The Book of Trespass

[Jdsk]

If you blame the money you're really blaming a symptom of the lunacy of football tribalism.

[youtube]xN1WN0YMWZU[/youtube]

Jonathan

[Pete Owens]

A good piece on this from George Monbiot in the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/19/pandemic-right-to-roam-england

[Jdsk]

SNAP!

: - )

Jonathan

[Traction_man]

A good piece on this from George Monbiot in the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/19/pandemic-right-to-roam-england

indeed, with a link to the petition--https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/300139

cheers,

Keith

[reohn2]

Signed.

[pete75]

According to that chart farmers don't own any land - interesting. It's also wrong when it says land ownership has remained largely unchanged for generations among the landowners and gentry. Much of their land was sold to the tenants who farmed. According to Howard Newby in "Green and Pleasant Land?" only 10% of farmland was owner occupied before WW1 but by 1971 it was 61%.

[Tangled Metal]

Shhhh! Don't say such heresy!!!

[Zulu Eleven]

According to that chart farmers don't own any land - interesting. It's also wrong when it says land ownership has remained largely unchanged for generations among the landowners and gentry. Much of their land was sold to the tenants who farmed. According to Howard Newby in "Green and Pleasant Land?" only 10% of farmland was owner occupied before WW1 but by 1971 it was 61%.

Indeed, we know that 72% of uk land is farmed (though this includes large areas of rough grazing) - There are around 192,000 farms in the UK, but Only 20% of these are over 250 acres

We also know that in the aftermath of WW1 many country estates were dissolved In order to pay various forms of death taxes, so the ‘land ownership has remained largely unchanged for decades’ seems hard to square away. I recall some research from about 20 years ago that reckoned that two thirds of UK land was owned by 189,000 families... but how big/wide is a family? It doesn’t take much for that to quickly add to that land being shared across a couple of million people (eg if each ‘family’ has mum, dad, 2 kids, uncle & auntie also with two kids, grandma, granddad).

[pwa]

One also has to ask, who actually wants to own land that can't be built on? There are a few hectares of farmland and woodland for sale not far from me (nothing unusual about that) but most people will not be interested in buying that land. Most people are not interested in farming or renting out farmland, and most don't want to spend a wodge of money on a woodland. Buying land is not unaffordable but most people don't choose to spend their money on that. Most people don't have much use for it.

What sparked the desire to make Trespass a criminal matter? How did it move up the political agenda? Was it high profile incidents of travellers occupying land against the wishes of the owner? Was it illegal raves?

[pete75]

One also has to ask, who actually wants to own land that can't be built on? There are a few hectares of farmland and woodland for sale not far from me (nothing unusual about that) but most people will not be interested in buying that land. Most people are not interested in farming or renting out farmland, and most don't want to spend a wodge of money on a woodland. Buying land is not unaffordable but most people don't choose to spend their money on that. Most people don't have much use for it.

What sparked the desire to make Trespass a criminal matter? How did it move up the political agenda? Was it high profile incidents of travellers occupying land against the wishes of the owner? Was it illegal raves?

Most people may not be interested in farming but it's a god job some are else we'd have nowt to eat.

[rareposter]

What sparked the desire to make Trespass a criminal matter? How did it move up the political agenda? Was it high profile incidents of travellers occupying land against the wishes of the owner? Was it illegal raves?

Rich Tory-voting landowners lobbying a Tory Government that is in it solely for themselves and their mates. Chuck in a few complementary shooting parties, a donation of a few grand at the right time and the promise to perhaps sell off some of their land to the right developer in exchange for keeping the plebs and proles out and miraculously, "trespass" is now a major issue.

Also it's kind of a useful distraction. The Ramblers will kick up a fuss and meanwhile the Government can do some more dodgy deals selling the NHS off or voting themselves another massive pay rise while the papers are pre-occupied with things like restricting access to some countryside which very few people really know about or care about anyway.

[PDQ Mobile]

One also has to ask, who actually wants to own land that can't be built on? There are a few hectares of farmland and woodland for sale not far from me (nothing unusual about that) but most people will not be interested in buying that land. Most people are not interested in farming or renting out farmland, and most don't want to spend a wodge of money on a woodland. Buying land is not unaffordable but most people don't choose to spend their money on that. Most people don't have much use for it.

What sparked the desire to make Trespass a criminal matter? How did it move up the political agenda? Was it high profile incidents of travellers occupying land against the wishes of the owner? Was it illegal raves?

I don't think that's correct.
Many people would like to own land either as a smallholding type enterprise, equestrian or woodland for various uses.
Land has become very expensive as a consequence, especially small parcels.
Certainly in terms of average incomes and likely returns.

Small horticulture attracts virtually no help or subsidy though.
Camping is a good little earner for some.

However real ownership and love of land comes with a certain amount of difficulty. The caprices of weather not least amongst them, but also littering and leaving open of gates by mostly (but not exclusively) urban folk.

Up thread someone wrote a owning a bicycle and land are not the same because the bicycle was made by "labour".
The land, I guess by his reckoning, is just there, unchanging, and as it is forever!!
It is as narrow and ill educated attitude as one could wish for.

I read Monbiot's piece.
I sort if like(d) Monbiot.
But he has become too radical and impractical for me now.
I suspect him to be a full time writer that never grew a lettuce!
The "real" difficulties and harsh realities of farming escape him.
His "rewilding" is ok and has value in the right place but not as a blanket concept.
For much diversity is promoted by careful (and often time consuming) "labour"!
Poorly remunerated, but an honest living nonetheless.

Floral diversity not least amongst those things.
A hay meadow is a an ever rarer thing of beauty in June. It does not grow and maintain itself.
And walking though it by myriad rambling boots (and worse!) will render it far less useful and complex.
All IMH (rustic)O.

[Bmblbzzz]

According to that chart farmers don't own any land - interesting. It's also wrong when it says land ownership has remained largely unchanged for generations among the landowners and gentry. Much of their land was sold to the tenants who farmed. According to Howard Newby in "Green and Pleasant Land?" only 10% of farmland was owner occupied before WW1 but by 1971 it was 61%.

Indeed, we know that 72% of uk land is farmed (though this includes large areas of rough grazing) - There are around 192,000 farms in the UK, but Only 20% of these are over 250 acres

We also know that in the aftermath of WW1 many country estates were dissolved In order to pay various forms of death taxes, so the ‘land ownership has remained largely unchanged for decades’ seems hard to square away. I recall some research from about 20 years ago that reckoned that two thirds of UK land was owned by 189,000 families... but how big/wide is a family? It doesn’t take much for that to quickly add to that land being shared across a couple of million people (eg if each ‘family’ has mum, dad, 2 kids, uncle & auntie also with two kids, grandma, granddad).

Don't you think WW1 was at least two decades ago?

Farmland, clearly a lot is owned by farmers but a lot is rented; I don't know the actual ratio. And the "189,000 families" I agree it would be more usefully expressed in terms of households, but presumably - just guessing as I don't know where the figure comes from - "families" expresses a hereditary aspect.

Anywayzzz...

[Zulu Eleven]

Don't you think WW1 was at least two decades ago?

Farmland, clearly a lot is owned by farmers but a lot is rented; I don't know the actual ratio. And the "189,000 families" I agree it would be more usefully expressed in terms of households, but presumably - just guessing as I don't know where the figure comes from - "families" expresses a hereditary aspect.

Anywayzzz...

Apologies. The claim i meant to refer to was, of course, land ownership remaining unchanged for centuries, not decades.

I seem to recall that we have lost something like 2000 stately homes since WW1, all demolished. Many after falling into a state of dilapidation under war office control during WW2.

[Bikes`n`guns]

Always confused me this one.

Up here in Scotland we have a right to access our own country and we deserve it and it works.

In England you are excluded from everywhere unless someone allows it. Madness.

I just wish it was clearer on where folk are allowed to ride dirt bikes. Most civilised countries have public land for public use.