FFS no one needs this.

[RIP]

The only threat there is re Matt's comment whatever it was. Simple enough to sort that and worth mollifying her.

Re the rest, "encouraging wildcamping" isn't a crime is it? "Incitement to sleep in a ditch"? Never heard of that one.

As I said, nowhere on the WRT page do you encourage wildcamping anyway.

She can feel free to wander around during the WRT to find all our ditches and then alert all the landowners like the model citizen she obviously is. She won't find any of us though, we're experts at it.

Please get on with your life Jane and leave us to enjoy our harmless peaceful hobby.

(Insurance? Er, have you broken it to her yet?.... . Been there, done that to death)

[RIP]

Re-reading her 'polite request' the only specific demand is re the defamatory (get yer spelling right luv per-leeze) comment. IS it defamatory? Any solicitors in the house?

She 'suggests' re insurance - thanks for the tip Jane.

She 'suggests' campsites - thanks for the tip Jane.

So just the defamation. If it is.

You don't need to defend the WRT or us so I wouldn't get involved any further ("leave it Stu, she ain't wurf it mate")

[psling]

I feel that I really ought to share this with you - it's a direct message I've just received and in my mind, feels awfully like a veiled threat.

Hi I know we have had an active discussion. Hopefully it has been a polite one. Please note Matt Robinson’s dematory comments against me and a magazine I founded and edit. I respectfully ask you to take action against him. Also on a different note, you may want to double check the small print of any insurance policy you have taken out for the event. You know how it is, accidents can happen, such as when Mike Hall very tragically died during a bikepacking event in Australia. I love Wales, I love small businesses, small businesses are critical to local communities. I want you to be successful, but within the law and having regard to multiple requests from the national parks about not wild camping. This is not meant as legal advice at all, but what would be your position in terms of the small print of your insurance police if there were an accident given wild camping is illegal? Have you thought about having a few sites where people can camp along the way, with prior permission of the landowner and proped loos? Best wishes Jane

Having read the fb thread, including their responses to Matt, and seeing the above I think I would be withdrawing from any further dialogue with them; without wishing to be defamatory myself I would consider their intensity on the matter to be bordering on irrational.

[Lazarus]

nowhere on the WRT page do you encourage wildcamping anyway

It's quite hard to argue we are not a wild camping advocacy body.

Stu I would just reply with best of luck organising the event you want me to organise.

I Personally( no FB so no idea what happened there ) I think she is just being a bit legal because she is a solicitor and " alerting " you to a risk.
No one is going to sue you for a sub standard bivvy spot though . It does surprise me you have gotten away with some of your routing without legal action

[lune ranger]

Just changed the habit of a lifetime and looked at FB.
Wow. What a piece of work yer new friend is Stu.
She a) Really has no idea about what BB and WRT is. b) Has too much time on her hands. c) Is blind to her own impacts in a way that I thought was only possible by a Tory Minister.

Don’t reply, remove the fuel and starve the fire.

[matt_outandabout]

*puts up hand nervously*

Some of this is me. Well, I am not sure it was, but it was someone. Sorry for stepping on a virtual landmine.

I am genuinely nonplussed as to why someone reacts like that to an exchange of viewpoints.

As for the legal aspect (of libel) - I am no legal expert, but it just feels like bullying by words rather than any legal basis.

I have just read the private message - wow.

(Please delete or tell me to delete the FB comments if that will help, or I can happily block her. I expect Jane is reading this. I don't want issues for the WRT or BBB).

[JackT]

I feel that I really ought to share this with you - it's a direct message I've just received and in my mind, feels awfully like a veiled threat.

Hi I know we have had an active discussion. Hopefully it has been a polite one. Please note Matt Robinson’s dematory comments against me and a magazine I founded and edit. I respectfully ask you to take action against him. Also on a different note, you may want to double check the small print of any insurance policy you have taken out for the event. You know how it is, accidents can happen, such as when Mike Hall very tragically died during a bikepacking event in Australia. I love Wales, I love small businesses, small businesses are critical to local communities. I want you to be successful, but within the law and having regard to multiple requests from the national parks about not wild camping. This is not meant as legal advice at all, but what would be your position in terms of the small print of your insurance police if there were an accident given wild camping is illegal? Have you thought about having a few sites where people can camp along the way, with prior permission of the landowner and proped loos? Best wishes Jane

Sounds like someone who's got a bee in her bonnet, for reasons that are still obscure, and a very fixed and dogmatic way of looking at things (is it defamatory for met to say that?) I don't know what kind of accident she has in mind, a tent pole snapping in the night (not if it's one of yours, Stuart), injury by tent peg? The only time I've remotely encountered any danger when wild camping was when herd of cattle including a fairly angry bull appeared in the morning. Being tramped by livestock is a risk. But compared to the danger we face from drivers, wild camping is the least hazardous part of a bikepacking trip.

In relation to the National Parks, Dartmoor National Park allows wild camping across a quite large area. For many years the Lake District's official policy is that wild camping is a longstanding tradition and is tolerated above the highest fell wall. I note that this tolerant policy is been replaced with something a bit harder, no doubt as a response to the rash of Covid-times fly camping. The National Trust, which owns a lot of the land in the Lake District, is sticking with the policy of toleration. https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/featur ... e-district

On the legal issue she raises, I don't know if anyone has ever been sued for incitement to trespass (in E&W wild camping is a trespass, not a crime, as I understand it). And since you are not requiring anyone to wild camp on WRT, I can't see how you could possibly be held responsible for anything that might go awry if a participant choses to wild camp as opposed to staying in a bothy / a B&B / the Caersws Hilton.

[Bearbonesnorm]

I have replied and not just because I'm a tw@t like that but because these things can have unforeseen consequences for quite a few people and if I can somehow prevent that from happening, then I'll at least try. I've deleted the entire thread from FB because (a) it was going round in circles and (b) distracting people from buying T shirts Anyway, here's my reply if you CBA.

Good morning Jane. I'm simply going to delete the entire post. I believe that Mr Robinson is entitled to his opinion and that he no doubt believes that he was defending himself from what might appear to be an unprovoked attack on what he chooses to do and therefor on himself. However, as I say, I feel it's perhaps better if the entire thing is simply removed. On a personal level, I find your attitude somewhat odd given what you do BUT I do understand it. You talk about empowering and educating, well that's something that Bear Bones has done for the last 15 years. Over that time we've introduced many people to the great outdoors and the personal benefits to be derived from spending their time actively outside. Running alongside that message has been a second of education - I really have been pushing the LNT ethos from the very beginning. I've written some published articles about the subject and to be perfectly honest, for many years it was something which made me quite unpopular in some circles and an uphill struggle yet I carried on because I believe in those principles and value both the countryside and the freedom to enjoy it. Yes, there has been problems with 'fly campers' especially over the last two years but they're a highly visible minority. The genuine wildcampers largely go unseen, so you only see the aftermath of those who don't conduct themselves in the appropriate way, which of course alters the perception. I've been doing this a long time and I won't apologise for that and nor will I stop - we've achieved some great things in that time which have benefited many people directly and indirectly. I know about the legality but I believe you need a more pragmatic approach. Wildcamping has always taken place and most likely always will. It's a practice that while technically illegal within most of England / Wales is widely accepted (when done correctly) and even encouraged by some institutions including the NPA prior to covid and the actions of a minority of ill informed idiots.

[matt_outandabout]

Sorry - I know that is hassle you could do without.

[psling]

Sorry - I know that is hassle you could do without.

I don't believe you need to apologize Matt; the hassle was already there, instigated and perpetuated by another and, inmy opinion, your comments were constructive and reasonable.

[Bearbonesnorm]

Sorry - I know that is hassle you could do without.

No apology needed - your interjection gave me some respite

[RIP]

She's obviously wasted a fair chunk of her £200/hr time on you Stu, so if nothing else you've had the entertainment of getting inside her head. Or rather she's invited you into her head and not charged you for the space, which must come very painfully to a highly-paid solicitor

Next!

[riderdown]

I feel that I really ought to share this with you - it's a direct message I've just received and in my mind, feels awfully like a veiled threat

Yep I would say it is.

Half her points are essentially not her business unless she enters the event. At the event the responsibility to behave responsibly is put on the participants I can't see what her issue is. The reference to the tragic loss of Mike Hall is irrelevant to the issue of where individuals pitch up and arguably a largely unfortunate overreach which could be seen as inflammatory. I imagine the insurance is more for people falling over in the toilets and that you can't be reasonably expected to cover them in the 5* accommodation they choose off the site.

The issue of people saying things about her on an internet forum is one I can't comment on, maybe go for the "Facebook" defence

[redefined_cycles]

and everyone lived happily ever after...

Hopefully all sorted but since there have been so many entries this year I've been seriously considering entering. Might turn out to be one of the historical ones (like maybe so many people in being present in Wales at one time that the economy collapsed the next day*) like BB200 of 2014

*I'm not an economist and nor do I really understand money too well.. except for the fact that noone ever really likes buying stuff off of me! Allen (and Luke), if you're reading are you entered please ?

[Lazarus]

I can't see what her issue is

I don't agree with her but it's obvious that her issue is many ditch sleepers will illegally sleep in a ditch due to WRT

Like most I don't care but it's not really a surprise to any of us some object to wild camping or riding FP etc.
It's also not like we would stop if this event did not happen. I tend to not debate it as nothing will change my mind on whether it's ok to do , and like most on here , I consider what i do.to be done in a LNT responsible manner.whialt accepting not everyone will agree

[Bearbonesnorm]

Ironically, most of us probably share her concerns about how some people behave while flying under the banner of 'wildcamping' ... but we come to it from a different angle and offer different and i hope better solutions.

[psling]

Nobody appreciates a holier-than-thou person pontificating, trying to denigrate the actions of others whilst at the same time extolling their own virtues. It smacks of hypocrisy.
Mind you, we're probably all guilty of it at some time or other if our nose is suitably put out of joint

[fatbikephil]

Good answer Stu, good points well put. However.... I've had an awful lot of experience of dealing with people who have a point of view that differs from your own or in fact from the opinion of absolutely everybody else. I've learned that there is no way of changing it, no matter how well crafted your argument, as far as they are concerned they are right and everybody else is wrong and nothing will change their mind. It ends up being a brick wall you are just banging your head against and the best thing to do is to stop engaging. When I put out similar statements to your last post I've then had to draw a line under the discussion with a 'I've said what I've said and I've nothing more to add' type comment.

I've also come across many lawyers and solicitors and found that their perspective is always black and white in terms of the law. In terms of her threats, this is a lawyer all over. "Come and have a go if you think you've got a leg to stand on' is the best attitude in response. Much like when dealing with thugs - most will never carry out their threats but they have gotten used to people being frightened of them so always work on the basis that everybody is frightened of them so people will always take their threat seriously. When they meet someone who says "bring it on" they generally back down (unless they are a psychopath) Many lawyers have adopted the same attitude in that they have gotten used to "I'll sue you" sending people running for cover, apologies and retractions. If people started suing other people due to what they said about them on the internet, the courts would have a case load to take them to the next millennium.

Smile, wave and ignore.

[Cheeky Monkey]

The comment of "I'm a lawyer" is about as meaningful as those folks that get all antsy about some bike design / performance / maintenance aspect and then add "I'm an engineer".

I suspect you're screwed though Stu. Interaction will only bring more argument against, you cannot change (most) people's minds. Good on you though for considering wider ramifications. It's a bugger on your back with those wide shoulders of yours

Edit - I bet your entirely reasonable approach re: thread deletion will be taken as or thrown back at you at some point as an attempt to silence her or some such nonsense

[Rob S]

Blimey, sorry to hear you were on the receiving end of all that Stu.

To just start off a conversation as Jane did seems pretty random, maybe she has had a bad experience with some fly campers recently. I know very little about law, but as someone previously mentioned, is it actually illegal? Because unlawful, as in, "you do not have a right to do this", sounds like a more fitting phrase than "you must not do this".

As a person promoting the outdoors herself, it seems strange that she is so willing to take such a blinkered approach to the law. If it wasn't for the Kinder trespassers, National Parks may not exist and there would be very little of the "outdoors" for her to enjoy today.

I also find it odd that she asked you to take action against Matt, I take it he isn't an employee or representative of yourself or BBB? What on earth does she expect you to do!

[Rob S]

Sorry double posted.

[RIP]

I also find it odd that she asked you to take action against Matt, I take it he isn't an employee or representative of yourself or BBB? What on earth does she expect you to do!

Yes I thought that Rob. Surely he's just some "random person" posting on Farcebook (whatever that may be) so it's entirely between her and Matt? Nowt to do with Stu.

Since we're not a club (*), Matt can't be a member (**) or affiliated, so what's it got to do with Stu? Stu just happens to be a bloke with 2192 mates who chat on a forum that he's provided to make it easier.

(*) no subscription, no constitution, no bank account, no members (**) so we can't be.
(**) oh, we do have a "members" list don't we (on the forum main page) - maybe worth renaming us to "riders" or "sufferers" or something. In the same vein maybe the "events" should just be called "gatherings"? Interesting one this, because a "club" has no legal identity but "officers" of it still have quite onerous responsibilities. What "entity" do you think BBB actually is Stu? A shop with a forum?

[Lazarus]

is it actually illegal?

Largely irrelevant as both unlawful and illegal end up in court

Illegal - law specifically says you cannot do it eg park on double yellow lines
Unlawful - law does not give you permission to do something - park on someone else drive

Civil - usually redress for loss or compensation

Criminal - prison etc

In this case illegal ( vagrancy act ) and a civil offence or possibly tresspass ( still illegal) and civil ( possibly criminal if you refuse to leave )

IANAL

[RIP]

Probably ought to start (yet another) separate thread now to go on and on and on about access, but whatever.

I've just read this: "It is expressly forbidden to camp on Access Land subject to CROW 2000. One or more national parks have given permission to wild camp. But much of the park(s) is Access Land, so one is forbidden from camping there". Bit of a Catch 22 .

Another curious one for a Friday: "Landowners may give permission to a wildcamper. The tragic problem is that they probably shouldn't. By giving that permission, they are also accepting a 'duty of care' over you, and therefore a degree of responsibility should anything go wrong". I wonder how true that is?

Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, as we all presumably know and love: "Every person wandering abroad and lodging in any barn or outhouse, or in any deserted or unoccupied building, or in the open air, or under a tent, or in any cart or wagon and not having any visible means of subsistence and not giving a good account of himself or herself". What exactly is a "means of subsistence"? Possessing money, a stove, a toothbrush shows means. What exactly is "giving a good account of oneself"? I'm a fine upstanding citizen caught out in the rain and needing to rest until it's safe to continue? The punctuation is dubious in the definition though, if one carefully notes the position of commas, "and"s and "or"s. For example it's quite a different definition if a semicolon is placed after "wagon", which I imagine was the intention.

And we also have this of course: "By the amendments incorporated in the Vagrancy Act 1935, Section 1(4), the reference in the 1824 Act to a person lodging under a tent or in a cart or wagon shall not be deemed to include a person lodging under a tent or in a cart or wagon with or in which he travels"."

So the Vagrancy Act doesn't apply to wild camping and we're back to civil trespass (because we're not intending to reside and we'll leave if asked and not damage anything and not take anything away).

[matt_outandabout]

I've just read up on the whole libel accusation.

It's nothing to do with BBB or Facebook. I am author and responsible for my own gob. Just like FB or twatter isn't responsible for someone like Trump.

However, for libel action to be taken it has to meet all three criteria-
- published.
- cause significant loss of standing within the community or population.
- lead to significant cost, financially, personally or professionally.

Anything that doesn't meet all three of likely to be rejected as a waste of resources by a court.

My mind is at rest.