UKC

Picnicking on Dartmoor is trespassing, landowner’s lawyers tell court

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/08/picnicking-on-dartmoor-...

I thought this was done, but now the landowner is taking it to the Supreme Court. Claim seems to be that anyone not actually walking or horse riding on "their" land is trespassing - including if you stop to have a sandwich.

Imo it requires some special kind of hubris to imagine you can exclusively own thousands of acres of the earth's surface. Seems this guy is up for the challenge.

“access to the commons on foot and on horseback for the purpose of open-air recreation” is the right. Surely having a picnic is open-air recreation, and the access on foot (or on horseback) is for that purpose?

Bet his KC is loving this litigous and pedantic client.

Unfortunately, one man's picnic is another man's disposable barbecue.

Sure. But I suspect the minority of people who behave irresponsibly will continue to do so regardless of whether it is legal or not. Education and cultural change is the solution for them.

Should we ban driving just because a minority drive irresponsibly?

That's a typo surely? Did you mean; the majority drive irresponsibly?

The issue is the ambiguity in the 1985 commoners act.

Dartmoor Commons Act, which states a right to “access to the commons on foot and on horseback for the purpose of open-air recreation”.

Is the 'open-air recreation' being the access to that area on foot or horse or you allowed to access the area on foot or horse to engage in your further act of 'open-air recreation'.

I don't think they are actually trying to stop access. This is about money. Darwell wants to be compensated for allowing access. You don't get that rich by giving things away, everything has a value that must be extracted.

Darwell's lawyer 'Morshead also argued that when drafting the law, legislators could not have intended to give a general right to all kinds of recreation such as camping, because if they had, they would have written a mechanism to compensate landowners for removing their rights over their property. He argued that parliament was not supposed to expropriate rights from landowners without compensation, and this legislation did not offer it.

“If what is potentially unleashed is a general right of recreation, the question of compensation becomes much more acute because you then have unforeseeable implications for land stewardship,” he told the court. “The closer the order gets to the general right of recreation, the larger the question of compensation.”

I somehow feel tarnished living next door to such an illiberal democracy.

Be nice to think that this kind of fight over crumbs of Access would lead to the Govt simply dragging the English Access legislation kicking and screaming out of the 19th Century.

Won't hold my breath mind you.

I'm not sure the use of that legal argument actually means he wants to charge for access rather than block it altogether. His lawyers will be making whatever they think the best case is. If that includes arguing that general recreation access can't have been intended because it would unfairly deprive landowners of revenue that was rightly theirs, it doesn't imply anything about how Darwell actually intends to handle access if he wins.

From the article:

"[Darwall] offers pheasant shoots, deerstalking and holiday rentals on his land."

So I suspect he mainly wants to block access for the wrong sort of people.

The cab-rank rule is ia one reason why I could never have been a barrister. Why wants to end-up representing such people?

The others are that I'm not clever or devious enough.

And by the same token, should we ban disposable barbecues because a minority use them irresponsibly?

Here's a radical thought, how about we have reasonable and free access to open land, and just sort out catching the f@chwits who can't behave themselves?

Good that the BBC (who I generally support) covered the protest at the weekend. Bad that once again they opened the piece with a picture of a family tent sat next to a big hole.

Money talks, and I fear that despite logic and justice,  we are about to hear the voice of money plus land and power very loudly at the end of this.

Here's a radical thought, how about we have reasonable and free access to open land, and just sort out catching the f@chwits who can't behave themselves?

Good that the BBC (who I generally support) covered the protest at the weekend. Bad that once again they opened the piece with a picture of a family tent sat next to a big hole.

Money talks, and I fear that despite logic and justice,  we are about to hear the voice of money plus land and power very loudly at the end of this.

A few times I’ve seen a few people having a picnic under one of my hazel trees off the PROW that bisects the orchard.  Never left any rubbish.

Far better than people who let their dogs crap on the PROW and leave it raw or bagged.  As the years go by I find myself less and less well disposed to them.  

Important case given the precident it will set. 

Logical next step from this would be automatically to return it to sender ballistically 

https://hackaday.com/2024/09/28/dog-poop-drone-cleans-up-the-yard-so-you-do...

I wouldn't describe any use of a disposable barbecue as responsible. It's high time we banned any single use items that can reasonably be replaced by a reusable one.

In England we need to totally alter our relationship with land ownership and access. I know that some land owners in Scotland are less than perfect, but when I cycled to Scotland from England I noticed a different attitude. A case in point was we went for a stroll across a golf course, the golfers were unfailingly courteous and waved us through, compare this with my local golf course, some golfers are OK, but when I walk a PROW there, I have had golfers being abusive and threatening a real get orf my land attitude.

I would also suggest that we reintroduce public information films on the telly, like when I was a lad, about littering and just how to behave in the countryside.

This Landowner is a git, and should have the land confiscated.

Agreed but I don't think their single use nature is the reason that many retailers have decided to stop selling them: it's more to do with the bad press they have earned from being misused by irresponsible people in the outdoors .

A big thumbs up for public information announcements. The recent(ish) changes to the highway code come to mind too. A lot of information is on gov.uk but feels like it's hidden in plain sight. If you don't know about it, you're not going to search for it.

Cab rank only works for criminal cases, surely? In civil cases, you engage your own lawyers. Your choice, and theirs.

A quick search suggests it applies to both civil and criminal cases - a barrister must accept an instruction that they are qualified to argue. Always your choice, but seemingly not theirs.

Picnicking   is fine on public rights of way where it is judged a 'reasonable incidental' activity to the right to use the way. i'd be disappointed if something similar did not apply to the common 

A quote from the link;

Hearing the case, the supreme court judge Lord Stephens asked if this interpretation of the act means you are only allowed to be on foot and on horseback the entire time. Morshead replied: “I am suggesting exactly that,” adding: “Once you’ve started your picnic, you are no longer relying on your right, you are relying on a more informal practice.”

Which would presumably also mean that if a walker were to stop and sit down for a rest, a a horse rider was to be unseated, then in both cases they would, according to this mealy-mouthed lawyer, be trespassing.

This underlines my belief that Lawyers are the biggest bunch of money-grubbing two-faced liars in the country. The only one I've ever known - and did climb with (once only !) - could be relied upon to be completely untrustworthy and always looking to provoke an argument, just for fun.

It's about time the legal "profession" was regulated by an external body.

I think thats an unhelpful generalisation. Plenty of lawyers are honest and conscientious people trying to do a good job.

I also think it's dangerous to associate lawyers with the cases they take on. The KC arguing this case for Mr Darwall is doing a job and doesn't get to choose.

And if it becomes commonplace for lawyers to have to judge their clients motives and morality then you get into a difficult place with regard to access to justice for everyone.

They are. Bar Council, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Chartered Institute of Legal Executives, etc.

So if Darwall wins this case, I assume that means any activity that isn't walking or riding become defacto 'trespass', including climbing anywhere on Dartmoor, and therefore would be at the gift of individual landowners across the moor to say yes or no to other forms of recreation?

How we've ended up in a situation, where the right of thousands of people to enjoy simple pleasures is at the mercy of one rich landowner and his lawyers, says a lot about the state of our society and legal system.

A Country Life article penned by Mr Darwall popped up in my news feed a little while ago. He is claiming his motive is for nature conservation, rather than access denial. Needed a lie down after reading that!

The lawyers doesn't get to choose, but they are still obliged to make arguments that they believe to be true aren't they?

I mean, I understand how everyone, however reprehensible, needs to have access to representation in court.  (Especially in criminal cases.)  But that's no excuse for their lawyers to make a reprehensible argument.

Groping about for an example here and taking it to a bit of an extreme: a criminal lawyer defending someone accused of a racist hate crime - it's no reflection on the character of the lawyer if they find arguments in mitigation for their client, factors beyond their control that lead to them developing a hateful world view that might mean it's not entirely their fault they ended up where they ended up.  That's just the lawyer conscienciously doing their job.  But only a lawyer who is racist themselves would go out and argue that actually it's ok to be racist.

Sorry, I know that's a bit silly but I hope that doesn't undermine the point I'm trying to make.

Also a lawyer who knows their client is lying can't just go into court and try to make their client's lie stand up.  (I realise it's different in America, but that's why so many of Donald Trumps lawyers have had to get lawyers of their own isn't it?)

Hm.  Then again perhaps I am just trying to rationalise feeling the same visceral dislike for Mr Darwall's lawers that I feel for Mr Darwall himself, in spite of the 'taxi rank' principle.

They do seem to have a remarkably large cohort that don't give a damn about anything except win their argument at all costs - no matter how twisted their "arguments" or questionable their "facts" are. For that matter this particular lawyer has stated;

“In addition, campers often leave litter and human excrement, which land managers are forced to clear up after them.”

I'd question both the use and accuracy of the term "often" to start with, let alone the idea that any Land Managers have ever cleared such up. Then again how often have any of us ever gone into the countryside planning for a picnic and a sh1t ??

In criminal they don't get to choose, in civil they do. They certainly "get to choose" their "arguments, and when they veer into the sort of lies that are being put about by the likes of Trump's Lawyers then I think it's about time they had the case thrown out, costs - normal and punitive - awarded against them, and have their licences suspended pending a disbarment hearing.

Some Lawyers do seem to have a penchant for the less savoury clients.

The Bar Council is the representative body for barristers in England and Wales, or if you like, their Trade Union - hardly a separate body. The other organisations are no different in this respect.

We are up against a simple but devastating logical problem.  Dirty campers are obvious and seen, long after they have crawled back to whence they came.  Leave no trace, and unless seen at the time, you were "not there". So the impression that all or most campers are a filthy menace is very convincing.

Worth bearing in mind CRoW Act explicitly allows climbing (well done BMC) and covers much of Dartmoor.

https://services.thebmc.co.uk/right-to-roam-crow-act-20th-birthday

http://www.openaccess.naturalengland.org.uk/wps/portal/oasys/maps/

They don't get to choose in either.

I've double-checked, and you are correct.

However they can refuse if the case they've been asked to put forward is unethical.

I've always regarded putting forward blatant lies in court (or anywhere for that matter) to be unethical. It seems that Lawyers ethics are different to those of the ordinary honest law-abiding members of society.

Very depressingly  it's to post this again

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Goose_and_the_Common

The law locks up the man or woman

Who steals the goose from off the common

But leaves the greater villain loose

Who steals the common from off the goose.

The law demands that we atone

When we take things we do not own

But leaves the lords and ladies fine

Who take things that are yours and mine.

The poor and wretched don’t escape

If they conspire the law to break;

This must be so but they endure

Those who conspire to make the law.

The law locks up the man or woman

Who steals the goose from off the common

And geese will still a common lack

Till they go and steal it back

I usually take food, intending to eat it.

I also take stuff to deal with the possibility that I need to have a sh1t (and clean it up afterwards by carrying it out).

My understanding is that they can't refuse for ethical reasons.

As I understand it, barristers can refuse an instruction if they have concerns regarding professional ethics, but not personal ethics.

According to Wikipedia:

The cab rank rule is set out at rC29 of the Bar Standards Board Handbook. It states that if the barrister receives instructions from a professional client and the instructions are appropriate taking into account their experience, seniority and/or field of practice, they must (subject to the exceptions in rC30) accept those instructions irrespective of:

    - The identity of the client;
    - The nature of the case to which the instructions relate;
    - Whether the client is paying privately or is publicly funded; and
   -  Any belief or opinion which you may have formed as to the character, reputation, cause, conduct, guilt or innocence of the client.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cab-rank_rule

I think the discussion of lawyers and barristers (including by me) has got us off topic tbh.

So I'm wondering what an average person feels about this topic, if anything?

Why has reform of land access and ownership been so limited in the UK, except for Scotland?

One factor may be that Scotland has never had an English-style law of trespass so was already a bit further on. All access in England has been a struggle since the Enclosures.

Probably somewhere between total indifference and siding with the landowner because they wouldn't want someone having the right to camp in their back garden.

Relatively few people properly understand the issues behind wild camping and hillwalking.

I also saw this, looks like its been republished in wake of recent hearing:

https://www.countrylife.co.uk/comment-opinion/comment-dartmoor-camping-case...

He's arguing that public access to Dartmoor has negative impacts on bird life etc. with walkers, campers, dogs etc disturbing ground nesting birds, and that sort of thing.

Which is true, but he seems to have conveniently forgot to mention several things. 

First, there are a lot of cattle, sheep and horses roaming Dartmoor without much restriction, all of which are no doubt impacting birds, vegetation and wildlife far more than any people. I don't see him arguing for any restriction on them?

Secondly, his own estate provides pheasant shooting, and he appears to be releasing birds right next to a SSSI (Dendles Wood, a lovely spot) in contravention of best practice, and potentially his legal obligations. Of course, given its administered by a severely underfunded government agency, there is f*** all chance he'll ever get pulled up on that.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/21/dartmoor-landowner-who-...

https://wildjustice.org.uk/gamebird-releases/dendles-wood-a-sorry-tale/

He really is a piece of work.

I plan on sitting down and eating food for lunch basically every time I go walking.

Digging a pit for more personal use, certainly it's going to happen on every wild camp, if you've got to go you've got to go and for most people that's daily at least.  Though I'm not opposed to a shift in the UK ethics away from "dig a hole" and towards "pack it out" as is required by law in most US national parks if there are solid (ha!) reasons to do so.

In this instance I would probably say yes.

My daughter is a lawyer, so get knotted!

Fortunately it is not a common occurence but I can assure you that land managers do sometimes have to clear up after random sh1tters.

In my case the last time was back in July and I am still trying to work out how anyone can manage to sh1t on both their socks and their gloves or why they were even wearing gloves in July!

Maybe they put their foot in it and needed a hand to clear it up?

I assumed that the used the copious quantities of TP and wet wipes that littered the scene for the clear up

They even had to abandon half a packet of wipes that somehow got an ample coating of excrement.

It was almost hard to be angry about such an awe inspiring effort.

They always say that.

In that case my default opinion of your daughter is something I wouldn't describe accurately on this forum, as it might offend those of a tender disposition.

Does the smiley face mean that you're not really a bigot?

Are you suggesting that a profession that requires its practitioners to support people that they know to be lying does not need regulation?

It surely cannot be any surprise that many people who were brought up to be truthful have a mistrust of lawyers?

It is no fun when you are confronted by someone who demands respect whilst touting lies about you.

Is it bigoted to lack trust in the legal profession or just an unfortunate consequence of the way that the profession has to operate?

Probably no more bigoted than promoting the notion that "all coppers are bastards"  . Some people will find that statement bigoted while others will endorse it wholeheartedly, depending on experience.

If we accept the argument made earlier in the thread that even the guilty are entitled to legal representation then it seems unlikely that there can be many lawyers that have not had to lie in the course of their work.

It  seems essential to accept that there is a strong possibility that a lawyer will lie

I'm certainly not a bigot, however I am a human being, and as such my views on specific groups of people have been formed based on the actions (or inactions) observed on previous contact with said groups.

An example;

BMW or Audi drivers - like most of us I have seen so many incidents of bad/arrogant/selfish driving with these marques that I assume every such vehicle is driven by an idiot/nutter. Now I also personally know a small number of people who own such vehicles and who drive very considerately. However by assuming the worst when I see an Audi or BMW in my mirrors or in front, I drive assuming some form of idiocy/lunacy on their behalf will follow, and far too often my worst fears are realised.

Occupations - most of us will agree that there are occupations which attract certain types of people. There are two types that cause us worry; the uniformed and the bureaucrats.

The first group - Security, Traffic Wardens, Police - attract a much greater ratio of right wing "dictator" types, and a much lower ratio of "lefty liberals".

The second - Politicians, Estate Agents, Lawyers, H&S Officials (to name but a few) - seem to have a high ratio of con artists, liars, charlatans and so forth.

Now being a member of such groups does not by any means prove that a person is the devil incarnate, but we all - whether we like or would publicly admit it - regard any member of such group as "one and the same" unless proved otherwise.

Or, if you like "qui cum canibus concumbunt cum pulicibus surgent." (He that lieth down with dogs shall rise up with fleas).

Not a very good one on this occasion.  Dude, you weren't just generalising about a 'group of people' (ie: expressing your prejudice), you were talking to an individual poster on here about his daughter.

You're not really in a position to speak for me so you can count me out of your "we all", whether we're talking about bent solicitors, fascist coppers or obnoxious  German car drivers.

Maybe that individual would have been well advised to keep his daughter out of a discussion about something that some people find hard to reconcile?

I'm not the person who brought his daughter into this, it was his own act. I simply said that I assume the worst of lawyers by deault - unless of course they prove me wrong.

As for how wonderful lawyers are as a group, how about this pair - Kemi Badenoch & Robert Jenrick.

(There's always Margaret Thatcher for another one - just how many money-grubbing self-enriching scumbags who are/were lawyers do you want me to list ?)

I'm not the person who brought his daughter into this, it was his own act. I simply said that I assume the worst of lawyers by default (in much the same way that I assume a BMW/Audi driver to refrain from indicating or using their mirrors) - unless of course they prove me wrong. That way I neither get conned (by the lawyer) or driven into (by the BMW/Audi).

I also pointed out that I know many people from these groups for which the stereotype does not apply.

As for how wonderful lawyers are as a group, how far would you trust this pair - Kemi Badenoch & Robert Jenrick.

(There's always Margaret Thatcher for another one - just how many money-grubbing self-enriching scumbags who are/were lawyers do you want me to list ?)

Now you're either being racist or using poor grammar.

GERMAN car drivers are drivers who are German. People who drive German cars come from all nationalities, creeds, and sexual preferences.

Am I also meant to assume that you believe there are no differences between the way that the average BMW/Audi is driven compared to every other marque nowadays. If so then you are certainly in the minority judging by all previous threads on this forum which have mentioned the subject.

Aye, maybe, but that's no excuse. 

Generalising about a group of people is arguably prejudice, using that generalisation to cast aspertions on the character of a single unknown individual is always a dick move.  Addressing such a comment to a father on the subject of his daughter doubly so.

Germans  are not a race, they are a nationality. So if I was guilty of anything it would be xenophobia, not racism. But you knew that, of course, : it's just that implying that someone might be a racist is an easy way of stifling any debate .

You also knew full well what I meant by German car drivers and hinting that I was referring to the drivers' nationality is just completely disingenuous on your part.. If I had referred to white van drivers would you have assumed I was talking about caucasians?

Speaking as one of Fred99's 'money grubbing two faced liars'

I think you and others have misunderstood the role of the defence lawyer.

First duty is towards the court. Lying to a court is a quick way to be found in contempt and a fast way to get struck off 

Second duty is to the client, to present their defence if they have one, in the most efficient and effective way, otherwise to present mitigation as cogently as possible.

If a client says that they didn't do something and gives you a version of events, however far fetched, that exculpates them, you present that. Judgement is for a jury or judge not the defence. Some of the most unlikely stories sometimes turn out to be true.

If a client says that they did it but wish to go to trial you may test the evidence against them but you may not make up stories. You would be lying to the court if you did 

Conversely if a client says that they want to plead guilty because they want to get it over with but they didn't do it then you cannot enter that plea. You would be lying to the court.

Presenting a defence is not the same as personally believing that defence. Many trials run despite defence lawyers giving clear and robust advice. The choice of whether to proceed or not is entirely for the person in the dock.

I understand it, but it is not something that I could do.

It gets somewhat tricier in the instance of solicitors writing threatening letters that anyone with half an ounce of knowledge and experience must know to be a pack of lies. Surely they must have the option to tell a client that they are not going to misuse their qualifications to bully others?

No.  We should ban disposable barbeques because they're generally wasteful of resources and bad for the environment

Civil law, not my field, and, as I am posting under my own name am heavily regulated (despite views to the contrary) and am easily identified I couldn't possibly comment...

Eloquently put, and the jury finds you not guilty.

I'm sure you could make a long list of things which are wasteful of resources and bad for the environment.  But that's not the main problem with disposable bbqs (unless you count misuse as a reason they are bad for the environment)

Keir Starmer?

Oops, silly me, I thought this thread was about Dartmoor access 🥴

Subtitle in bold says it's about picnicking..... 

One interesting and sad thing I've noticed more than once in the last few years in the Highlands is folk who have moved up from England and bought a big house and a bit of land for horses have deliberately tried to stop and discourage me cycling along established rights of ways (I'd have access anyway with the law here)... so they clearly believe they can shut off access to their mini castle/estate! Very sad, as I've not had any issues with traditional landowners/estates here since moving up from South of the wall 8/9 years ago! I suspect that in one of these cases they didn't realise that the dirt road going directly past their mansion wasn't private as they probably had no comprehension of the law... must ask next time she tells me I am infringing her private land/garden (road). 

Sadly, this is one area where the Access Code is a little bit ambiguous. Established paths, such as those which pass by private homes, don't necessarily have the same protections as Rights of Way in England, and it then becomes a question of interpretation as to what constitutes the curtilage of a property, which has no strict definition. I do recall reading an account here of one landowner trying to claim that the curtilage to their house extended over half a mile from the house, which is surely stretching things a little. 

I suspect you're right about English home owners having an imperfect understanding of access in Scotland. It is such a different state of affairs to that south of the border. I would caution against laying all the blame at the feet of English home owners - there are plenty of Scottish owners who would be very happy to keep the peasants off their land. 

Can I ask a serious and  interesting question.

Is this Dartmoor case also a matter of civil law?

To be blunt its not just Scottish access laws that English homeowners don't understand.

In our neck of the woods we are starting to see a trend towards problems with footpaths due to new owners of smallholdings and pony paddocks.

yes 

Thank you.

Another question which you are free to decline to answer if it may cause problems for you.

Given that it is a civil case is a lawyer obliged to take it or do they have the option to refuse the work?

Though I am very militant on land access, I think it right and proper that people can have their day in court, and to imply a lawyer is in anyway out of order for representing them, is IMHO wrong. Land access is a political issue, personally I would take all the land off large land owners, with no compensation, starting with all aristocrats and richard drax.

What constitutes a large holding I am not clear on.

Maybe I was rather naive in hoping for factual answer rather than just another opinion

You could refuse in Scotland, I don't know what the rules are in England and Wales.

Thank you.

The right for lawyers to refuse civil cases that are obviously malicious or just so optimistic that they are a waste of everyone's time and money would appear to me to be a useful way of focusing court time on genuinely useful cases.

As a landowner the focus on picnicking in this case seems so absurd that I am amazed that it has even made it to court.  Maybe money talks louder than simple common sense

Note, as I understand it, the statement about picnicking was in response to a question by one of the judges.

Also worthy of note, the BMC has been very involved with the campaign. I was chair of the BMC SW area when the landowner won the first case, local members were up in arms, attended protests etc. and the support from the office was excellent. Eben attend the recent protests at Hound Tor and outside the supreme court. ( More information on the BMC's Instagram page.)

Edit, good to be back on topic.

Completely agree, good to be back on then topic. It's been a bit like blaming a taxi driver for the carbon footprint of someone with the money paying for a  drive onna whim to Australia. 

The issue is around money and power, and the ability of the wealthy to seek to justify their selfish and immoral behaviour through technical legal argument. 

Seriously big money pays for seriously clever legal representation, which often wins the day. Read the Vixen Tor cases if you want to see that in action. 

Surely our legal system and the way that it favours those wiith money is very much on topic?

But the discussion was much more about blaming the lawyers for taking the cases on. That is very different to the unfair access to "justice" (or the opposite) open to the super rich.

How do you suggest the system is changed to remove the imbalance?

Ah, common sense, the way you and your friends see an issue, but perhaps other people see it a different way, have a different common sense.

TBH, I can see the landowners perspective, even though I think it anti social.

Nice to see some unity on this important matter.

Thanks the reply. Yes the instances I have encountered could have come from anyone, I just knew in these particular circumstances they had recently moved to Scotland from England. I feel very lucky that we have the access rights that we do here in Scotland. 

You appear to have a very different definition of common sense to mine.  I perceive it as something that goes beyond "tribal attitudes" in order to consider the whole picture.

The Human Rights Acts protects everybody’s right to bring a civil case to court. 

My understanding is a lawyer / firm is in no way obliged to take on a civil case in England and Wales.

Money does talk.

Knowledge can do a lot to level the playing field.

We still don't seem to know whether a lawyer is obliged to take on a civil case or has the right to refuse it.

Sadly the whole point is that access to knowledge of this very technical nature is determined by wealth.  If the result was merely unequal knowledge distribution* that would be bad. However here we are talking about the knowledge being used to prevent people from continuing a right that seemed sure and fair and established,  so that's much worse than bad.

*wealth linked to knowledge distribution? Doesn't that sound spookily like Private Education. Odd that.

So do I, infact, that's kind of what I said. I am pretty sure that many people would think that it a bit strange to have a right over someone else's property, ie walking on CROW, then trying to push that, by stopping for a picnic, without even compensating the poor landowner, goes against all common sense.

However my commonsense says he is an evil money grabbing hedge fund b###@!×, and should have everything taken off him, and thrown in a small boat and pushed out to sea, but others see it differently, sadly.

Isn't it also partly about legal "arguments" put forward by lawyers that are at best questionable, and sometimes are so exaggerated that they are virtually downright lies.

I shouldn't have responded so viscerally. I wish I could remove my contributions. 

I believe that your understanding is incorrect as per other previous posts in this thread.

...and dwarfing that entirely is that the maintenance of an arcane, complex and fragmented legal framework on Land Access, which by the nature of access to legal representation heavily favours certain people is also in and of itself a choice. 

The legal framework around land access, as with other spheres, is not set on tablets of stone to be consulted down the millenia - it is entirely malleable to the will of Parliament.

The view from this individual across your northern border is astonishment that the anger at the attempted application of inequitable resource to a complex legal system in order to remove rights doesn't lead quickly to the conclusion that the legal framework should be clarified, simplified, standardised and made (much) more equitable - something that should be in the inboxes of local MPs.

Heckling from the peanut gallery above this particular skirmish about the umpiring of this fight won't achieve much - changing the rules of the game itself might.

Is that based on your own knowledge or your interpretation of other people's posts?

If anyone other than Jez has answered my question then I have missed it.

The emphasis of "picnicking" seems to be more the subeditors (if they still exist) habit of randomly choosing a quote from the text and turning it into the headline.

The landowner seems to be wanting to block camping but as an extension of that they need to block stopping off for a picnic.  That then provides a handy headline since it is rather nuts you need to walk all day without taking a break.

Excellent work by 'The Stars Are For Everyone' here.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/18/wild-camping-on-dartmoo...

Solicitors can choose whether or not to represent a client. Barristers are professionally obligated to accept any paying client they are capable of representing (the "cab rank" rule).

Money is power. People who can afford to buy vast areas of land therefore have (comparatively) vast power. Appealing a court decision often means ordinary people risking having to pay the massive legal fees that such a wealthy person can run-up -with a corresponding risk of total financial ruin.

Perhaps when a clear issue of public good is being decided-on, a non-adversarial approach (similar to a public enquiry?) would be a better approach?

Or just dont allow people to exclusively own vast areas of the planet's surface in the first place. It seems like a special case to me.

Most subeditors would be annoyed at the missing apostrophe there. (Says a semi-retired sub.)

Had the same thoughts, but bumped into the same issue that if it's not done really carefully you actually encourage the landed money laden lot to try it on even more.

How about any land issue raised by someone who owns more than a certain acreage has to pay double costs if they lose? Excess goes to a fighting fund to pay for public interest defence to greedy landed t@s claims in the future?

Said it before, while I bear the offspring of the lovely individual at the heart of this no ill will whatsoever,  I do hope they reflect on the legacy their parents have left them with (infamy maybe?) when they grow up?

What is need is a mass wild camp