Threat to dartmoor right to roam again

The landowner is challenging the legal right to access on dartmoor again,  for everything except walking and horse riding.   Don’t stop for a sarnie, it’s tresspass

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/08/picnicking-on-dartmoor-is-trespassing-landowners-lawyers-tell-court

I’m local to this and it is so disappointing. Ultimately this just comes down to money. Darwall will allow the same acces we have enjoyed, but just expect some ‘compensation’ from the state for it. Adding to its land value when he sells it on, and diminishing our rights

There is literally zero chance of any landowner, hedgefund manager or judge stopping me or asking me to pay when going for a walk and eating a sarnie on Dartmoor. Zero.

It won’t be a landowner, it’ll be a deliberately intimidating game keeper / land manager / farm hand. Have you seen the meatheads they deploy on hunt days?

The landowner will enforce via ‘game keepers’ or they will charge the national park authority ‘costs’ to permit the gen pop access which will be exorbitant to the NPA and will rise in time

Obviously the outcome is for the courts but if nothing else, this case has highlighted to all and sundry what  utterly ridiculous and backward thinking access laws exist in England.

“Right to Roam” is a poor phrase, and doesn’t exist anywhere.

“A right to responsible access” does exist.

In my view the English campaigns around Right to Roam will founder because of this inappropriate phrasing.

Matt +1

Language is important on this

Ok, right to responsible access for outdoor recreation is under threat on Dartmoor again.

Darwall seems to be a very greedy man.  Didn’t he have ‘gamekeepers’ out enforcing the camping ban first time he got it through?  I think he did.

I would just ignore them. They won’t have any authority or power to actually do anything. As it will be a civil matter the police can’t get involved

There is literally zero chance of any landowner, hedgefund manager or judge stopping me or asking me to pay when going for a walk and eating a sarnie on Dartmoor. Zero.

Don’t forget to leave your ‘deposit’ 😉

I guess last time we had a Labour govt we got the CROW act which was a step forward at least and was more access with responsibilities. It is time our outdated access legislation was sorted. This stuff just shouldn’t be allowed to happen. You want to buy a mountain or moor, crack on but it should be there for the benefit of the rest of us. Buying up land and expecting to exclude the general public seems wrong on so many levels. I bet he’s getting a fair pull in payments from govt for stewardship, ag or forestry already. The physical and mental health benefits from getting out into the countryside are very clear, we should be making it easier for people and expecting it from landowners if they’re getting govt money or own land that should be open to everyone.

I live nowhere near the area but this still makes me fuming! The mere fact these cases are even contemplated by rich landowners shows it’s *their* entitlements and rights that need to be curtailed, not the general populous!

kormoran
Free Member
Obviously the outcome is for the courts but if nothing else, this case has highlighted to all and sundry what utterly ridiculous and backward thinking access laws exist in England.

Exactly.

Alexander Darwall, a multimillionaire hedge fund manager, who has been pursuing the matter through the courts as he does not want people on his land without his permission.

I’ve made a small correction which I think shows more clearly the thinking behind what’s happening here. I don’t know how to do underscoring on here anymore, the appropriate button seems to have gone the same place as emojis.

Should I happen to find myself on ‘his’ patch of Dartmoor, I’d sit wherever I want, in order to enjoy the view, have a snack, rest my arthritic knees, and should I be approached by some obnoxious, self-important asshole demanding that I move, I’d tell them no, I’ll move when I’m good and ready, and if they don’t like it, then call the police. Any other action on their part I will consider to be common assault.

+1 on Matt