The Book of Trespass

[Tangled Metal]

The "product of labour" point is a bit of a red herring in the context of land access, IMO, as is the ownership. It's the use that's more relevant.

So explain what is so special about use that means the landowner should not have the right of ownership? What uses are legitimate and which are not?

You see this to me sounds of political ideology. Another thing to clobber the rich over perhaps. Unless someone can give a coherent argument as to why some property is ok but others isn't I'll just assume it's ideology of envy over a coherent viewpoint.

And R2 you can take note of that because our period if repeated agreement seems to have ended!

I'm talking about access. Whether access is reasonable (I'm saying nothing about the law) is more linked to what the land is used for than its ownership. All land is owned by someone (in the UK at least). If the land is an arable field, it's probably not reasonable to walk through the middle of it, even if that's where the footpath goes on the definitive map etc; walk round the edge instead. Similarly, avoid certain livestock. If it's a garden or, say, a factory, it's not reasonable to walk through it at all.

But if it's a grouse moor you're ok to walk through it disturbing the birds during hunting season when they're cropping or getting close to cropping? There's probably no way you can grow arable crops up there but you can grow above normal levels of grouse then make money from people who like to shoot it. It's rural employment as much as a few guys running a few tractors and a combine harvester.

Could you be applying a value judgment on the paying customers at three expense of the "farmers" being employed to farm the land with grouse?

Then there's the shooting estates that operate on arable or other use land. Partridge, pheasant are often bred on land being used for other farming product. Partridge AIUI is often shot on arable land after cropping. An extra income too. I had family who worked in a rural area and the local shoot was a lifesaver for their annual income. Plus they practically lived off pheasant during the shooting season. That's in Wiltshire over the hill from Stonehenge on land being farmed alongside the shooting.

It's really not as black and white as painted. Easy not to understand these things. I mean not many people are part of this activity.

[jgurney]

It comes down to a fundamental philosophical question. By what right does one individual have to exclude the rest of humanity from any particular part of the surface of the planet?

Because Parliament have accepted that individuals and bodies corporate can be the freeholders of land, and that such freeholders (and if applicable their tenants) can exclude others from their homes, gardens, fields, etc. Parliament has the right to decide that because the people elected its' members.

[Ellieb]

Basically: If you don’t have ownership of land then nobody would be able to do anything with it. Build a house? You are denying others access to the land. How could anyone farm a field if they (or someone) doesn’t own it? Otherwise what is to stop someone else digging it up. Clearly at some point nobody owned land and we were all hunter gatherers but once that situation stopped then land ownership became fundamental to human society.

[Bmblbzzz]

So explain what is so special about use that means the landowner should not have the right of ownership? What uses are legitimate and which are not?

You see this to me sounds of political ideology. Another thing to clobber the rich over perhaps. Unless someone can give a coherent argument as to why some property is ok but others isn't I'll just assume it's ideology of envy over a coherent viewpoint.

And R2 you can take note of that because our period if repeated agreement seems to have ended!

I'm talking about access. Whether access is reasonable (I'm saying nothing about the law) is more linked to what the land is used for than its ownership. All land is owned by someone (in the UK at least). If the land is an arable field, it's probably not reasonable to walk through the middle of it, even if that's where the footpath goes on the definitive map etc; walk round the edge instead. Similarly, avoid certain livestock. If it's a garden or, say, a factory, it's not reasonable to walk through it at all.

But if it's a grouse moor you're ok to walk through it disturbing the birds during hunting season when they're cropping or getting close to cropping? There's probably no way you can grow arable crops up there but you can grow above normal levels of grouse then make money from people who like to shoot it. It's rural employment as much as a few guys running a few tractors and a combine harvester.

Could you be applying a value judgment on the paying customers at three expense of the "farmers" being employed to farm the land with grouse?

Then there's the shooting estates that operate on arable or other use land. Partridge, pheasant are often bred on land being used for other farming product. Partridge AIUI is often shot on arable land after cropping. An extra income too. I had family who worked in a rural area and the local shoot was a lifesaver for their annual income. Plus they practically lived off pheasant during the shooting season. That's in Wiltshire over the hill from Stonehenge on land being farmed alongside the shooting.

It's really not as black and white as painted. Easy not to understand these things. I mean not many people are part of this activity.

Shooting birds is one specific use. As you say, pheasant shooting is usually mixed in with arable and copses, so that's multiple uses already. I don't know anything about grouse. You seem to be treating shooting as very important, could you explain why? Surely livestock, arable and probably forestry are far more common uses of agricultural - or generally non-urban - land?

[Bmblbzzz]

Basically: If you don’t have ownership of land then nobody would be able to do anything with it. Build a house? You are denying others access to the land. How could anyone farm a field if they (or someone) doesn’t own it? Otherwise what is to stop someone else digging it up. Clearly at some point nobody owned land and we were all hunter gatherers but once that situation stopped then land ownership became fundamental to human society.

There is ownership, which can exist with or without exclusive use. Then there is exclusive use, which can exist with or without ownership. And use can of course be exclusive in some uses and not in others.

A landowner owns some land. A farmer rents it. The farmer has exclusive use of that land for agriculture but he doesn't own it. And if there's a footpath running through that field, everyone has the right to walk through it. No ownership involved, and labour not necessary either (unless the lease terms oblige the tenant to farm it).

[Ellieb]

Who would decide who had exclusive use? Presumably the landowner

[Bmblbzzz]

And the tenant and the law, depending on what use.

[PDQ Mobile]

No it is not just like owning a bike. You can't simply claim that because we apply property rights to some things then we should apply property rights to everything.

Bikes are the product of labour - if someone makes something then the right to own it or sell it to someone else is legitimate. The land was here before we arrived and it will still be here after we have gone - we just inhabit it temporarily.

Quoted from page one.
Not right.

Agricultural land and grazing land is also the product of labour.
To some extent forests too.

Much land was made as it is today by a great deal of labour.
And maintaining it takes labour too.

Indeed your very ability to walk/range over it may be totally dependent on someone's labour.

4 foot high dense brambles are tough going.

[Tangled Metal]

I'm talking about access. Whether access is reasonable (I'm saying nothing about the law) is more linked to what the land is used for than its ownership. All land is owned by someone (in the UK at least). If the land is an arable field, it's probably not reasonable to walk through the middle of it, even if that's where the footpath goes on the definitive map etc; walk round the edge instead. Similarly, avoid certain livestock. If it's a garden or, say, a factory, it's not reasonable to walk through it at all.

But if it's a grouse moor you're ok to walk through it disturbing the birds during hunting season when they're cropping or getting close to cropping? There's probably no way you can grow arable crops up there but you can grow above normal levels of grouse then make money from people who like to shoot it. It's rural employment as much as a few guys running a few tractors and a combine harvester.

Could you be applying a value judgment on the paying customers at three expense of the "farmers" being employed to farm the land with grouse?

Then there's the shooting estates that operate on arable or other use land. Partridge, pheasant are often bred on land being used for other farming product. Partridge AIUI is often shot on arable land after cropping. An extra income too. I had family who worked in a rural area and the local shoot was a lifesaver for their annual income. Plus they practically lived off pheasant during the shooting season. That's in Wiltshire over the hill from Stonehenge on land being farmed alongside the shooting.

It's really not as black and white as painted. Easy not to understand these things. I mean not many people are part of this activity.

Shooting birds is one specific use. As you say, pheasant shooting is usually mixed in with arable and copses, so that's multiple uses already. I don't know anything about grouse. You seem to be treating shooting as very important, could you explain why? Surely livestock, arable and probably forestry are far more common uses of agricultural - or generally non-urban - land?

Only discussing because people seem to argue that land used for pleasure has a lesser right to private ownership and IIRC shooting was mentioned. IMHO it's not as simple as that which is why I'm trying to make the point that land ownership isn't as simple as X group owns more than y group or z group use land for pleasure which is wrong. Whatever your desire to open up access it's going to be at the expense of someone or something else.

It's hard to make generalisations like one owner is bad so they shouldn't own land. Farmers earn extra income from organising shoots. Some rural communities exist at the size they do because of shoots paying wages. It felt like people were painting land ownership as pure pleasure when it's livelihoods too.

It's not about size of land in use but about what the use is to some. It seems some have a priority of rights to ownership. Shooting it seems is lower down that priority because it's a pleasure industry. TBH it's a rural industry as valid as arable or livestock. Perhaps there's other land use that is more wrong such as big houses and gardens? Tax on houses with more than 5 bedrooms equivalent to stamp duty every year? Annual land rent for gardens above a certain size?

[Bmblbzzz]

I didn't think anyone had mentioned pleasure, but maybe they did and I missed it.

[Cyril Haearn]

Basically: If you don’t have ownership of land then nobody would be able to do anything with it. Build a house? You are denying others access to the land. How could anyone farm a field if they (or someone) doesn’t own it? Otherwise what is to stop someone else digging it up. Clearly at some point nobody owned land and we were all hunter gatherers but once that situation stopped then land ownership became fundamental to human society.

Many dwellings are on leasehold land

[jgurney]

Who would decide who had exclusive use? Presumably the landowner

Sometimes, but in many cases not. A modern landowner cannot decide to do away with public highways over their property, nor extinguish any rights of common applying to it. Those generally came into existence before anyone now owning land was born.

[PaulaT]

Shooting birds is one specific use. As you say, pheasant shooting is usually mixed in with arable and copses, so that's multiple uses already. I don't know anything about grouse. You seem to be treating shooting as very important, could you explain why? Surely livestock, arable and probably forestry are far more common uses of agricultural - or generally non-urban - land?

Killing anything simply for kicks is immoral. Most shot pheasant carcasses are left to rot in piles rather than being taken home and eaten. The ecological damage pheasants cause is horrendous. They're omnivores and will eat anything they can catch and swallow including small or baby mammals, baby snakes, reptiles and amphibians. Around 50 million are released into the countryside each year to satisfy the bloodlust of a bunch of far-right sadists.

Grouse moors are "managed" to massively boost grouse numbers to detriment of everything else with any predators being ruthlessly exterminated. That includes illegal persecution and killing of birds of prey. Hen Harriers are the main victims but Golden Eagles are also routinely killed in Scotland. Mountain Hares are ruthlessly persecuted because they can co-host a tick-bourne disease which grouse are susceptible to. In a natural environment this wouldn't be an issue as grouse numbers would be way lower and the birds would be effectively socially distanced. I have seen a video taken in the Peak District of a Mountain Hare found alive and screaming caught in a snare. She was released and taken to a vet but sadly died of her internal injuries.

Any fair-minded person who reads up about what's actually happing on the grouse moors might form the opinion that jobs centred around immorality, sadism and criminality aren't worth saving.

[Cyril Haearn]

I fear Paula T is right
Shame the Bliar regime did not ban more killing sports

[reohn2]

Arable and livestock land are farmed by few for the good of many.
Grouse moors are 'farmed' by the few for no good reason other than that of the few to go and shoot birds bred to perpetuate mans desire to shoot them,which IMO is a pretty sad hobby to practice and be involved in at any level.

There's a world of difference between killing for food and killing for the 'sport' of killing for fun .

Those moors could be for the good of all,YVMV mine won't.

And just to throw a cat in amongst the pigeons the same goes for golf courses which,although a fairly benign hobby,requires vast tracks of land for the pleasure of the few who can afford it and are manicured to within an inch(literally in some parts of a golf course)of it's life.