Getting on with my life and thinking about things.
The 700th signature added to the ePetition to legalise wild camping in England & Wales was added this morning (Centralised site). That's 500 more than the government need to undertake their promised action. Sadly we've already head back from a few democratically elected officials, who respond in the negative without pausing to draw breath.
Anyway, here's what the text on the petition website says:
Once your petition has closed, usually provided there are 200 signatures or more, it will be passed to officials who work for the Prime Minister in Downing Street, or sent to the relevant Government department for a response. Every person who signs such a petition will receive an email detailing the Government's response to the issues raised. Source
Ain't democracy wonderful? Everyone looking for the angle, for the way to make money or save themselves doing any work instead of thinking - hmm, we could encourage people to get out onto the land that we own, enjoy the countryside, all for the passing of some emails to government landowning bodies. But life isn't as simple as that, as wanting people to have better health (mental and physical), waking up under 'canvas', enjoying a family multi-day trip. Everyone thinks of the loss of B&B trade, of more litter (apparently day-trippers don't litter. Ha!), of camping above an imaginary height line. Instead, just doing something for the benefit of those who wish to wild camp.
But, what the heck. There's more important things in life: love and respect to Mothers everywhere.
15 comments:
"..we could encourage people to get out onto the land that we own, enjoy the countryside, all for the passing of some emails to government landowning bodies."
Passing a few emails round is hardly legalising wild camping.
JH
Yes, Mr Hesp, but it is a start. Many people didn't know about Dartmoor, or about camping above 450m in the Lakes.
So what if it isn't legalising wild camping, it is a start. As Lord Smith of Finsbury implied (or did he state it?) on his podcast interview, these things take time.
Accept the 'status quo' if you want, but we can be approaching local authorities to set aside wild camping land. Attract people to an area to spend money - heck, Dumfries & Galloway council built a couple of bothies on the Southern Upland Way.
We have one of the most eco-friendly ways of seeing & enjoying the countryside, wouldn't it be nice to be able to enjoy it legally? Whether by SI, bylaw, amendment to CRoW, or landowners giving express permission, what does it matter, so long as the "leave no trace" ethos is followed and we behave responsibly to others.
Duncan, perhaps I've misunderstood your blog entry. I thought that given the number of people who've signed your were bemoaning the lack of positive response from the authorities. For instance you say:
"That's 500 more than the government need to undertake their promised action. Sadly we've already heard back from a few democratically elected officials, who respond in the negative without pausing to draw breath."
You then go on to suggest the sort of response you would like:
"all for the passing of some emails to government landowning bodies."
A few emails to government landowners isn't legalising wild camping. We've got (at least) two things going on in this debate now haven't we, a petition to legalise wild camping, and some discussion looking at alternative approaches. Personally I prefer the alternative aproaches rather than the petition. I think it's important to keep those two things seperate.
You can't put forward a petition, find the authorities aren't interested and then say "but I didn't mean that, I meant this...."
If you want to talk about the possibility of coming to an arrangement with landowners that wild camping is okay, then that's one thing. But that's not what the petition is about. Let's not confuse the issue.
As for status quo, I'm more of a Pink Floyd man.
John
Actually, I can support a petition put forward by Darren, and suggest alternatives. Isn't that part of the political process?
Access laws took years to come to fruition, from the Kinder Trespass to the CRoW, with stages in between. Lots of people working away in the background. Does anyone expect the Government to take direct action based on a website? Or do we live in the real world?
Separate the issues if you wish, but I fail to see how working towards legal wild camping is separate from a petition which embraces the rights and responsibilities up here in Scotland and seeks to have the same rights in England & Wales. Removing the wall, one brick at a time.
As to bemoaning anything - the ePetition website says they will raise the issue to the PM's officials or to the relevant department, and yet the current Secretary of State for the Environment, Hilary Benn, had already replied in the negative to John Manning. Sounds to me like the relevant department has already given an answer before the ePetition has closed. Am I not allowed to bemoan this? Not the negative reply, but the fact that they did not even care how many people had signed, nor to gather more evidence.
The UK is a democracy, we have reasonable freedom of speech, I'm just glad I can use it to try and obtain more freedoms to enjoy this green and pleasant land.
"Separate the issues if you wish, but I fail to see how working towards legal wild camping is separate from a petition..."
It isn't seperate. But your original comment gave the impression that a reasonable response to the petition would be some emails from the powers that be to government landowning bodies. That is seperate and isn't legalising wild camping. My original point.
I think it would be great if we could wild camp unhindered, but let's not get all negative about the authorities just because they haven't responded as we would wish to a petition.
You akso say "Everyone thinks of the loss of B&B trade, of more litter (apparently day-trippers don't litter. Ha!), of camping above an imaginary height line. Instead, just doing something for the benefit of those who wish to wild camp."
Why should the authorities do something "just do....something for the benefit of those who wish to wild camp"
Aren't othewr people's interests important?
Hi John & Duncan, mind if I chip i here? (you know, free speech, democracy and all that)...
John, you ask "Aren't other people's interests important?"
Well, yes. But in a democracy, they are no more and no less important. That's one of the main tenets of democracy, isn't it? Equal rights. For all. But no equality between Scotland and Lesser Britain, aparrently.
To be dismissed in a manner that smacks of total apathy, that seems wrong. It's like the ref blowing his whistle to end the FA Cup Final after the first goal is scored in the third minute, saying that, in his opinion, the current scoreline exactly reflects the end result, and that, as such, there's no point in playing the full 90 minutes. It's no wonder there's a backlash.
Yup. Allowing people to camp on government land isn't the same as granting equal rights to wild campers across Britain, but it is better than nothing.
The CRoW specifically banned camping on Access Land - who's interests were the government taking into account? Not anyone that wanted to go wild camping. But, obviously, the majority of people (as there is only 703 on the ePetition, hardly a dent on people on Trail/TGO/OM forums) are happy that what they do is illegal. Each to their own.
If people in England & Wales don't want to do things in a legal manner, then so be it. It won't affect me, as I won't be illegally wild camping down there. Just the way I was raised. Each to their own.
BG, please do join in. The trouble with these blogs is that they don't encourage debate in a way forums do, so please join in. I'm not quite sure what blogs are for, but I'm sure they're not for people to air their views unchallenged.
I think everybody in a democracy is equally important, but I'm not sure all their interests are equally important. Some things (national security) are more important han others (milk bottle top collections), and wild camping and B&B's fall somewhere in between. Duncan says "Everyone thinks of the loss of B&B trade, ... litter ....of camping above an imaginary height line" but it might just be that on this crowded islands these are more important issues. Let's not be dismissive.
Duncan, I think the CRoW situation is worth looking at because it does specifically mention camping.
"But, obviously, the majority of people are happy that what they do is illegal."
I don't know about "happy"; probably "indifferent" would be a better word. We're an unruly mob down here. I personally have found myself doing 44mph in a 40mph zone, over 70 on motorways, walking on the grass, and walking on the beach. As a kid we used to get the conkers from up the road - they weren't really ours, we just took them. And once when it was just getting dark I forgot to put my lights on and drove down the high street. Mind you, a policeman did jump out into the street and stop me.
And that's just the half of it.......
John
I would like to know if outside of areas that specifically mention it,is wild camping illegal? If you think it is, why do you think it is?
I'm still struggling with this basic question.
John
That depends on how "illegal" is defined. Opinions differ...
Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illegal): not according to or authorized by law : unlawful, illicit; also : not sanctioned by official rules (as of a game)
The Free Dictionary: (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/illegal): 1. Prohibited by law.
2. Prohibited by official rules:
Semantics, eh?
I'll take that as a "not illegal" then.
My next question is, if it's not clearly defined as illegal (except in certain places) will making it legal in some areas change that. For instance, if it was made legal in national parks would that imply that it was illegal outside of national parks.
Do we have laws which make things legal? Or would it be a case of removing the law that says it is illegal? We come back to the question of whether it is illegal anyway.
John
Maybe it could only be made legal in national parks (say) by having a law which made it illegal everywhere else.
John
Gayle did a nice piece on wild camping legalities here - civil laws being broken.
"I would like to know if outside of areas that specifically mention it,is wild camping illegal? If you think it is, why do you think it is?"
By having legal wild camping in Scotland, we still have areas where it is classed as trespass.
"My next question is, if it's not clearly defined as illegal (except in certain places) will making it legal in some areas change that. For instance, if it was made legal in national parks would that imply that it was illegal outside of national parks."
No. One law (bylaw, etc) has no effect upon another, unless specifically stated.
"Do we have laws which make things legal? Or would it be a case of removing the law that says it is illegal? We come back to the question of whether it is illegal anyway."
We have laws that remove or amend current prohibitions. In an ideal world, an asterisk beside the word "camping" in the CRoW with the words "excluding wild camping as defined in herein: yadda yadda, leave no trace, outhwith xxx of occupied buildings, not on tilled or worked land, etc etc etc"
"Maybe it could only be made legal in national parks (say) by having a law which made it illegal everywhere else."
Was your head getting warm by that stage, John? ;-)
Usual caveat - I'm no lawyer, but I did watch a lot of Petrocelli as a kid :)
In an ideal world, an asterisk beside the word "camping" in the CRoW with the words "excluding wild camping as defined in herein: yadda yadda, leave no trace, outhwith xxx of occupied buildings, not on tilled or worked land, etc etc etc"
That makes good sense for CRoW areas.
But as you say, my head is hurting.
Aktos for ever!!
John
John, I honestly don't know enough about the access granted by the CRoW to say that such access would make sense. I fear that some land may have been granted to allow birdwatchers and the like access, but they don't want through-hikers or multi-day hill-walkers. And that includes a lot of AktoFans! Are we being discriminated against? If you prick us, do we not bleed? And shortly after that do we not knee you in the nuts? Equal rights, soldiers pay... oops, wrong campaign.
Post a Comment