Adam Smith Science and Communications Officer, ANH-Intl
KEY POINTS
- The Mason family used some windfall cash to move from a council estate to a derelict orchard in Devon
- They are now largely self sufficient, growing several crops and selling produce to the local community
- The local council has decided that the Masons are breaching planning regulations and is evicting them from their land
- After living a healthy, sustainable, outdoor lifestyle, the family may now be forced to live in ways that risk long-term, chronic diseases
- A new World Health Organization report provides stark evidence of the dangers posed by inactivity, bad diet and other risk factors
Meet the Free Masons
Back in 2009, a British couple, Stig and Dinah Mason, were living on a Hertfordshire council estate with their two children, aged eight and nine, when they received a sudden windfall of around £47,000. They saw their opportunity to escape their impoverished urban environment and grasped it with both hands: they bought Muxbeare Orchard, a weed-choked four-acre plot of land in the Devon village of Willand, and set their sights on becoming entirely self sufficient.
In 2011, they are a long way toward reaching their goal, with a polytunnel and greenhouses for fruit and vegetables, chickens providing eggs and a regenerated orchard of 14 apple trees. As fellow Willand resident, David Thompson, put it, “They are trying to live up to the Government's pledge to take better care of the environment and this is the last orchard in the vicinity of Willand.” The family are contributing to their local community by selling their spare produce, and they plan to go into the cider business using their reclaimed orchard’s apples.
Enter jobsworths – exit sanity
That’s where the good news ends. The Masons are currently appealing Mid-Devon District Council’s refusal to grant planning permission for them to live onsite and work the land. Since they are living in a lorry onsite, council officers have decided that the family’s presence makes the land ‘mixed use’, and that the Masons are no longer conserving the local agricultural area. “How anybody can say the orchard was being conserved before is beyond my comprehension,” protests Dinah Mason, after she and her husband spent a year clearing four-foot-high weeds and thistles from the site. At a hearing on 31st March, magistrates served the Masons with an injunction that evicts them from their own land, giving them 28 days’ notice from 1st June.
A burden on the State, courtesy of the State
The idiocy of this story doesn’t end with the Masons’ eviction, unfortunately. Mid-Devon County Council has offered the family temporary accommodation when they make the family homeless – at taxpayers’ expense. And they will be forced to claim benefits to survive, so hurling them straight into the trap from which they have worked so admirably to extricate themselves. To top it all, however, one particularly ‘thoughtful’ council employee suggested that the Masons replace their healthful, homegrown diet with takeaways – at a cost of £20 per meal for the family, and an untold cost to their health.
Small tragedies
Contained within this single story of one family’s experience are a number of small tragedies. Prime among them may be that UK officialdom, in the form of Mid-Devon District Council, has no apparent problem with destroying years of hard work and dedication through a blinkered interpretation of planning laws. We can only speculate whether the council’s actions are, in some sense, motivated by a desire to dissuade others from following the Masons’ good example. After all, what would be the consequences for the UK’s corporate, war-machine economy if thousands of people suddenly became self-sufficient in food, and therefore largely independent of the State? This could explain why the council doesn’t think twice about making a family homeless and a drain on the taxpayer, when the family themselves have worked hard for the exact opposite outcome.
Secondly, the local community will be deprived of people who appear dedicated to enhancing it, by providing high-quality, homegrown produce, grown from land retrieved from dereliction and an orchard that is producing apples for the first time in years.
Enforcing bad health?
But it’s in the area of health that the council’s actions against the Masons amount to a flagrant disregard for their fundamental human rights as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and especially, “The right to respect for his or her private and family life...[and]…the right of access to preventive health care”. Has the council even read the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, we wonder?
According to the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) recent Global status report on noncommunicable diseases 2010, “Common, preventable risk factors underlie most NCDs [non-communicable diseases]. Most NCDs are strongly associated and causally linked with four particular behaviours: tobacco use, physical inactivity, unhealthy diet and the harmful use of alcohol”. Well, the Masons’ new lifestyle is certainly high in physical activity and there’s nothing healthier than eating high-quality, locally produced food! And it’s a sure bet that smoking and heavy drinking are not high on the agenda of a family determined to conserve their resources and become self sufficient.
WHO on chronic disease
In the same WHO report are some extremely sobering statistics on the consequences, in terms of NCD burden, for the health of populations worldwide when they employ these four high-risk behaviours. All of the figures below are for the year 2008, the most recent year for which data are available:
- NCDs accounted for 36 million (63%) of the 57 million global deaths, and are projected to account for 44 million deaths by 2020 [1]
- The leading causes of NCD deaths were: cardiovascular diseases (17 million deaths, or 48% of NCD deaths); cancers (7.6 million, or 21% of NCD deaths); and respiratory diseases (4.2 million, or 12% of NCD deaths) [1]
- The worldwide incidence of 12.7 million new cancer cases is estimated to rise to 21.4 million by 2030 [1]
- Country-specific figures for deaths due to NCDs overall and cancer can be found from the WHO’s interactive maps
It has long been a central mission of ANH-Intl to promote a healthy diet and lifestyle as the baseline approach for reducing people’s risk of chronic diseases, which amount to the biggest burden on Western, and increasingly all, healthcare systems. Check out our sustainable health and Food4Health campaigns for more information.
Reduced chronic disease risk with ‘off the grid’ lifestyle
Since the World Cancer Research Fund has estimated that 27–39% of the main cancers can be prevented by improving diet, physical activity and body composition [1], the Masons’ ‘off the grid’ lifestyle was ideally suited to reducing their cancer risk. And that’s without mentioning the benefits for cardiovascular disease of adequate consumption of fruit and vegetables (big tick for the Masons) and minimal trans-fat intake (another big tick). Or – a third big tick on the Mason lifestyle scorecard – that, “Participation in 150 minutes of moderate physical activity each week (or equivalent) is estimated to reduce the risk of ischaemic heart disease by approximately 30%, the risk of diabetes by 27%, and the risk of breast and colon cancer by 21–25%” [1].
We could go on, but if you want the full story, please read the WHO report, or at least the first chapter.
We think it’s a tragedy that the Masons are being evicted from their own land by a local council for whom the term ‘jobsworth’ is a gentle understatement. What’s even worse, given the fact that there are two children involved, is that they are being forced from a healthy, sustainable, outdoor lifestyle to what may well be a life of depressed council estates, poverty, inactivity and bad food – leading to the chronic health problems described above, which are so prevalent in our modern world.
Get involved!
The Masons’ deadline for eviction ran out on 29th June, and we don’t have any updates on their situation as yet. But in case there’s still time to make a change, we urge you to contact Mid-Devon District Council and tell them how appalled you are at their treatment of the Masons, and demand that they reconsider their decision.
You can also sign a petition against the eviction here: http://www.petitiononline.co.uk/petition/remove-the-injunction-to-evict-the-masons-from-muxbeare-orchard/3054
Contacts at Mid-Devon District Council
Planning Section email: [email protected]
Planning Section telephone number: +44 (0)1884 234260/234262
Enforcement Officer, John Clarke
+44 (0)1884 234947
Enforcement team webpage: http://www.middevon.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=3421
Leader of the Council, Peter Hare-Scott
Webpage: http://www.middevon.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4390
Email: [email protected]
Telephone: +44 (0)1363 776409
Chairman of the Council, Brenda Hull
Webpage: http://www.middevon.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=5142
Email: [email protected]
Telephone: +44 (0) 01884 256384
Mid-Devon District Councillors can be found here: http://www.middevon.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=2051
[1] World Health Organization. Global status report on noncommunicable diseases 2010. Available at: http://www.who.int/entity/nmh/publications/ncd_report_chapter1.pdf. Accessed 04 July 2011.
Comments
your voice counts
Zoey prust
05 July 2011 at 9:57 pm
Fabulous.very well written article
Dinah Mason
05 July 2011 at 11:11 pm
Thankyou so much for writing such a brilliant article highlighting our case. Just wanted to update you on our current situation. We are spending our days on the land and our nights in a tent as we are unable to fully comply with the order. So it is likely that we will end up back in court facing sentencing for contempt of court. The council inform us that they have taken our human rights into consideration as apparently rights are a two way street and we were aware of the illegality of what we are doing frrom the start! Foolish us for thinking that all the governments green talk was more than just rhetoric!
Adam
08 July 2011 at 10:37 am
Hi Dinah, thanks for getting in touch, and for your very kind words about the article! We'd love to update the story at some point in the future, so please do stay in touch. If you'd like to drop me an email direct, rather than communicate via comment boxes, my address is [email protected]. Also, do you have any photos that you'd be happy to send us for the story, please? We and our readers would love to put faces to the names! Finally, everyone at ANH-Intl wishes you the very best for the future, and for a positive outcome to this whole sorry episode. Take care.
GSDJayne
06 July 2011 at 2:09 pm
Dinah
You must send a notice to the council and remove your consent.
The council have failed to provide you with full disclosure, equal consideration, lawful terms and conditions and there is no mutual intent.
The council is not an authority since it is a registered company listed under Dunn and Bradstreet operating under limited liability, and has neither a co-operative nor a charitable status, which means it operates for profit and therefore cannot be a public authority which is owned by the people and for the people and operating for the public good.
They have as much 'authority' over you as any other PRIVATE COMPANY (actively trading for a profit), such as Tesco or Sainsbury's or Wal-Mart. In other words their company has no 'authority' that enables it to place any demands upon you without your express consent.
Put as simply as you are able: You do not wish to trade with their company.
You must post PRIVATE PROPERTY NO UNAUTHORISED ACCESS signs all round your property and put up Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access signs as well. 'Please take notice that the land known as England is a Common Law jurisdiction and any transgression of the notices posted around my property will be dealt with according to Common Law.'
Nobody can enter your property without a lawful warrant and they can only get one of those from a court de jure ie a crown court with a jury of 12.
You will not win this case if you let them beat your legal fiction around the head with unlawful statutes.
NO CONSENT = NO LAWFUL CONTRACT = NO OBLIGATION IN LAW
GSDJayne
06 July 2011 at 2:12 pm
To all that it concerns
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL AND NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT APPLIES
Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access
You are advised to read the following notice thoroughly and carefully. It is a lawful notice. It informs you. It means what it says.
I hereby give notice that the implied right of access to the property known as <#your address#> [<#your postcode#>], and surrounding areas, has been removed, along with all associated property including, but not limited to, any private conveyance in respect of the following:
1) ANY employee, principal, agent, third party or representative or any other person acting on behalf of or under the instruction of HER MAJESTYS COURT SERVICE, or any other CORPORATE BODY (i.e. Company) howsoever named and,
2) ANY POLICE OFFICER who is acting for the CORPORATE POLICE and NOT acting as a Constable for and on behalf of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and her people as expressed in the Oath of Office of all POLICE men and women, that is as Public Servants, upon your Oath of Office to serve "with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property"
COMMON LAW JURISDICTION APPLIES EXCLUSIVELY
Please also take notice that the land known as England is a Common Law jurisdiction and any transgression of this notice will be dealt with according to Common Law.
Any and all access to the above mentioned properties shall be by strict invitation only and shall be subject to terms and conditions, available by written request.
We do not have, and have never had, a contract. And any permission that you believe you may have from me is hereby withdrawn. If you believe that you have power of attorney to act on my behalf you are hereby fired, and any consent that you believe you may have, tacit or otherwise, is hereby withdrawn. If you feel so inclined as to enforce statutes as a consequence of this matter I will report your conduct to ALL relevant bodies and will pursue Proof of Claim in affidavit form, under your full commercial liability and under the penalty of perjury.
You are deemed to have been served this notice with immediate effect.
In sincerity and honour, without ill-will, frivolity, or vexation,
<#your calling#>, as commonly known, English Sovereign.Without any admission of any liability whosoever, and with all Indefeasible Rights reserved.
Janine Peters
06 July 2011 at 2:29 pm
Leave them alone!!
Oliver Dowding
08 July 2011 at 3:31 pm
Having read the case of Stig and Dina Mason, and the response from the Council, it raised the blood pressure a notch!
I could have done like many others, tut-tutted, and got on with the next thing that came across my radar. Instead I chose to be proactive. I e-mailed their MP, who used to be my MEP, and is a farmer.
This is what I said "I can only express utter amazement that we've got to this point. What they've done seems to have been everything that the current government is urging people to do. They gain a cash windfall from a private source, they are thus able to get themselves off benefits which had up until then been costing the state heavily, they purchase their own small piece of England (in Devon) and recover it from a condition of neglect, grow their own food and any surplus is used in their locality, enabling them to live a life of minimum footprint upon the environment and which appears to have gained the support of a great many in the community.
I know that "rules is rules", as people say, but where has common sense gone?
If what I read is true, I'm led to believe that if the eviction is enacted, they will go from being a family who contribute to the local society and economy, and the local environment, to becoming a family who are forced to live off the State, drawing endless benefits and other payments, which apparently they have been offered. Furthermore, they are being offered the chance to eat meals which were all told we shouldn't, and which they fought to get away from through personal endeavour and awareness. The whole episode seems to me to be totally bonkers. If this is the signal that people are to be given, one wonders at the sanity of those giving the signals.
Naturally, I'm well aware that we can't just allow anybody and everybody to start acquiring small pieces of land and setting up home upon them without some form of infrastructure and control. However, perhaps we need to appraise quite how we run society, who puts in and who takes out, and whose footprint is the more valuable. Perhaps allowing more people to take up pieces of land, often deemed uneconomic and unviable for the larger farmer to till, or some economist, as you will well appreciate from your farming experience, then maybe we should let this happen. Perhaps this is a route to rejuvenating local communities, to utilising our land resources better, to re-inspiring local people to take up tools and through physical activities such as farming they can re-gain healthy lifestyles and reduce their burden upon society, and the NHS, for example.
I'm sorry to be so blunt, but it would appear we have clearly reached a point where lines have to be drawn, and things have to be said, which point we would perhaps rather not have reached."
I've received a reply from the MP, which is very speedily done to his credit. Whilst undoubtedly having some sympathy with their plight, he is bound by the system as much as the rest of us, and particularly the Mason family. There is no doubt that if they were able to call themselves gypsies, they would have had a better chance.
However, despite it appearing as if all has been lost in this case, and goodness knows what will happen to the piece of land, it must be a point for all of us to rally and realise that if we complain long enough and loud enough, ultimately change can happen. It won't happen if we all just sit on our sofas, or bar-stools, and moan within closed groups, our friends and others all of whom have effectively little power to effect change.
Perhaps the events of the last few days at the News of the World might be a catalyst? People have been campaigning against some of the things they've been doing for a long time, but as with all campaigns, eventually one reaches the "tipping point", and everything changes wholesale. We owe it to the future generations to keep campaigning, and doing all we can individually to make this happen. It's no good assuming that some "organisation" or, maybe, "campaigning group" will do this for us.
As Mahatma Gandhi said, "you must be the change you want to see in the world". So, don't hide under your lamp, get out there and make a noise!
Michael Northcott
13 August 2011 at 3:22 am
Dinah
I wanted to ask if you are still on the land? I hope you fought them on the law as Zoey suggested with signs and fences. Against the backdrop of the riots in England I came across your story and you have shown it is possible to get off benefits and out of social housing and this is the reward a Tory council gives you. It is unbelievable, but sadly not - bureaucracy and planning laws are a nightmare in Britain and some of the worst anywhere in the world. This would not happen to you in the United States since you own the land, nor in Australia, and I doubt in France. I am a frequent visitor to Devon and a professor who teaches and researches the societal response to climate change. You are part of the right response. Your local government clearly is not.
All the best
Michael
samuel
06 December 2011 at 6:52 pm
It is an informative and educative post to go through. Many a family suffer due to wrong decisions. Indifferent governmental policies put people in situations where they are susceptible to diseases. I have found the post to be a very resourceful discussion.
Your voice counts
We welcome your comments and are very interested in your point of view, but we ask that you keep them relevant to the article, that they be civil and without commercial links. All comments are moderated prior to being published. We reserve the right to edit or not publish comments that we consider abusive or offensive.
There is extra content here from a third party provider. You will be unable to see this content unless you agree to allow Content Cookies. Cookie Preferences