wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 12:31 pm Well the mega rich landowner has won.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ht-to-camp

Arse...

Si

Ray Young wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 12:31 pm Well the mega rich landowner has won.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ht-to-camp

They never don't win and seeing as we've now criminalised every form of protest that is it forever.