Andi posted this on the other channel"I'd like to add that, having spoken to the landowner, one of the things that really seemed to have irked him is when he's approached "climbers" who have been breaking the agreed access, they haven't left but instead tried to enter philosophical debates with him about land ownership and have said they'll happily climb until the police come etc... It doesn't take many of these encounters to really knacker a relationship."
Arguing back when asked to leave somewhere that you don't technically have a right to be does seem kind of, I don't know, idiotic though doesn't it?
given the proximity of this patch of land to the owners house I bet there would be mechanisms for an exemption etc.
Shadow Environment Minister Alex Sobel MP told the Commons: "We will introduce a Right to Roam Act, a new law allowing national parks to adopt the right to wild camp, as well as expanding public access to woodlands and waterways... Like in Scotland, Labour’s approach will be that our right to roam will offer access to high-quality green and blue spaces for the rest of Britain. We will replace the default of exclusion with a default of access"
On the evidence of these threads the attitude that we have a default of access may take a while to catch up mind.
Well exactly, nothing. All our negotations and good behaviour and word spreading simply proved that if she asked us to go away, we would. Forever. Having had subsequent conversations with her she's not actually against responsible low-key access but is not likely to do so publically because what's in it for her? If we had been more militant and less controllable it could not have been worse and might well have been better. So the only hope is Keir comes good...
man it was only £1.4mill, we could have just thrown a few quid in each, or the BMC could have moved there from Manchester! https://media.onthemarket.com/properties/3025599/doc_0_0.pdf