With respect, squatters rights and the right to roam are two entirely different matters.
” If you allow them on your property, what’s to stop them from coming right up to the house, or even inside if you’re not home?”
The fact that the people who own this land do not live there. Nobody lives there. It’s moorland. Or heathland. Empty and desolate. You are confusing landowners with homeowners.
The Right To Roam is one of the few pieces of government legislation I can get behind.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/664820.stm
A BBC news article from 11 years ago, contemporary to the passing of the act, detailing what it means.
Got it ... thanks.
But I must say that I still see private property as just that. If they'll let me buy property around Yellowstone or Yosemite and I want to build a fence or wall to keep people out, that should be my right.
Let the government .. either local, "state", or national .. buy the property and they can leave it as open as they want to.
I support the Civil War Preservation Society who buys tracts of land near Civil War battlesites to preserve them from further development or other uses of the property.
If the so-called Ramblers want to use the property, let them pay to support the purchase of the property for "rambling" use.
But, again, thanks for the link to the description of the Right to Roam legislation. Very enlightening.