Right To Roam.

[2smokinberyls smockfrocks]

All common land accumulated under Enclosure Acts should be returned to the people. The aristocracy effective stole the land. The current right to roam largely covers such land but is limited to it.
Under the Enclosure Acts Yeoman farmers were reduced to hired labourers and peasants who kept a few geese on the common simply starved. The royal family were past masters at this disgusting show of selfishness.

there were thousands of acts of parliament (between 1750 - 1845 immsmc).
area by area they basically gave away the common land to their school chums and in return their school chums gave them some very large brown envelopes as a thank you.

people relied on being able to graze a few livestock to barely make ends meet and when that land was taken away from them many of the males had to seek extra employment building the drystone walls that divvied up the newly-stolen land.

and these cunts still lord it over us and continue to suck us dry.
when you look up and see those windfarms on the pennines, guess who owns the land they are built on?
lord somecuntorother, who has probably never even set foot on the land.
but it's okay, they tell us, lord somecuntorother received no payment for allowing the windmills to be erected on his land.
he does however receive a healthy percentage of the money made from the scandalously over-priced electricity produced by them.

plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

 

[Newman Noggs]

There would be common sense restrictions.

And here the argument falls down.

 

[KS55]

there were thousands of acts of parliament (between 1750 - 1845 immsmc).
area by area they basically gave away the common land to their school chums and in return their school chums gave them some very large brown envelopes as a thank you.

people relied on being able to graze a few livestock to barely make ends meet and when that land was taken away from them many of the males had to seek extra employment building the drystone walls that divvied up the newly-stolen land.

and these cunts still lord it over us and continue to suck us dry.
when you look up and see those windfarms on the pennines, guess who owns the land they are built on?
lord somecuntorother, who has probably never even set foot on the land.
but it's okay, they tell us, lord somecuntorother received no payment for allowing the windmills to be erected on his land.
he does however receive a healthy percentage of the money made from the scandalously over-priced electricity produced by them.

plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Yes. Not a fan of the aristocracy or the royal family. Not necessarily a revolutionary BUT the effect of these historical wrongs is still felt today, eg in the cramming of housing in a small area, in rents etc.
Offshore wind…..cut goes to Charlie 3 who owns the seabed!

 

[hammocity]

There’s a right of way through our golf course and we are always respectful of people walking through, wait before we take shots, engage with them, etc.

However some people veer off the designated areas, earlier this year there was a group of Asians (who didn’t understand English) having a picnic near a green. It’s quite dangerous but they didn’t move. Last week a young lad with his parents nicked a golf ball off a green and his mum amd dad said nowt!

Got to work both ways, just be polite to each other.

 

[KS55]

Nonsense, there are many open unpopulated places in England where a right to roam would be beneficial.

He should go and visit the Pennines, Peak District etc.
In the Aire valley where I live, development was historically crammed on the south side, roads, houses etc. The sunny north side owned by families such as the dukes of Devonshire were generally left untouched. ……oh, and every other pub was called the Devonshire Arms, guess who profited from that?
Incidently, Ilkley moor which I know well used to have narrow designated paths and you were trespassing if you went to look at the Neolithic sites there. Now, it is RIGHT TO ROAM territory.

 

[2smokinberyls smockfrocks]

"right to roam" and "rights of way" are 2 entirely different matters...


a right of way is a right of way regardless of whether it is on publicly or privately owned land.
we all have the right to walk along a designated right of way.
(the sole exception, i think, being if the land has subsequently become owned by the military).
farmers try to disrupt accessibility in countless cuntish ways.


the right to roam is about whether we should be allowed to wander across land outwith the parameters of the right of ways,
i.e. just walk wherever we like...

people mentioning tossers invading their back gardens are in cuckooland, that's not it and never would be.

anyroad, there is no such thing as trespass in criminal law.
there is fuck all a landowner can do if you wander across his field so long as you don't cause any damage to get onto or off the land and don't cause any damage whilst on the land.
"take only photographs and leave only footprints" and you are not breaking the law.
if they harass you in any way they become the lawbreakers.

 

[Barcon]

There’s a right of way through our golf course and we are always respectful of people walking through, wait before we take shots, engage with them, etc.

However some people veer off the designated areas, earlier this year there was a group of Asians (who didn’t understand English) having a picnic near a green. It’s quite dangerous but they didn’t move. Last week a young lad with his parents nicked a golf ball off a green and his mum amd dad said nowt!

Got to work both ways, just be polite to each other.

Pretty sure I could have shown them what they were doing wrong without having to use words.

 

[2smokinberyls smockfrocks]

 

[KS55]

"right to roam" and "rights of way" are 2 entirely different matters...


a right of way is a right of way regardless of whether it is on publicly or privately owned land.
we all have the right to walk along a designated right of way.
(the sole exception, i think, being if the land has subsequently become owned by the military).
farmers try to disrupt accessibility in countless cuntish ways.


the right to roam is about whether we should be allowed to wander across land outwith the parameters of the right of ways,
i.e. just walk wherever we like...

people mentioning tossers invading their back gardens are in cuckooland, that's not it and never would be.

anyroad, there is no such thing as trespass in criminal law.
there is fuck all a landowner can do if you wander across his field so long as you don't cause any damage to get onto or off the land and don't cause any damage whilst on the land.
"take only photographs and leave only footprints" and you are not breaking the law.
if they harass you in any way they become the lawbreakers.

Many rights of way in our area were blocked by farmers. In recent years, local authorities have opened them up and forbidden the blockages.

 

[2smokinberyls smockfrocks]