FW: [Diggers350] Re: New HMIC report: 'Adapting to Protest'

Tue Feb 15 12:14:49 GMT 2011

From: liliapatterson at hotmail.com
To: mobbsey at gn.apc.org
Subject: RE: [Diggers350] Re: New HMIC report: 'Adapting to Protest'
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 12:14:22 +0000

"What you said implies banning all camping except on official camp sites".

I think this is the point. 
I think that they are anticipating that if they attempt to sell off forests for 'development' (because this is cheaper than selling off brown-field sites) - then it means that they are anticipating that there will be a lot of resistance, and therefore this will mean that there will be a lot of people camping on land to prevent sell-offs of natural areas. 

If people are concerned about 'why' the current coalition government in power want to sell of 'land' it's most likely that there is only one reason to sell the land off for construction 'development'. It should be found out 'who' is planning to benefit from this sell-off. 

>From a macro-economic point of view, the only reason that 'sell-offs' occur like this is due to the fact that the UK economy operates on a false model, that it needs to 'grow' and 'develop' in order for the value of the UK economy to grow and therefore appear to be healthy. 
Normally this is linked to construction related development. 

The road building program, across green-field sites or woodlands, forests, or SSSIs and the re-definition of land for building on green-field sites rather than brown field sites, all came out of a simple macro-economic equation, that 'development' is cheaper when you build on land that is 'cheap'. 
If woodlands, forests, SSSIs, green-fields were all more expensive, if their environmental status was truly valued according to a true authentic economic construct of market values that recognised environmental and social costs and not just economic costs, then there would have been no road program building roads across forests, woodlands, SSSIs and no building on green-field sites. None whatsoever. 

The only truly effective way for this kind of environmental destruction to be prevented is for the land price of to be valued much higher, in relation to the biodiversity and social benefit of the land, to be authentically balanced against land that would be more suitable for construction, where it is needed, i.e. in towns and cities where people actually need homes. 
Do people actually need these 'developments'? The UK govt has consistently invested in 'development' - Brown was responsible for huge investment into regions such as 'Dubai'. 

Even the fact that TV broadcasting in the last decade has been actively promoting DIY housing experts to encourage people to do up their homes and sell them, has been part of a macro-economic national strategy to encourage people to increase the value of the British economy by artificially inflating the sale of property, thereby encouraging an artificial bubble in house prices in the UK. This is all based on the economic models that the UK treasury operates on, which are generally based on outdated and backwards thinking that the only way that an economy can be seen to 'grow' is through the construction and housing retail industry, since property is seen as a stable asset to invest in. 

If the UK treasury actually operated in a functional manner to ensure the best sustainable interests of the UK, that balanced the economy in a way that took account of environmental and social costs to the society and not just 'profit' - then it would operate very differently.

> To: diggers350 at yahoogroups.com; Envlist at yahoogroups.com; dan-cymru at lists.riseup.net
> From: mobbsey at gn.apc.org
> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 22:16:02 +0000
> Subject: [Diggers350] Re: New HMIC report: 'Adapting to Protest'
> 
> On Thursday, February 10, 2011 08:26:42 am you wrote:
> > On 09/02/2011 09:17, Paul Mobbs wrote:
> > > especially now that the
> > > government say they're going to make camping on private land a criminal
> > > offence.
> > 
> > Can you point me in the direction of more information on this please. Is
> > this just in relation to protest camps, or does it cover all camping?
> > What you said implies banning all camping except on official camp sites.
> 
> The new Tory ideologues have had it in for 'DIY lifestyle' for a while. E.g., 
> they're also having a go at squatting at the moment  -- e.g. see 
> http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsp-00355.pdf 
> 
> A lot of these changes were propsed, before the election, in the Conservative 
> 'Planning Green Paper' released back in February 2010 (see page 18) --
> http://www.conservatives.com/~/media/Files/Green%20Papers/planning-green-
> paper.ashx
> 
> ...or see this page for a digest of the proposals --
> http://www.chelgate.com/news/planning-green-paper/
> 
> 
> The proposed law of 'intentional trespass' is being advanced as a general 
> measure, not as a measure specifically targetting travellers -- because if they 
> did make it traveller specific it would probably be ruled unlawful/ 
> discriminatory. So the effect will be to make any unauthorised access to land a 
> criminal offence. E.g. see the Commons debate from 8th Sept. last year --
> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100908/halltext/100908h0001.htm#10090817000
> 
> As well as travellers the changes would serious impact on squatting -- see the 
> Advisory Service for Squatters' views at --
> http://www.squatter.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=206&Itemid=2
> 
> Of course, the Tory machine is applauding the proposals --
> http://conservativehome.blogs.com/localgovernment/2010/02/conservatives-
> pledge-to-tackle-trespass.html
> 
> 
> At the moment all the effort has been around squatting and travellers. However, 
> reading what's proposed, it would cover all forms of wild camping and, by 
> definition, anhy form of land occupation. Not just camping on "private land" 
> either. Even large rights of way -- like the Ridgeway, Whiteway and some of 
> the otherlong distance paths -- are simply "rights of way".
> 
> The public have, in case law, the right to "pass and repass" along any right 
> of way, but that does not extent to a right to "reside". All public rights of 
> way are, in legal terms, private land. Therefore camping on an ancient track, 
> or any other right of way, even though historically the custom is an ancient 
> vestige of travelling and droving, could be construed as a criminal offence 
> since you are "residing" on private land, not passing across it.
> 
> Basically, with this law not just wild camping, but land occupation that 
> doesn't involve damage to property or violence, will be a criminal offence for 
> whicht he police can take immediate action.
> 
> 
> P.
> 
> -- 
> 
> .
> 
> "We are not for names, nor men, nor titles of Government,
> nor are we for this party nor against the other but we are
> for justice and mercy and truth and peace and true freedom,
> that these may be exalted in our nation, and that goodness,
> righteousness, meekness, temperance, peace and unity with
> God, and with one another, that these things may abound."
> (Edward Burrough, 1659 - from 'Quaker Faith and Practice')
> 
> Paul's book, "Energy Beyond Oil", is out now!
> For details see http://www.fraw.org.uk/mei/ebo/
> 
> Read my 'essay' weblog, "Ecolonomics", at:
> http://www.fraw.org.uk/mei/ecolonomics/
> 
> Paul Mobbs, Mobbs' Environmental Investigations
> 3 Grosvenor Road, Banbury OX16 5HN, England
> tel./fax (+44/0)1295 261864
> email - mobbsey at gn.apc.org
> website - http://www.fraw.org.uk/mei/index.shtml
> public key - http://www.fraw.org.uk/mei/mobbsey-2011.asc
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.gn.apc.org/mailman/private/diggers350/attachments/20110215/3f67e5c9/attachment.html>