Wild Camping Punishment

[classic33]

I would hope that some, maybe not the 'sort' who post here, would have sympathy with the farmer instead of taking the usual 'anti-everything they don't have' tack: This from the referenced Sun article:

“There is a campsite 400 yards in one direction and 600 yards in the other but they just please themselves these people. We’ve had people from towns walking in the fields.

“There is 50,000 acres of Dartmoor nearby and he chose to camp in my field. They come up from the towns and think they can do what they want. We’ve had loads of trouble with dogs worrying the sheep.

“They wouldn’t like it if I went camping in their garden. They’ve got no knowledge of the countryside at all. They come up from the towns and think they can do what they want. They probably think food grows on a plant or something.”

Not having read the sun article, I'm unaware of what he actually said to the newspaper. I've used the piece linked to in the first post, including links in that piece.

It's one thing living/working in an area, knowing where the campsites are. It's another arriving, possibly late at night, and not knowing.

I'd have thought that since it's a cycling forum, most would have sympathy for a cyclist who's had a vehicle used as a weapon on them.

A fair amount of our food is actually grown on plants, be they above or below ground. Even those foods that wandered around on two or four legs may well have been fed on plants, grass included.

The UK is crisscrossed by a network of PROW's, that some "farmers" seem keen to close down, rather than having to maintain them to allow folk to use them.

Ireland has Mass Paths, that seldom follow any logical route in the modern landscape. You cannot purposely block them, nor can you stop anyone using them. I was stopped years ago, entering land, on a such a path from the road. Not being a local, nor a country type I couldn't possibly know what I was on about, much less where it ran. The Guards were called on me, who pointed out to the person trying to prevent me using the path, that what I said was correct, and not only did such paths exist, but the one I was going to use ran where I said.
Go back the following year and they'd moved away from the area. A fair amount of ill feeling built up between them and farmers being the deciding factor. No walks through country fields, having been told to stay out, or else.
I can still cross the fields, permission from the landowners and the Mass Paths.

 

[Alex321]

I would hope that some, maybe not the 'sort' who post here, would have sympathy with the farmer instead of taking the usual 'anti-everything they don't have' tack: This from the referenced Sun article:

It is nothing to do with any view of privilege, or being "anti-everything they don't have".

I have NO idea where you get that from.

It is all about the fact that this was completely unjustified assault, and not just assault but one of the most unpleasant forms of assault.

There can NEVER be any excuse for deliberately spraying somebody with slurry unless they are actually physically attacking you or somebody else.

It is an utterly despicable act, regardless of whether the cyclist should have been camping there or not.

And no, I for one am never going to have any sympathy for somebody who carries out that type of assault.

You also have to remember, this is a cycling forum. Members here are always going to have more sympathy for a cyclist by default.

 

[blackrat]

You can't camp in Dartmoor either now.

I thought your point in your previous post was that the farmer was being unfairly treated on here and then made it political with the socialism remark.

This post seems to suggest you think the farm worker was ill-informed and therefore wrong.

Either way, I have loads of sympathies with farmers as touched on in the OP, just not this one.

'Either way', I can only assume the 'free-loader' who parked himself on someone else's land will not do that again in a hurry. Using the lame excuse he was raising money for charity because his wife had died of cancer (or so he said) and had no other recourse than to invade private property, was morally inexcusable.

 

[classic33]

'Either way', I can only assume the prat who parked himself on someone else's land will not do that again in a hurry. Using the lame excuse he was raising money for charity because his wife had died of cancer (or so he said) and had no other recourse than to invade private property, was morally inexcusable.

The raising money for charity came from a farmers forum.
I've not seen anything where he has used it as an excuse. How they managed to find that bit out who knows. Maybe he was allowed to camp on their land, and it was mentioned in passing.
The only prat in the whole episode was the one who used their vehicle as a weapon, before emptying part of his load, 5 minutes worth, when you can empty one in less than 30 minutes.
Onto the hedgerow and the two metre border/buffer zone. Every one of those things illegal at this time if year.
Let's not forget that there's a very good chance that at least one bale(if silage) will be lost, because no-one would take up silage contaminated with slurry. It'll rot the bale, with a good chance of rotting any left next to it. Minimum cash damage, £135 for that one bale.

Maybe he now has to get someone in to row, bale and wrap for him. But who'd be willing to do it at normal rates. It's a fairly tight knit community doing that work, so they may find themselves travelling further afield. But then they'll have to answer questions as to why they didn't use someone local. Which will raise other questions.

All the while filming himself doing it on a handheld device. A further H&S breach.

I'm not certain if you're wording your posts to get a response that proves you're correct or not.

 

[blackrat]

The raising money for charity came from a farmers forum.
I've not seen anything where he has used it as an excuse. How they managed to find that bit out who knows. Maybe he was allowed to camp on their land, and it was mentioned in passing.
The only prat in the whole episode was the one who used their vehicle as a weapon, before emptying part of his load, 5 minutes worth, when you can empty one in less than 30 minutes.
Onto the hedgerow and the two metre border/buffer zone. Every one of those things illegal at this time if year.
Let's not forget that there's a very good chance that at least one bale(if silage) will be lost, because no-one would take up silage contaminated with slurry. It'll rot the bale, with a good chance of rotting any left next to it. Minimum cash damage, £135 for that one bale.

Maybe he now has to get someone in to row, bale and wrap for him. But who'd be willing to do it at normal rates. It's a fairly tight knit community doing that work, so they may find themselves travelling further afield. But then they'll have to answer questions as to why they didn't use someone local. Which will raise other questions.

All the while filming himself doing it on a handheld device. A further H&S breach.

I'm not certain if you're wording your posts to get a response that proves you're correct or not.

Who knows? My wording is that of a reasonable person pointing out that the majority of anger expressed on this forum towards the farmer is unreasonable, and most likely comes as a response derived from personal social status rather than any qualified knowledge of the actual event.
I suppose if the farmer had unloaded a shotgun blast at the offenders arse, it would have been more palatable than the slurry?
Don't forget though, any camper spending the night would very likely have to unload his own bowels, and the result, together with toilet paper if used, would be a noxious mess which no doubt the sheep - or whichever animal inhabited the field, would discover.
My sympathy lies wholly with the farmer.

 

[raleighnut]

Who knows? My wording is that of a reasonable person pointing out that the majority of anger expressed on this forum towards the farmer is unreasonable, and most likely comes as a response derived from personal social status rather than any qualified knowledge of the actual event.
I suppose if the farmer had unloaded a shotgun blast at the offenders arse, it would have been more palatable than the slurry?
Don't forget though, any camper spending the night would very likely have to unload his own bowels, and the result, together with toilet paper if used, would be a noxious mess which no doubt the sheep - or whichever animal inhabited the field, would discover.
My sympathy lies wholly with the farmer.

You are very much in the minority not only on here but also on the farming forum someone posted a link to. Half the blame does lie with the cyclist though, if it had been me then by 6am I'd have been up and packed away by then as there's already been an hour and a half of daylight.
As for the comments being 'Socialist' I'm not sure where you get that idea from.....................members on here come from every sort of political background and most agree that the actions of the farm worker were dispicable and disgusting not to mention potentially 'life threatening'

 

[Tail End Charlie]

The "farmer" is an out and out bully.

 

[figbat]

You can't camp in Dartmoor either now.

Dartmoor National Park begs to differ.

 

[Twilkes]

Don't forget though, any camper spending the night would very likely have to unload his own bowels, and the result, together with toilet paper if used, would be a noxious mess which no doubt the sheep - or whichever animal inhabited the field, would discover.

I've wild camped a few times and managed not to crap all over the grass, didn't crap at all from what I can remember, because I'm a grown adult and can manage ten hours without crapping everywhere.

But nice hypothetical supposition to support your position, well done you.

 

[figbat]

Another thing I haven’t seen mentioned, this farmer or farm worker had so much to do that he had time to hook up a slurry trailer and spray it where it didn’t need spraying, wasting fuel, slurry and time in the process.

 

[Slick]

Dartmoor National Park begs to differ.

Ah, thanks for that.

I think it was the story below that made me think otherwise, but I see now its a bit more complicated than that.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crgjppmyd1go

 

[Slick]

'Either way', I can only assume the 'free-loader' who parked himself on someone else's land will not do that again in a hurry. Using the lame excuse he was raising money for charity because his wife had died of cancer (or so he said) and had no other recourse than to invade private property, was morally inexcusable.

Yeah, I hate guys who lose their wife to cancer (or so they say) then use that lame old excuse of raising money for charity to invade private property. There really should be a law against that.

 

[Slick]

I've wild camped a few times and managed not to crap all over the grass, didn't crap at all from what I can remember, because I'm a grown adult and can manage ten hours without crapping everywhere.

But nice hypothetical supposition to support your position, well done you.

Leave no trace, bury what you can't take with you.

 

[Alex321]

Who knows? My wording is that of a reasonable person pointing out that the majority of anger expressed on this forum towards the farmer is unreasonable, and most likely comes as a response derived from personal social status rather than any qualified knowledge of the actual event.
I suppose if the farmer had unloaded a shotgun blast at the offenders arse, it would have been more palatable than the slurry?\

No physical assault is justified in a situation like this.

Don't forget though, any camper spending the night would very likely have to unload his own bowels, and the result, together with toilet paper if used, would be a noxious mess which no doubt the sheep - or whichever animal inhabited the field, would discover.

You have absolutely no idea what may or may not have happened in that regard. Most people in that situation, if they have to go, will bury it. He may have been able to hold it util he could reach a public toi,et. You cannot be at all sure he would have left a "noxious mess".

Though of course even if he did, it is no different really to what the local fox might have left.

My sympathy lies wholly with the farmer.

You won't find many agreeing with you, even among other farmers.

Nobody is saying the cyclist was OK to do what he did, but the farmer's reaction was way OTT, nd clearly illegal assault.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

'Either way', I can only assume the 'free-loader' who parked himself on someone else's land will not do that again in a hurry. Using the lame excuse he was raising money for charity because his wife had died of cancer (or so he said) and had no other recourse than to invade private property, was morally inexcusable.

Do you accept that the farmer assaulted the cyclist?