The proletariat have the right to roam the countryside.

With many thanks to Mr. Latham for his considered rebuttal, I should like to respond as follows: 1 – My opponent has discerned the meaning of the resolution correctly: that is that the default situation should be that the general public should, unless there is a very good reason why not, have free and unfettered access to the countryside, even if the land is privately owned. 2 – I intended the word ‘proletariat' to mean all citizens of all social classes, it is an old-fashioned word not in general use and I admit, therefore, that to employ it in my opening round was ill-advised. 3 – Surely, we would all agree that the countryside should not be the sole preserve of those few privileged people that can either afford to buy country estates or pay exorbitant amounts of money to attend shooting parties, hunt meetings, gymkhanas and other rural pursuits that have traditionally excluded the less well off? Nevertheless, that is the desire of the wealthy elite: such as the landed gentry and the celebrities that my opponent cited. Many of them, including Madonna, Posh Spice, Andrew Lloyd Webber and Claudia Schiffer have bought country homes in England and have sought to prevent other people from using the public rights of way that cross, or even merely come close, to their land. http://www.independent.co.uk... In essence, what they are saying to the rest of us is: "I'm very famous and extremely rich and I have just bought this huge mansion in the countryside and I don't want to look out of the window and see ordinary people like you. That's why I have ordered my minions to block all the public rights of way in the vicinity of my property. What's that? You don't like it? Okay, can you afford the best lawyers money can buy? Can you? No I didn't think so. So there's nothing you can do to stop me is there? Right, now get off my land before I set the dogs on you, you disgusting piece of lower class filth." That is why the government must step in to protect the rights of the ordinary citizens to enjoy the countryside that, through public subsidies paid to landowners and farmers to protect the environment, we actually pay for through our taxes. Of course, public access should not be permitted to private gardens (when a backyard becomes open countryside is a mute point, but clearly land that is used for growing crops or grazing animals or is forested or open moorland cannot be described as a garden, indeed anything over ten acres should come under scrutiny). Also, provisions should be made to protect endangered wildlife, but let's be clear, the people who make the effort to visit the countryside are generally the people that respect it most and are most keen to see it preserved – otherwise they would spend their free time scoffing cheeseburgers in bowling alleys or standing in line for rides at theme parks. 4 – Clearly, the interruption of commercial activities cannot be allowed and the public harvesting of fruit or vegetables or removing livestock from private land would amount to theft. But to try and stop people from picking the wild mushrooms, herbs and fruit that would otherwise go to waste, would be churlish and spiteful. 5 – Country land owners are not above the law. They may own the land but the land still comes under the jurisdiction of the government. That means that the landowner does not have the right to commit criminal offences on his land or to prevent law enforcement officers from entering his property if they suspect him of doing so. For example, in Waco, Texas in 1993 the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms attempted to serve arrest and search warrants on the landowner, David Koresh. He opened fire on the officers, killing four and injuring sixteen. http://www.pbs.org... Some people argue that since the ranch was private property, even though Koresh was suspected of sexually abusing children and of possessing illegal firearms, the ATF had no business to be on his land and deserved what they got. I do not subscribe to this view and believe that private property should not serve as a refuge for suspected criminals. Similarly, landowners cannot be allowed to deliberately endanger the public by placing traps or other devices on their property that are designed to prevent or deter free access. However, since they are not charging for admission, beyond keeping pathways and tracks free from obstructions, they should not be held liable for ensuring that their land conforms to health and safety regulations. 6 – The Country Landowners Association are up in arms at the prospect of public access to their wealthy members' property and want financial compensation. They trot out the same old hackneyed arguments about how much land is already accessible to the public that my opponent has made. http://www.countrylife.co.uk... So a minority of the land is already accessible to the public? So what they are saying is that the majority of it should be the preserve of the wealthy few. Should we extend this logic to the right of citizens to vote? We could go back to the olden days when only the landed gentry and other socially privileged people were allowed to participate in elections and the general population were totally disenfranchised, but I think this would be a backward step. 7 – The example of landowners in the United States granting free access to their land with public liability disclaimers and small fees for those who wish to hunt or fish, is a perfect example of how the countryside should be managed for the benefit of all and should be held up as the example for others to follow. However, those landowners who believe that they have the right to deny the public the enjoyment of the natural beauty of their own country must be legally obliged to allow access to their land. ============================================================== The implementation of free access to the countryside would be relatively simple and inexpensive yet would benefit everybody who enjoys wildlife and the natural environment. These people are not the thugs, criminals and other undesirables that the landowners seek to portray them as – they are hikers, birdwatchers, families with picnic hampers and other responsible people whose main desire is to see their country's natural beauty preserved, certainly not damaged. The wealthy landowners who say that the public should be content with the parks and other open areas they already have access to, share the same mentality as their aristocratic forefathers who used to feast upon huge platters of meat and throw the bones to their malnourished servants – it's an insult to us all. Finally, as far as compensation from the government is concerned, that's fine, just so long as the farmers and landowners demanding it don't mind if the government also withdraws the many billions they pay them each year in public subsidies. Thank you.