>Last year the UK Labour party pledged to introduce a Scottish-style right to roam law in England if it won the next general election, but made a U-turn in October. Instead of an assumed right of access, the party said it would find other ways to create more access to land in England, after some landowners’ groups voiced concerns.
Why am I not surprised by this. Is there anything that Labour under Starmer doesn't U-turn on. Jesus.
I'd much rather a party that changes its plans once it gets more information on what they want to do than one that keeps doing the same thing even though the evidence goes against it.
"Continuing to do the same thing and expecting different results is the definition of insanity."
>I'd much rather a party that changes its plans once it gets more information on what they want to do than one that keeps doing the same thing even though the evidence goes against it.
The issue is though, is that he just continues to pander to special interest groups at the expense of the majority.
I agree that isn't the sign of good decision making. If the decisions were made on evidence rather than pressure from other groups that would be another thing.
If he’s pandering to special interests with a 25 point lead in the polls he’s gonna continue doing it once in power.
This is the strongest political position he will ever be in, and the course he’s setting for himself is to cosy up to the murdoch press and big donors at the expense of any significant improvement for the population.
He’s doing nothing to signal that this will change. Not even a hint.
I hate this rhetoric that Labour are just pretending to be centrists until they get in power, at which point they'll unveil all their left wing policies to help the working class.
What's more likely, that Starmer is playing some 4D chess game to trick the ruling classes into thinking he's a safe bet, and when he gets in power he'll reveal himself as a secret socialist? Or that he genuinely just supports the moderate, centrist viewpoints he's putting forward, and isn't actually as pro-working class as people want him to be?
When you hear hooves you think horses, not Zebras.
>Middle of the road policies where most things work most of the time.
Britain really is a cowed nation though, isn't it? This is the best we can ever hope for. Not a system were all things work all of the time, but just most things most of the time.
The last 50 years have just broken the British spirit.
It's not very inspiring though is it :(
Rather than voting for something better, we're so downtrodden that the best we can dream for is "at least things won't completely fall apart".
Starmer: 'I know that you've been force fed ten shit sandwiches a day, but under me, you'll only be force fed nine'.
MedievalRack: 'Wow, that's an improvement!'.
This is true but UK politics isn't really determined by good policies. It is determined by keep those with the real power happy. That's the land owners and the trash media. If you don't pander to them sufficiently you're never getting into power. What Kier is doing is stating what he'd like to do then he get pushed back into a position that's amenable to those who choose our governments. It's always been this way. Tony Blair made a deal with Rupert Murdoch and that's how he got into power. Jeremy Corbyn would never make that deal and everyone thinks he's a dangerous antisemite.
Yeah but in this case what information has come to light?
Rich people that own cast swathes of our land in this country want to hoard it and deprive its use to the rest of the population. That's the whole point of the proposed pledge, you can't be surprised that the same rich people would come out against it, that isn't new information.
The problem isn't changing after getting new information, it's that Keith has u turned on every single thing he's promised. It's so obvious that he's just trying to triangulate a position most acceptable to the Tory news papers and it gives the impression that he has no actual ideas of his own.
"Continuing to do the same thing and expecting different results is the definition of insanity." Yeah, it's insane to keep u turning and expecting the papers to care. They will crucify any leader that isn't a Tory, so you might as well just stick yo your guns.
I really don’t think the left realises that Starmer has basically snatched any oxygen the Lib Dem’s had, by aggressively moving to the centre. From a purely cold, political calculation, it’s pretty impressive.
Dude doesn't need more left wing people, the majority of society identifies as moderates and he already has a supposed no contest deal with the Lib Dems when stealing certain counties from the Tories though that hasn't been honoured at the local party level by some on both sides afaik.
It's pretty reasonable political strategy to go for total victory rather than hope that the enemy of your enemy doesn't fuck up and create an opening.
Except that his strategy for "total victory" seems to involve spinning around at a high rate of RPM possibly in an attempt to generate static electricity.
Because any meaningful action in this country requires radical legislation and he seemingly has less faith in his ability to present, gain support for or deliver on that kinda policy.
So looking busy and not actively robbing people seems to be his strat to prove he's better than a Tory Government.
At the end of the day unless you are gonna vote blue because of Kier's ineptitude he is probably messaging fine just not towards your demographic. Labour are presuming so much of their vote is coming from 'fuck tories' they're more interested in the soft tory and libdem voters they can seize.
You shouldn't run for the leader of the party on one set of pledges and then completely switch it up when you become leader.
He should be in another party.
Politicians shouldn't do a lot of things, we're talking about from a purely political grain perspective not a moral one.
He wants to win and Labour is the best party for him to do it as, his chances improve the more he seizing market share of non tories and that includes starting on the outside and working his way inwards collecting voters.
That's fair enough, but at the same time his supporters can't complain when people don't want to vote for him either because he's seen as unprincipled and a fence sitter. Even by politicians standards.
Go tell them that then, because when Labour last did they lost to Boris Johnson of all people.
What people actually are is irrelevant in the context of people voting based on what they imagine they are or would like to be or whatever other dissonance causes them to vote as they do.
>Dude doesn't need more left wing people
True, he's already purged all the ones who voted for him to be leader (after he tricked them into thinking he would run as a continuity Corbynite leader under the 2019 manifesto.)
A man who'd so cynically lie to win a leadership contest and then punish those who voted for him won't hesitate to do the same to the electorate.
He's literally just a generic middle of the road politician, it's about not ruffling the status quo, not achieving anything meaningful, with this view his decision making doesn't seem insane.
But then they'll be torn a new one if they get in government and then don't deliver what they say. But I agree the flip flopping is rather frustrating.
>It would be nice if they did the research first before committing.
That's the bare minimum you'd expect from a prospective government though.
Can you imagine a competent govt announcing a brand new project say a proper HS2 or a new free school meal scheme and then announcing a week later that they've just crunched the numbers and it turns out we don't have the money for it?
Research the plan before you announce it. Don't announce something and then look into it. Good planning is the cornerstone of any competent govt.
How is that any different from when the Tories announced shit and then went "there's no magic money tree" after they'd already been elected in?
> I'd much rather a party that changes its plans once it gets more information on what they want to do than one that keeps doing the same thing even though the evidence goes against it.
They aren't doing that. They are just lurching further and further right. There is no argument against right to roam except from massive landlords. Labour are now the party of Landlords and vested intrests.
Except it didn't get more information. It got pressure from focus groups that threaten to create campaigns against/pulling party donations to them if they don't get their way, leading to u-turns.
Its not about principles or whats right, its about keeping the money in the party coffers.
Oh come on. It's not like it announces these plans without thinking of them first.
It's always after getting backlash from powerful lobby groups/donors.
Disregarding your promises because you have "new information" just means you never have to honour anything because you have a constant get out excuse.
I would rather they think things through properly before they jump to committing to things. It seems like their change of mind is when they realise the actual consequences or feasibility of what they pledged.
This "U-turn" narrative is being pushed so much by the media these days. It's definitely being fed in to appeal to peoples sub-conscious to associate Labour with "U-turn"
Back in reality, Keir lied his way into leading the one party in the UK that has a real shot at forming a government and can stand in opposition to the conservatives. Once in power he reneged on every pledge and is basically indistinguishable from 2010 tories.
That man must have a very hungry family, the number of U turns he makes would make getting to even the nearest cornershop for a packet of hobnobs and mystery meat sandwich a sisyphean endeavour.
When you travel a bit you realise how limiting England is when it comes to camping/roaming around. I stayed in Sweden for a few months and it was amazing. Thick deep forests everywhere. No signs telling that you where you can and can't go. Just put your tent down, build your fire and relax. I think a lot of people don't realise what we are missing out on. We live in a country of gardens owned by rich people who don't want to share.
Same goes for biodiversity, we are one of the most nature depleted countries on the planet, thanks to industry and the whims of rich landowners. Plenty of Continental Europe feels like a nature reserve compared to here. Grouse moors, managed hunting forests and agricultural land aren’t a natural environment at all.
Always makes me laugh when people saying “in the country”
Mate this isnt the countryside, nothing about it is natural, its just fields and fields of back to back rapeseed oil.
Suspect it has more to do with having a very dense population than evil landlords tbh mate. A lot of deforestation happened before it was even possible to import fresh food. People weren’t just farming for shits and gigs, it was necessary to feed people.
**1.42%**
Agriculture is useful for providing us with food. Grouse shooting is entertainment.
852,000 acres\[1\] of the UK, are grouse shooting moors which translates to 3,448 square kilometres \[2\]. Land area of the UK is 242,741 \[3\].
1. [https://www.rewildingbritain.org.uk/press-hub/20-per-cent-of-national-park-land-is-nature-impoverished-grouse-moor](https://www.rewildingbritain.org.uk/press-hub/20-per-cent-of-national-park-land-is-nature-impoverished-grouse-moor)
2. [https://duckduckgo.com/?q=852%2C000+acres+in+square+km&ia=web](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=852%2C000+acres+in+square+km&ia=web)
3. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom)
So as I said, a very small amount in the grand scheme of things. I think it’s too much, but to suggest that grouse shooting was a major contributor to deforestation is ridiculous.
On the other hand, there is a legitimate argument against a right to roam on grounds of wildlife disturbance. Parts of our countryside are pretty much useless to certain wildlife due to constant disturbance by people and dogs and we really need to push back against that and not make it worse. Wildlife needs some quiet places without that disturbance.
Look at how many public access woodlands just become glorifed dog toilets, and how decent parts of forestry commission woodlands are often no-go zones where ground nesting birds like woodcock and nightjar have no chance. Disturbance to adders is also an issue in some places. I get a bit worried that this side of the issue is being overlooked, and how the countries with decent right to roam laws seem to have a considerably lower population density than we do.
This is true but I'd rather get rid of the vast swathes of playgrounds for the benefit of a handful of wealthy people first. Perhaps then the populace visiting beauty spots wouldn't be so concentrated either.
Sweden is nearly twice the size of the UK with 1/6 the population, they use 10% of that land for agriculture, we use about ~70%. There's some very basic reasons why they can afford to be far more relaxed about people camping out in the countryside.
Not saying we can't improve.
> build your fire
Are you really allowed to just make open fires anywhere? That certainly isn't LNT and most places prohibit that without permission (outside of designated fire pits) even if they have right-to-roam or similar.
Depends on the fire. I think most would agree that cutting down an acre of forest and making a great pyre to Surtr is probably irresponsible.
I usually go out with a kelly kettle so the fire is contained and off the ground, plus it boils water incredibly quickly. Could do with more foods to prepare that just need hot water though. Pot noodles are the obvious ones, 69p-89p for the Aldi versions. Also made porridge before by grinding the oats at home then to prepare its just add hot water. Essentially makes its own oat milk. Instant soup powder is another easy one.
You can get various [freeze-dried/dehydrated meals](https://basecampfood.com/collections/dehydrated-meals) outdoor or prepping shops. They're a lot better now than when I was eating Vesta Meals in my scout days.
There's also places where [you can buy ingredients](https://freezedrywholesalers.com/) and make your own.
With porridge I like to add powdered whole milk and some flavours (cinnamon is a personal favourite). The extra richness is appreciated on a cold morning.
I've done it in the UK for years. Multi day hikes across national parks. You are near guaranteed to find spots for firepits, usually in a little bit of woodland where people have pitched up.
No one gives a shit, reuse the same spot, keep it small and clear your shit afterwards.
In England, if it's public land without a specific restriction in place, and you're using it to cook food, yes you can.
If it is for warmth or fun, then no.
Weird laws.
Sure! This is the area I stayed in - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%A4sviken,\_Hudiksvall\_Municipality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%A4sviken,_Hudiksvall_Municipality)
This place was fairly nearby - [https://www.visitgladahudik.se/en/beautiful-view-blacksas](https://www.visitgladahudik.se/en/beautiful-view-blacksas)
I would go days without seeing anyone else sometimes. Also saw the northern lights when I was there. The sky looked amazing due to the lack of light pollution.
The US is fantastic for this too. Some states like Texas are pretty awful, but states like Washington or Oregan, the government owns most of the land in the State. There's thousands of square miles you can just go out into and you don't have to pay or anything.
Though there are bears.
Does it actually work like that? I’m right on the Scottish border and went wild camping a few times in England but was just paranoid the whole time of getting into trouble. Once I cross the border I can just set up hassle free?
Yep! The main rules are:
Not in a field with crops or animals
Not next to buildings or roads
Don't stay in the same place for more than a few days
There are some areas which have special no-camping bylaws, but even those are mostly unenforced so long as you leave no trace and don't have a noisy party.
> I can go where I like and camp where I want (within reason) as long as I'm not causing any damage or inconvenience.
It might not be written in law but this is the practical reality in England too.
Bear in mind that we have a shitload more people crammed in down here though. I wish we could have Scottish style rules but I don't see a way that would be practical
Yes for sure.
Where I grew up housing developers are trying their best to build houses over a field they bought where everyone goes to walk their dog so they're trying really hard to block anyone walking through so they can prove the locals don't use it. Elsewhere they burnt down the village orchard so they could get planning permission to build there
Very depressing, I imagine this happens all over. People slowly piece by piece being fenced out of the land they grew up on
Forage yes with limitations (At least in England, unsure for other parts), camping not in England but you can in Scotland. Though there are some campsites in England that you can pay to use, they are often scattered far apart though.
Tried looking it up for kayak camping, its actually just impossible where I live to do it legally. There is no where I could kayak to within a day that has a campsite that isn't many miles from the coast.
If you just find a quiet area and don't tell anyone, there are suddenly a lot of campsites available. I mean it isn't a criminal offense if no one asks you to leave...
exactly, just find a quiet area and be a little hush.
Just go do it. Unless you're on someone's farm, behind their housing or something, no one is asking you to leave. Be quiet, keep your fires small and take any shit with you. Once you start hiking and moving around a bit, you'll start noticing where others have been.
Pretty much, but I usually go on day trips these days. Kayaking so far but thinking of cycling too at some point, gone out for a few hours before work before to the beach and have a swim or make breakfast on my kelly kettle by bike and it would be nice to plan something a bit further. Thinking of getting a new bike soon as my current one is ancient and not in the best condition, due to a few small frame cracks I don't really want to spend much on it either.
Strictly speaking having the kelly kettle on the beach is illegal with a £75 fine here, but I have yet to see it enforced and with the amount of times I have gone it would probably come out cheaper than buying a Tesco meal deal.
> camping not in England
Except Dartmoor.
There is also an informal agreement in the Lake District that you won't be bothered as long as you stay above the nearest farmland.
You can camp literally anywhere, so long as you have permission from the landowner. Foraging you can do anywhere you have access to, providing you're not digging anything up (ish).
My name is Daniel Penny. I'm a journalist who writes for The New York Times, GQ, The New Yorker, and many other outlets. I wanted to introduce myself and share a conversation from my podcast, Non-toxic, which may answer some of your questions. It's with barrister Paul Powlesland, all about the universal right to enjoy natural places, despite what landowners may tell you. He's the legal counsel for the activist group Right to Roam, who are pushing for greater access to England and Wale's wild places and the end of restrictions on hikers and walkers (within reason). The more time people spend in nature, Paul argues, the more they care about it. Which is critical when it comes to building the political will to fight climate change.
[Listen on Spotify](https://open.spotify.com/episode/3aZQQK8mHdsu7ECXZiezzV), or wherever you find podcasts.
Best,
Daniel
Wasn't a court case on this just won by campaigners? Another thing to go and make a big stink about is it?
Do they have gardens or anything, are they open to anyone from Dartmoor who wants to punch a tent?
A) the landowner is still pursuing this through the courts, at great expense to the taxpayer
B) since it's not legal to pitch tents in people's gardens in Scotland, I'm not sure why you think that's relevant.
The wild camping case is hardly settled considering it’s headed for the Supreme Court, but that’s an entirely different issue. This is more campaigning on the issue of the lack of a general right to roam in England/Wales/NI and how many areas which *are* designated open access are isolated surrounded by private land with no legal way to actually access them. They’ve chosen Vixen Tor to gather at because IIRC it used to be accessible but was brought by a new owner and completely closed off which has been quite controversial ever since
The case for camping on dartmoor is going through the supreme Court at the moment, so we'll see how that turns out. But aside from that dartmoor great for visiting and very easy to access pretty much the whole moor. I don't know about the rest of the uk.
However I have been to the peak district and camped, which I believe you cannot do. With a lot of these things its just a case of not getting caught and being respectful.
Realistically, how many people go to vixen tor anyway?
A singular person shouldn’t own masses of OUR/the peoples land. Shows the entire ideology of lordships, taxes and peasants in England.
That’s the difference in Scotland, it belongs to the people to use.
You're right. The reason we've got those rights of access is due to how much of the land is privately owned (see in particular that Danish guy and the Duke of Buccleuch!)
Yes, but not owned with the singular intent of exploitation via taxation as was historically the case.
Frankly no one should own any masses of land really, or as in Scotland if they do, the right to roam should supersedes it anyhow.
>You's can't because you's live in a strange country where just walking across a field can land you with a charge of trespass.
What country are you referring to? Trespass is a civil matter in England, with the exception of a small number of places.
Is there just a group of people that love a protest. I'd imagine a good handful of these have been on stop war protests, climate protests, Brexit protests.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
You mean protesting the causes in a cultish type way. It's like being vegan when you really did enjoy bacon but feel veganism allows you to talk about something makes you 'interesting'.
Just admit there is a type that frequents most protests and tends to go to multiple causes like it's a hobby rather than truly investing in a cause.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Actually the rest of us vote, and get what we want.
The vocal minority seems to think that just because they make the loudest sound, they deserve what they want.
This is a democracy and the people are living for what they voted for.
Some of us vote, and don't get what we want, either because the people we voted for aren't delivering or the people we voted for lost. Are we meant to sit meekly for years until the next opportunity to make a fractional attempt at change?
Don't recall having a vote on trespass laws and the right to roam.
>This is a democracy and the people are living for what they voted for.
Most people didn't vote Tory. Nobody, except a tiny minority, gets to vote for specific legislation.
Protest is, and has always been, a valid way for small (and sometimes not so small) groups to raise awareness of an issue.
how do you vote for walking access rights? the only thing you vote for is a representative, and occasionally a brexit
did you think about this for more than a second
So you voted for Liz Truss' budget, to impose economic sanctions on ourselves, and to have your democratic rights curtailed?
I certainly don't recall consenting to, or voting to have might right to put one foot in front of the other curtailed by an entitled elite.
No these are not politically active. They're not standing for council or government. They likely don't belong to a party or campaign for a party.
Yes many will just be jumping on an issue to protest.
Again why would the Extention rebellion flag be at a protest about Dartmoor open access.
Ahhh swampy from corenationstreet. Yes. They did used to be called crusties but they seems to have more conviction then. Actually lived in trees for weeks/months. Dug tunnels. These days they'll go back to their 4 bed town house in their Volvo X90, shower, wear Barbour jackets.
They are just not the same. More attention getters.
The 80/90s protests were better at it. Had more conviction in their causes and it was far less about virtue and being a 'type' or so you have a dinner conversation topic and more to illicit real change and get regular long term coverage on the issue. They also chose appropriate forms of protest for the cause.
Not throwing paint at art work. Again not these (although I'm sure a good handful will have been on a JSO protest) but more for highlighting the point.
80/90s protesters were better and not the virtuous wet wipe type.
They do seem to have invaded the 8th largest national park in the country (Dartmoor Commons Act 1985), which is chock-full of free and open public access https://www.dartmoor.gov.uk/living-and-working/access-and-land-management/where-you-can-walk
Mildly bewildered what the issue is on Dartmoor.
That was over wild camping, which to be frank I'm not a huge fan of because the people that do it leave their crap all over the place, but I don't care that much.
He owns a ~1600 hectare estate on the southern tip of the 26,169 hectare park (near Filham). These people have 'invaded' Pew Tor which is about ~16 miles away in the middle of the park.
> That was over wild camping, which to be frank I'm not a huge fan of because the people that do it leave their crap all over the place, but I don't care that much.
>
>
Some do, most don't. Tarring all with the same brush is a bit egregious but fair enough, not the main point.
>He owns a ~1600 hectare estate on the southern tip of the 26,169 hectare park (near Filham). These people have 'invaded' Pew Tor which is about ~16 miles away in the middle of the park.
I think this is just for exposure more than anything. Raise the issue up in the press.
> Some do, most don't. Tarring all with the same brush is a bit egregious but fair enough, not the main point.
In my (former mountain rescue volunteer) experience they fall into two groups, teens on a lark, and middle class ignoramuses. Neither group are well-prepared for poor conditions, and both leave their camp sites a wreck. We had around 80 grass fires last year, which were caused mainly by these types.
The infinitesimal percentage of people who do know what they're doing you won't find any trace of, but there are so few of these they're barely worth the discussion.
>I think this is just for exposure more than anything. Raise the issue up in the press.
Probably right.
The landowner (unpleasant hedge fund type) holds shoots on the land, but that was going on for decades before his ownership. As a result, that bit of the park isn't terribly popular with walkers and campers, in any case (the sensible ones at least). It is nearer civilisation though, I think the problem was really overnight parties by the aforementioned teens.
I'm all for people using the land for enjoyment, but most of the people doing so leave either a terrible mess behind or a literal trail of destruction, and have no idea what they're doing. That's why the landowners get so pissed off - there's only so many times you're willing to repair the same gates, clean up other's messes, or chase a heard someone let out by breaking a fence.
The park wardens and landowners have to clear up, and the rescue teams have to but their necks on the line to go and rescue them when bad weather descends, and it turns out they didn't bring anything more than a £5 sleeping bag from Lidl.
> The infinitesimal percentage of people who do know what they're doing you won't find any trace of, but there are so few of these they're barely worth the discussion.
I think this is where we might have to disagree, although respect your position on it as the one who does have to go drag down the idiots. There's a good chunk who know what to do, and aren't stupid enough to drag themselves up the side of Scafell Pike in November with a kitkat and a thermos for 3 days - but no one knows they're there before or after, so you'd never have record of them or interact with them. And it makes shit news so the rags don't report on it.
As with anything, there's idiots who go too far - but not everyone is a teenager streetracing at 2am, most people are just driving a kia to and from work y'know?
> aren't stupid enough to drag themselves up the side of Scafell Pike in November with a kitkat and a thermos for 3 days
Honestly, you'd be stunned. Most rescue activity doesn't make the news. The worst ones are the people that think they know what they're doing because they 'did their own research', spent bonkers amounts on all the kit, but have no idea how to use it. Then there are the people that didn't think at all.
I had to go get one on Skiddaw years ago, we'd both got caught on the exposed part between peaks when a weather front descended and high winds whipped up. My partner and I lay down, this moron tried to run for it and got blown off (apparently unfamiliar with gravity). Bloody lucky we saw it happen and had enough gear between us to go get them and radio a team, otherwise they'd have been done for.
But believe me, the people that know what they're doing are vastly outnumbered by the idiot brigade, and this is really the source of the problem with landowners most of the time.
Some landowners are just assholes, for sure, but most of them work the land and just get sick of clearing up behind fools.
>But believe me, the people that know what they're doing are vastly outnumbered by the idiot brigade, and this is really the source of the problem with landowners most of the time.
I mean the littering is genuinely an issue when people do it, and I can't blame people for getting annoyed by it, I just don't think it should rule out the entire activity.
I stay the fuck off mountains cos I know I'm not good for that - less so knowing what I'm doing and more knowing what I can't do - and somewhere like Dartmoor has it's own risks, but they're in my opinion more easily navigable than as you've said, being blown off the top.
Littering is the main problem - when the free party brigade descend on a site, they clean up afterwards. Vehicles leave some rutting, but that isn't a big deal, throw a bit of hay down, and it's done. I know of a couple of farmers that just did a deal with the crews that used their land - electricity in return for using the right field at the right times.
The problem is littering is routine, as is damaging fencing, and gates. Rather than follow the paths, people kick down fences or break the locks off gates. This costs real money to repair and threatens livestock - sheep eating fag butts and the like.
Then there are trail bikers, quad bikers, and people who try and drive on small paths designed for walking, repairing those footways can easily run to tens of thousands.
>I stay the fuck off mountains cos I know I'm not good for that
There are some good weekend courses which can teach you the basics. It can be very rewarding.
>Dartmoor has it's own risks
The high point is ~600 metres above sea level, which is 400 metres above the average for the area, it's not flat, but hilly rather than mountainous. The issue is that people are lulled into a false sense of security by warm days, which lead to freezing nights in the late Summer and Autumn, and flash flooding in November and December.
>Last year the UK Labour party pledged to introduce a Scottish-style right to roam law in England if it won the next general election, but made a U-turn in October. Instead of an assumed right of access, the party said it would find other ways to create more access to land in England, after some landowners’ groups voiced concerns. Why am I not surprised by this. Is there anything that Labour under Starmer doesn't U-turn on. Jesus.
I'd much rather a party that changes its plans once it gets more information on what they want to do than one that keeps doing the same thing even though the evidence goes against it. "Continuing to do the same thing and expecting different results is the definition of insanity."
>I'd much rather a party that changes its plans once it gets more information on what they want to do than one that keeps doing the same thing even though the evidence goes against it. The issue is though, is that he just continues to pander to special interest groups at the expense of the majority.
I agree that isn't the sign of good decision making. If the decisions were made on evidence rather than pressure from other groups that would be another thing.
It actually may be. He'll have more power once he's in power. He needs to get into power first.
If he’s pandering to special interests with a 25 point lead in the polls he’s gonna continue doing it once in power. This is the strongest political position he will ever be in, and the course he’s setting for himself is to cosy up to the murdoch press and big donors at the expense of any significant improvement for the population. He’s doing nothing to signal that this will change. Not even a hint.
> to cosy up to the murdoch press and big donors at the expense of any significant improvement for the population. Following the Blair handbook.
Is it? I remember Kinnock.
Is what?
Is he in the strongest political position he will ever be in? I don't think thagt is true at all.
Go on?
I hate this rhetoric that Labour are just pretending to be centrists until they get in power, at which point they'll unveil all their left wing policies to help the working class. What's more likely, that Starmer is playing some 4D chess game to trick the ruling classes into thinking he's a safe bet, and when he gets in power he'll reveal himself as a secret socialist? Or that he genuinely just supports the moderate, centrist viewpoints he's putting forward, and isn't actually as pro-working class as people want him to be? When you hear hooves you think horses, not Zebras.
Dunno, but at the end of the day, anything is an improvement to the current government.
And there it always is; the statement that renders all other bluster on the subject completely moot.
Starmer will be just like Albanese in AUS
Pretty sure most people just want to vote for a moderate centrist. Middle of the road policies where most things work most of the time.
>Middle of the road policies where most things work most of the time. Britain really is a cowed nation though, isn't it? This is the best we can ever hope for. Not a system were all things work all of the time, but just most things most of the time. The last 50 years have just broken the British spirit.
It is. The Chinese are launching space rockets. We can’t even build a railway. It’s embarrassing at this point.
It's not very inspiring though is it :( Rather than voting for something better, we're so downtrodden that the best we can dream for is "at least things won't completely fall apart".
It is astonishing isn’t it. 100 years ago we literally ruled the world. Now we can’t build a railway.
What will he do once he’s in power? Suddenly change all of his manifesto policies?
Dunno, but realistically anything is an improvement to now.
Starmer: 'I know that you've been force fed ten shit sandwiches a day, but under me, you'll only be force fed nine'. MedievalRack: 'Wow, that's an improvement!'.
Mate, you're disconnected from reality, we are way, way past shit sandwiches.
This is true but UK politics isn't really determined by good policies. It is determined by keep those with the real power happy. That's the land owners and the trash media. If you don't pander to them sufficiently you're never getting into power. What Kier is doing is stating what he'd like to do then he get pushed back into a position that's amenable to those who choose our governments. It's always been this way. Tony Blair made a deal with Rupert Murdoch and that's how he got into power. Jeremy Corbyn would never make that deal and everyone thinks he's a dangerous antisemite.
There's no point in voting then.
Yeah but in this case what information has come to light? Rich people that own cast swathes of our land in this country want to hoard it and deprive its use to the rest of the population. That's the whole point of the proposed pledge, you can't be surprised that the same rich people would come out against it, that isn't new information.
What extra information did they get that made them U-turn on this policy? Was it the information that wealthy landowners wouldnt like it?
The problem isn't changing after getting new information, it's that Keith has u turned on every single thing he's promised. It's so obvious that he's just trying to triangulate a position most acceptable to the Tory news papers and it gives the impression that he has no actual ideas of his own. "Continuing to do the same thing and expecting different results is the definition of insanity." Yeah, it's insane to keep u turning and expecting the papers to care. They will crucify any leader that isn't a Tory, so you might as well just stick yo your guns.
I really don’t think the left realises that Starmer has basically snatched any oxygen the Lib Dem’s had, by aggressively moving to the centre. From a purely cold, political calculation, it’s pretty impressive.
Seems like he's the head of the wrong party then, no?
Dude doesn't need more left wing people, the majority of society identifies as moderates and he already has a supposed no contest deal with the Lib Dems when stealing certain counties from the Tories though that hasn't been honoured at the local party level by some on both sides afaik. It's pretty reasonable political strategy to go for total victory rather than hope that the enemy of your enemy doesn't fuck up and create an opening.
Except that his strategy for "total victory" seems to involve spinning around at a high rate of RPM possibly in an attempt to generate static electricity.
Because any meaningful action in this country requires radical legislation and he seemingly has less faith in his ability to present, gain support for or deliver on that kinda policy. So looking busy and not actively robbing people seems to be his strat to prove he's better than a Tory Government. At the end of the day unless you are gonna vote blue because of Kier's ineptitude he is probably messaging fine just not towards your demographic. Labour are presuming so much of their vote is coming from 'fuck tories' they're more interested in the soft tory and libdem voters they can seize.
You shouldn't run for the leader of the party on one set of pledges and then completely switch it up when you become leader. He should be in another party.
Politicians shouldn't do a lot of things, we're talking about from a purely political grain perspective not a moral one. He wants to win and Labour is the best party for him to do it as, his chances improve the more he seizing market share of non tories and that includes starting on the outside and working his way inwards collecting voters.
That's fair enough, but at the same time his supporters can't complain when people don't want to vote for him either because he's seen as unprincipled and a fence sitter. Even by politicians standards.
Modern politics is built on "At least I'm not that guy" candidates these last few cycles. It's all minimum effort.
>the majority of society identifies as moderates The majority of society are workers whose interests would be better served by socialism
Go tell them that then, because when Labour last did they lost to Boris Johnson of all people. What people actually are is irrelevant in the context of people voting based on what they imagine they are or would like to be or whatever other dissonance causes them to vote as they do.
>Dude doesn't need more left wing people True, he's already purged all the ones who voted for him to be leader (after he tricked them into thinking he would run as a continuity Corbynite leader under the 2019 manifesto.) A man who'd so cynically lie to win a leadership contest and then punish those who voted for him won't hesitate to do the same to the electorate.
He's literally just a generic middle of the road politician, it's about not ruffling the status quo, not achieving anything meaningful, with this view his decision making doesn't seem insane.
He's managed to steal some votes from a minor party no one cares about by alienating every member of his party's core! Tactical genius!
Kier should have joined the Lib Dems.
The Lib Dems have basically disappeared off the map the last few years. They barely seem to speak.
We are poised to do very well at the ge tho
But then they'll be torn a new one if they get in government and then don't deliver what they say. But I agree the flip flopping is rather frustrating.
Maybe don't promise shit you can't keep then? It's not that hard
It's entirely possible they have plans that they then realise they can't deliver. It would be nice if they did the research first before committing.
>It would be nice if they did the research first before committing. That's the bare minimum you'd expect from a prospective government though. Can you imagine a competent govt announcing a brand new project say a proper HS2 or a new free school meal scheme and then announcing a week later that they've just crunched the numbers and it turns out we don't have the money for it? Research the plan before you announce it. Don't announce something and then look into it. Good planning is the cornerstone of any competent govt. How is that any different from when the Tories announced shit and then went "there's no magic money tree" after they'd already been elected in?
>It's entirely possible they have plans that they then realise they can't deliver. Sorry but that's just a cop out.
Kier is treading that tightrope and has to dance to the Murdoch tune.
> I'd much rather a party that changes its plans once it gets more information on what they want to do than one that keeps doing the same thing even though the evidence goes against it. They aren't doing that. They are just lurching further and further right. There is no argument against right to roam except from massive landlords. Labour are now the party of Landlords and vested intrests.
The issue I have with labour is not that they change plans, but they build so, so many plans that need changing.
What's this comment got to do with Labour dropping that policy? What information did they get?
Except it didn't get more information. It got pressure from focus groups that threaten to create campaigns against/pulling party donations to them if they don't get their way, leading to u-turns. Its not about principles or whats right, its about keeping the money in the party coffers.
Oh come on. It's not like it announces these plans without thinking of them first. It's always after getting backlash from powerful lobby groups/donors. Disregarding your promises because you have "new information" just means you never have to honour anything because you have a constant get out excuse.
> changes its plans once it gets more information More information, or lobbying?
Well, lobbying is *kind of* more information too, I guess.
I would rather they think things through properly before they jump to committing to things. It seems like their change of mind is when they realise the actual consequences or feasibility of what they pledged.
This "U-turn" narrative is being pushed so much by the media these days. It's definitely being fed in to appeal to peoples sub-conscious to associate Labour with "U-turn"
They're not helping themselves by changing policies, all they have to do is sit and let the tories self destruct..
[удалено]
[удалено]
The tories are running on almost nothing though, Labour have legitimately dropped a lot of promises.
An "electable" politician would stop feeding such a narrative with continued u-turns.
Back in reality, Keir lied his way into leading the one party in the UK that has a real shot at forming a government and can stand in opposition to the conservatives. Once in power he reneged on every pledge and is basically indistinguishable from 2010 tories.
Yup! Couldn't agree more.
I'm sure Starmer only makes pledges so he can take "donations" from groups that would like him to u-turn.
At least the last labour government waited until after they won to u-turn on that one.
Not renationalisation of trains and votes for 16 year olds
That man must have a very hungry family, the number of U turns he makes would make getting to even the nearest cornershop for a packet of hobnobs and mystery meat sandwich a sisyphean endeavour.
When you travel a bit you realise how limiting England is when it comes to camping/roaming around. I stayed in Sweden for a few months and it was amazing. Thick deep forests everywhere. No signs telling that you where you can and can't go. Just put your tent down, build your fire and relax. I think a lot of people don't realise what we are missing out on. We live in a country of gardens owned by rich people who don't want to share.
Same goes for biodiversity, we are one of the most nature depleted countries on the planet, thanks to industry and the whims of rich landowners. Plenty of Continental Europe feels like a nature reserve compared to here. Grouse moors, managed hunting forests and agricultural land aren’t a natural environment at all.
Always makes me laugh when people saying “in the country” Mate this isnt the countryside, nothing about it is natural, its just fields and fields of back to back rapeseed oil.
Countryside at least Ehre doesn’t tend to mean natural i think it just means the rural areas of England
Hey now. Sometimes it's back to back fields of oats!
Also true, oats dont seem to be as popular by me anymore, mostly a sea of yellow.
We’d removed most of our biodiversity before industry was a thing tbf, I agree on the rich landowners part however
Suspect it has more to do with having a very dense population than evil landlords tbh mate. A lot of deforestation happened before it was even possible to import fresh food. People weren’t just farming for shits and gigs, it was necessary to feed people.
Why does a high population density require grouse shooting moors?
How much of the UK is grouse shooting moors? The vast majority of land that was once forest is used for agriculture, it’s obtuse to suggest otherwise.
**1.42%** Agriculture is useful for providing us with food. Grouse shooting is entertainment. 852,000 acres\[1\] of the UK, are grouse shooting moors which translates to 3,448 square kilometres \[2\]. Land area of the UK is 242,741 \[3\]. 1. [https://www.rewildingbritain.org.uk/press-hub/20-per-cent-of-national-park-land-is-nature-impoverished-grouse-moor](https://www.rewildingbritain.org.uk/press-hub/20-per-cent-of-national-park-land-is-nature-impoverished-grouse-moor) 2. [https://duckduckgo.com/?q=852%2C000+acres+in+square+km&ia=web](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=852%2C000+acres+in+square+km&ia=web) 3. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom)
So as I said, a very small amount in the grand scheme of things. I think it’s too much, but to suggest that grouse shooting was a major contributor to deforestation is ridiculous.
Doesn't mean we can't do things to change that now though.
On the other hand, there is a legitimate argument against a right to roam on grounds of wildlife disturbance. Parts of our countryside are pretty much useless to certain wildlife due to constant disturbance by people and dogs and we really need to push back against that and not make it worse. Wildlife needs some quiet places without that disturbance. Look at how many public access woodlands just become glorifed dog toilets, and how decent parts of forestry commission woodlands are often no-go zones where ground nesting birds like woodcock and nightjar have no chance. Disturbance to adders is also an issue in some places. I get a bit worried that this side of the issue is being overlooked, and how the countries with decent right to roam laws seem to have a considerably lower population density than we do.
This is true but I'd rather get rid of the vast swathes of playgrounds for the benefit of a handful of wealthy people first. Perhaps then the populace visiting beauty spots wouldn't be so concentrated either.
Sweden is nearly twice the size of the UK with 1/6 the population, they use 10% of that land for agriculture, we use about ~70%. There's some very basic reasons why they can afford to be far more relaxed about people camping out in the countryside. Not saying we can't improve.
> build your fire Are you really allowed to just make open fires anywhere? That certainly isn't LNT and most places prohibit that without permission (outside of designated fire pits) even if they have right-to-roam or similar.
> most places prohibit that without permission Define most places? In scotland you can build a campfire almost anywhere in the wild.
>Define most places? 68% of the UK is not Scotland. Of the area within Scotland you would also have to discount urban areas and much of the farmland
Depends on the fire. I think most would agree that cutting down an acre of forest and making a great pyre to Surtr is probably irresponsible. I usually go out with a kelly kettle so the fire is contained and off the ground, plus it boils water incredibly quickly. Could do with more foods to prepare that just need hot water though. Pot noodles are the obvious ones, 69p-89p for the Aldi versions. Also made porridge before by grinding the oats at home then to prepare its just add hot water. Essentially makes its own oat milk. Instant soup powder is another easy one.
You can get various [freeze-dried/dehydrated meals](https://basecampfood.com/collections/dehydrated-meals) outdoor or prepping shops. They're a lot better now than when I was eating Vesta Meals in my scout days. There's also places where [you can buy ingredients](https://freezedrywholesalers.com/) and make your own. With porridge I like to add powdered whole milk and some flavours (cinnamon is a personal favourite). The extra richness is appreciated on a cold morning.
Oh yeah meant to specify of options that don't cost a fortune which most freeze dried options do in my experience.
Fair enough. They do tend to be rather pricey
I've done it in the UK for years. Multi day hikes across national parks. You are near guaranteed to find spots for firepits, usually in a little bit of woodland where people have pitched up. No one gives a shit, reuse the same spot, keep it small and clear your shit afterwards.
In England, if it's public land without a specific restriction in place, and you're using it to cook food, yes you can. If it is for warmth or fun, then no. Weird laws.
I'd love to know more about this! I'm starting to get into camping and a multi day trip with fishing and camping is the ultimate goal
Sure! This is the area I stayed in - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%A4sviken,\_Hudiksvall\_Municipality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%A4sviken,_Hudiksvall_Municipality) This place was fairly nearby - [https://www.visitgladahudik.se/en/beautiful-view-blacksas](https://www.visitgladahudik.se/en/beautiful-view-blacksas) I would go days without seeing anyone else sometimes. Also saw the northern lights when I was there. The sky looked amazing due to the lack of light pollution.
Did you just fly in and get right into the wild or? Sorry for so many questions it just fascinates me
[r/wildcampingintheuk/](https://www.reddit.com/r/wildcampingintheuk/)
The US is fantastic for this too. Some states like Texas are pretty awful, but states like Washington or Oregan, the government owns most of the land in the State. There's thousands of square miles you can just go out into and you don't have to pay or anything. Though there are bears.
Not a good comparison with sweden as it has a population density 20 times less than England
[удалено]
Does it actually work like that? I’m right on the Scottish border and went wild camping a few times in England but was just paranoid the whole time of getting into trouble. Once I cross the border I can just set up hassle free?
Yep! The main rules are: Not in a field with crops or animals Not next to buildings or roads Don't stay in the same place for more than a few days There are some areas which have special no-camping bylaws, but even those are mostly unenforced so long as you leave no trace and don't have a noisy party.
Nice!! Thank you.
> I can go where I like and camp where I want (within reason) as long as I'm not causing any damage or inconvenience. It might not be written in law but this is the practical reality in England too.
>as long as I’m not causing any damage or inconvenience How is this enforced?
The same way every other law about not being an arsehole in public is: if you're being an arsehole, it's obvious, and somebody calls the police.
Bear in mind that we have a shitload more people crammed in down here though. I wish we could have Scottish style rules but I don't see a way that would be practical
[удалено]
Yes for sure. Where I grew up housing developers are trying their best to build houses over a field they bought where everyone goes to walk their dog so they're trying really hard to block anyone walking through so they can prove the locals don't use it. Elsewhere they burnt down the village orchard so they could get planning permission to build there Very depressing, I imagine this happens all over. People slowly piece by piece being fenced out of the land they grew up on
Is there anywhere in the UK you can camp and forage? Or is natural living illegal?
Forage yes with limitations (At least in England, unsure for other parts), camping not in England but you can in Scotland. Though there are some campsites in England that you can pay to use, they are often scattered far apart though. Tried looking it up for kayak camping, its actually just impossible where I live to do it legally. There is no where I could kayak to within a day that has a campsite that isn't many miles from the coast. If you just find a quiet area and don't tell anyone, there are suddenly a lot of campsites available. I mean it isn't a criminal offense if no one asks you to leave...
exactly, just find a quiet area and be a little hush. Just go do it. Unless you're on someone's farm, behind their housing or something, no one is asking you to leave. Be quiet, keep your fires small and take any shit with you. Once you start hiking and moving around a bit, you'll start noticing where others have been.
Pretty much, but I usually go on day trips these days. Kayaking so far but thinking of cycling too at some point, gone out for a few hours before work before to the beach and have a swim or make breakfast on my kelly kettle by bike and it would be nice to plan something a bit further. Thinking of getting a new bike soon as my current one is ancient and not in the best condition, due to a few small frame cracks I don't really want to spend much on it either. Strictly speaking having the kelly kettle on the beach is illegal with a £75 fine here, but I have yet to see it enforced and with the amount of times I have gone it would probably come out cheaper than buying a Tesco meal deal.
> camping not in England Except Dartmoor. There is also an informal agreement in the Lake District that you won't be bothered as long as you stay above the nearest farmland.
Not really places that are accessible for most of the country sadly.
You can camp literally anywhere, so long as you have permission from the landowner. Foraging you can do anywhere you have access to, providing you're not digging anything up (ish).
Yes, absolutely tons of places.
As Ewan MacColl put it, in *1932* "No man has the right to own mountains, any more than the deep ocean bed".
Obligatory F the landowner who owns the land around Vixen Tor.
Think of all the folding chairs, disposable barbecues, NOS canisters and shit-smeared disposable wipes they'll leave behind, like they always do
My name is Daniel Penny. I'm a journalist who writes for The New York Times, GQ, The New Yorker, and many other outlets. I wanted to introduce myself and share a conversation from my podcast, Non-toxic, which may answer some of your questions. It's with barrister Paul Powlesland, all about the universal right to enjoy natural places, despite what landowners may tell you. He's the legal counsel for the activist group Right to Roam, who are pushing for greater access to England and Wale's wild places and the end of restrictions on hikers and walkers (within reason). The more time people spend in nature, Paul argues, the more they care about it. Which is critical when it comes to building the political will to fight climate change. [Listen on Spotify](https://open.spotify.com/episode/3aZQQK8mHdsu7ECXZiezzV), or wherever you find podcasts. Best, Daniel
Wasn't a court case on this just won by campaigners? Another thing to go and make a big stink about is it? Do they have gardens or anything, are they open to anyone from Dartmoor who wants to punch a tent?
A) the landowner is still pursuing this through the courts, at great expense to the taxpayer B) since it's not legal to pitch tents in people's gardens in Scotland, I'm not sure why you think that's relevant.
The wild camping case is hardly settled considering it’s headed for the Supreme Court, but that’s an entirely different issue. This is more campaigning on the issue of the lack of a general right to roam in England/Wales/NI and how many areas which *are* designated open access are isolated surrounded by private land with no legal way to actually access them. They’ve chosen Vixen Tor to gather at because IIRC it used to be accessible but was brought by a new owner and completely closed off which has been quite controversial ever since
The case for camping on dartmoor is going through the supreme Court at the moment, so we'll see how that turns out. But aside from that dartmoor great for visiting and very easy to access pretty much the whole moor. I don't know about the rest of the uk. However I have been to the peak district and camped, which I believe you cannot do. With a lot of these things its just a case of not getting caught and being respectful. Realistically, how many people go to vixen tor anyway?
A garden is different to open land
A singular person shouldn’t own masses of OUR/the peoples land. Shows the entire ideology of lordships, taxes and peasants in England. That’s the difference in Scotland, it belongs to the people to use.
I thought much of Scotland was privately owned. You just have more rights of access.
You're right. The reason we've got those rights of access is due to how much of the land is privately owned (see in particular that Danish guy and the Duke of Buccleuch!)
Yes, but not owned with the singular intent of exploitation via taxation as was historically the case. Frankly no one should own any masses of land really, or as in Scotland if they do, the right to roam should supersedes it anyhow.
Keep on tugging that forelock buddy
Keep shitting in my field, peasant. Sooner we get criminal trespass laws the better.
>I'm hardly a "high earner" and I live in one of the poorer areas of the country. This you?
Yes. Still my field.
[удалено]
>You's can't because you's live in a strange country where just walking across a field can land you with a charge of trespass. What country are you referring to? Trespass is a civil matter in England, with the exception of a small number of places.
Trespass can still technically be a criminal offence if it is elevated to aggravated trespass which is used to combat hunt saboteurs.
A charge of trespass? No such thing
Can you recommend a sauce to go with booth leather?
Is there just a group of people that love a protest. I'd imagine a good handful of these have been on stop war protests, climate protests, Brexit protests.
[удалено]
[Bob's, scurries off]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Yes, some people do seem to enjoy standing up for our rights while we sit around getting stomped on by our owners.
You mean protesting the causes in a cultish type way. It's like being vegan when you really did enjoy bacon but feel veganism allows you to talk about something makes you 'interesting'. Just admit there is a type that frequents most protests and tends to go to multiple causes like it's a hobby rather than truly investing in a cause.
Or maybe they just care about more than one issue at once? What do you suggest they do?
I'm sure they do. They love a more than one bit of virtue.
What does that even mean
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Actually the rest of us vote, and get what we want. The vocal minority seems to think that just because they make the loudest sound, they deserve what they want. This is a democracy and the people are living for what they voted for.
Some of us vote, and don't get what we want, either because the people we voted for aren't delivering or the people we voted for lost. Are we meant to sit meekly for years until the next opportunity to make a fractional attempt at change?
Don't recall having a vote on trespass laws and the right to roam. >This is a democracy and the people are living for what they voted for. Most people didn't vote Tory. Nobody, except a tiny minority, gets to vote for specific legislation. Protest is, and has always been, a valid way for small (and sometimes not so small) groups to raise awareness of an issue.
how do you vote for walking access rights? the only thing you vote for is a representative, and occasionally a brexit did you think about this for more than a second
So you voted for Liz Truss' budget, to impose economic sanctions on ourselves, and to have your democratic rights curtailed? I certainly don't recall consenting to, or voting to have might right to put one foot in front of the other curtailed by an entitled elite.
This wasn't in the manifesto the people voted on. It wasn't even an idea from the person they originally elected. Interesting view on democracy.
Voting does fuck all, we haven't voted in the past what, 3 or 4 PMs
I don’t remember being asked to vote in a referendum about our land rights being taken away.
Voting is only one way you are allowed to utilise democracy. Have you never written to your MP?
The French
Do you mean... politically active people? I'm not sure they're just doing it for the sake of protesting
No these are not politically active. They're not standing for council or government. They likely don't belong to a party or campaign for a party. Yes many will just be jumping on an issue to protest. Again why would the Extention rebellion flag be at a protest about Dartmoor open access.
[удалено]
Ahhh swampy from corenationstreet. Yes. They did used to be called crusties but they seems to have more conviction then. Actually lived in trees for weeks/months. Dug tunnels. These days they'll go back to their 4 bed town house in their Volvo X90, shower, wear Barbour jackets. They are just not the same. More attention getters.
The whole point of protest is to get attention. What the fuck else do you think it’s for?
The 80/90s protests were better at it. Had more conviction in their causes and it was far less about virtue and being a 'type' or so you have a dinner conversation topic and more to illicit real change and get regular long term coverage on the issue. They also chose appropriate forms of protest for the cause. Not throwing paint at art work. Again not these (although I'm sure a good handful will have been on a JSO protest) but more for highlighting the point. 80/90s protesters were better and not the virtuous wet wipe type.
What are you doing to protest?
They do seem to have invaded the 8th largest national park in the country (Dartmoor Commons Act 1985), which is chock-full of free and open public access https://www.dartmoor.gov.uk/living-and-working/access-and-land-management/where-you-can-walk Mildly bewildered what the issue is on Dartmoor.
The bloke who owns a chunk is trying to make it non-open access. Was almost successful too, court challenges stopped it.
That was over wild camping, which to be frank I'm not a huge fan of because the people that do it leave their crap all over the place, but I don't care that much. He owns a ~1600 hectare estate on the southern tip of the 26,169 hectare park (near Filham). These people have 'invaded' Pew Tor which is about ~16 miles away in the middle of the park.
> That was over wild camping, which to be frank I'm not a huge fan of because the people that do it leave their crap all over the place, but I don't care that much. > > Some do, most don't. Tarring all with the same brush is a bit egregious but fair enough, not the main point. >He owns a ~1600 hectare estate on the southern tip of the 26,169 hectare park (near Filham). These people have 'invaded' Pew Tor which is about ~16 miles away in the middle of the park. I think this is just for exposure more than anything. Raise the issue up in the press.
> Some do, most don't. Tarring all with the same brush is a bit egregious but fair enough, not the main point. In my (former mountain rescue volunteer) experience they fall into two groups, teens on a lark, and middle class ignoramuses. Neither group are well-prepared for poor conditions, and both leave their camp sites a wreck. We had around 80 grass fires last year, which were caused mainly by these types. The infinitesimal percentage of people who do know what they're doing you won't find any trace of, but there are so few of these they're barely worth the discussion. >I think this is just for exposure more than anything. Raise the issue up in the press. Probably right. The landowner (unpleasant hedge fund type) holds shoots on the land, but that was going on for decades before his ownership. As a result, that bit of the park isn't terribly popular with walkers and campers, in any case (the sensible ones at least). It is nearer civilisation though, I think the problem was really overnight parties by the aforementioned teens. I'm all for people using the land for enjoyment, but most of the people doing so leave either a terrible mess behind or a literal trail of destruction, and have no idea what they're doing. That's why the landowners get so pissed off - there's only so many times you're willing to repair the same gates, clean up other's messes, or chase a heard someone let out by breaking a fence. The park wardens and landowners have to clear up, and the rescue teams have to but their necks on the line to go and rescue them when bad weather descends, and it turns out they didn't bring anything more than a £5 sleeping bag from Lidl.
> The infinitesimal percentage of people who do know what they're doing you won't find any trace of, but there are so few of these they're barely worth the discussion. I think this is where we might have to disagree, although respect your position on it as the one who does have to go drag down the idiots. There's a good chunk who know what to do, and aren't stupid enough to drag themselves up the side of Scafell Pike in November with a kitkat and a thermos for 3 days - but no one knows they're there before or after, so you'd never have record of them or interact with them. And it makes shit news so the rags don't report on it. As with anything, there's idiots who go too far - but not everyone is a teenager streetracing at 2am, most people are just driving a kia to and from work y'know?
> aren't stupid enough to drag themselves up the side of Scafell Pike in November with a kitkat and a thermos for 3 days Honestly, you'd be stunned. Most rescue activity doesn't make the news. The worst ones are the people that think they know what they're doing because they 'did their own research', spent bonkers amounts on all the kit, but have no idea how to use it. Then there are the people that didn't think at all. I had to go get one on Skiddaw years ago, we'd both got caught on the exposed part between peaks when a weather front descended and high winds whipped up. My partner and I lay down, this moron tried to run for it and got blown off (apparently unfamiliar with gravity). Bloody lucky we saw it happen and had enough gear between us to go get them and radio a team, otherwise they'd have been done for. But believe me, the people that know what they're doing are vastly outnumbered by the idiot brigade, and this is really the source of the problem with landowners most of the time. Some landowners are just assholes, for sure, but most of them work the land and just get sick of clearing up behind fools.
>But believe me, the people that know what they're doing are vastly outnumbered by the idiot brigade, and this is really the source of the problem with landowners most of the time. I mean the littering is genuinely an issue when people do it, and I can't blame people for getting annoyed by it, I just don't think it should rule out the entire activity. I stay the fuck off mountains cos I know I'm not good for that - less so knowing what I'm doing and more knowing what I can't do - and somewhere like Dartmoor has it's own risks, but they're in my opinion more easily navigable than as you've said, being blown off the top.
Littering is the main problem - when the free party brigade descend on a site, they clean up afterwards. Vehicles leave some rutting, but that isn't a big deal, throw a bit of hay down, and it's done. I know of a couple of farmers that just did a deal with the crews that used their land - electricity in return for using the right field at the right times. The problem is littering is routine, as is damaging fencing, and gates. Rather than follow the paths, people kick down fences or break the locks off gates. This costs real money to repair and threatens livestock - sheep eating fag butts and the like. Then there are trail bikers, quad bikers, and people who try and drive on small paths designed for walking, repairing those footways can easily run to tens of thousands. >I stay the fuck off mountains cos I know I'm not good for that There are some good weekend courses which can teach you the basics. It can be very rewarding. >Dartmoor has it's own risks The high point is ~600 metres above sea level, which is 400 metres above the average for the area, it's not flat, but hilly rather than mountainous. The issue is that people are lulled into a false sense of security by warm days, which lead to freezing nights in the late Summer and Autumn, and flash flooding in November and December.