Disgraceful...

[Nomada]

http://www.thisisdevon.co.uk/Injunction ... story.html

Cases like these do make me angry. What the hell is a living income for one worker? surely that's all relative? And why a sound business plan, they're doing subsistence farming for themselves, not planning on raking in thousands of quids worth of profits.

[MKG]

It is, indeed, disgraceful. Mind, it was a bit silly to move onto the site and live there when permission had not been granted. We live in a jobsworth society, and they clearly broke Rule 1 in the Jobsworth Manual.

Having said that, the criteria by which such applications are judged are clearly met, so the decision to refuse permission is evidently in error. If the council have any sense (what am I saying? ) they'll rescind the order to quit.

The council's website, by the way, does have an email address if anyone wants to point out the error of their ways. I just have.

Mike

[RuthG]

I love the answer which said: “John Freeman, tyranny response volunteer, says: "To get governing permission on the people's land, you have to prove first there is a need for government to be there, for example, to catch bankers, and second, that the enterprise can provide freedom, justice and happiness for the people.

"Neither condition is met and therefore we will take the necessary action to protect the people, the rural landscape and prevent unlawful government."”

I am not anti-government, but they do seem to take stupid measures to 'control' things when that which they want to control is better than leaving well alone! Is the government going to reimburse them for their costs that have improved the environment?

Is there a group which will assist them taking the council to court? There is one I know of that does that for a religious group, so perhaps there is one for an ecological group too?

[red]

the problem is it would set a precedent - allow this and it becomes case law to allow everyone to do it.

I dont think it is a bad thing to keep agricultural land as agricultural - there are rules in place to ensure this - and they broke them. There are criteria to be met to prove you *need* to live on the land, and they dont meet it. After 4 years with 4 acres they are still not up to growing 6-8 months of veg? reallly? doesn't sound very sustainable. They clearly have a campaign going, and this looks like their standard press release.

you have to draw the line somewhere, and sadly for them, it appears they are on the wrong side of it.

[RuthG]

the problem is it would set a precedent - allow this and it becomes case law to allow everyone to do it.

Not necessarily. Anything done in a county court (all civil matters) does not automatically become caselaw. There is a need for it to go to the appeal court or a high court judge before precedent is set.

[LHemphillix]

A lot of law especially when it comes to land use is set up to protect the interests of companies that use the land for commercial purposes. It's designed to exclude competition that can't meet certain requirements, thus raising the bar to financial independence. The fewer people who can become financially independent, the larger the labour pool and hence the lower the wages that must be paid. It's a business/government partnership going back centuries, all designed to preserve the stratification of society.