|
|
Post by Louise on Jun 17, 2011 18:01:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by floydie on Jun 17, 2011 18:45:44 GMT
They should leave him alone  poor fella. |
|
|
|
Post by Louise on Jun 17, 2011 19:07:26 GMT
It's hardly as if he's doing any harm, is it, he's living with nature and not doing a thing wrong, yet it looks like they'll disagree with him staying there  |
|
|
|
Post by Lou78W on Jun 17, 2011 19:50:12 GMT
They will "exploit him" if they can  |
|
|
|
Post by wildlifefriendly on Jun 17, 2011 19:59:35 GMT
The Daily Mail certainly got their money's worth out of him.
They have not decided whether to evict him, the article said
He is now awaiting a decision from park chiefs as they decide his fate.
I can see both sides, it is Dave's home but how many people should the National Park allow to set up home where ever and when ever they choose?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lou78W on Jun 17, 2011 20:01:06 GMT
Good/critical question WF |
|
|
|
Post by Geranium on Jun 17, 2011 20:09:40 GMT
It is a problem, because it's a National Park, and they have very strict rules. I can also see two sides to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Louise on Jun 18, 2011 5:27:38 GMT
I would think it's a foregone conclusion that he'll be removed, WF.
I see your point that folks can't just set up home anywhere but after so long this all seems a bit redundant !
|
|
|
|
Post by wildlifefriendly on Jun 18, 2011 6:57:30 GMT
There used to be a law on Dartmoor that if you could build a house in a day and have a peat fire burning in the hearth by nightfall you could claim squatters rights. I doubt if that law still stands  I wonder if Dave has any legal rights. If you tend an unowned piece of land for 15 years you can claim it. |
|
|
|
Post by grindle on Jun 18, 2011 7:05:10 GMT
it would be nice to think he would be allowed to stay, but then that would open the floodgates to anyone |
|
|
|
Post by Louise on Jun 18, 2011 7:08:50 GMT
I disagree Grindle, i would think the number of human beings who could, and would, live like that would be so few that one hand would be too large to count them on !
No modern amenities ? ? Most people would rather die !!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by blossom on Jun 19, 2011 8:43:50 GMT
You can't have people setting up home anywhere - it'd lead to anarchy!! Typical Daily Mail !!
|
|
|
|
Post by Cherry on Jun 19, 2011 10:55:16 GMT
Not quite Louise. If Sootycat was here she would be telling you about all the campers from the middle-east who live in the woods near Peterborough. We get them on our local news.
|
|
|
|
Post by grindle on Jun 19, 2011 12:39:24 GMT
no granted there wouldn't be many who would take up the idea, but it would set a precedent for other areas of the country
|
|
|
|
Post by Louise on Jun 19, 2011 16:37:27 GMT
Cherry and Grindle, you're right, i hadn't thought about that type. Kibbutzes, now that's what's needed  |
|
poor fella.
