Not at all. That's a serve into the net. Send me one worth returning. And try to read the replies before you answer them. Without looking further than my window I gave you an example of how small amounts of previously private estate land have been bought, albeit in a leveraged way, and re-purposed for enormous public good. And nobody got their head chopped off or shot in a basement in Yekaterinburg. Do you disapprove of that kind of thing? Should we just continue, as we do, to subsidise the biggest landowners? I don't know - you just went on about your knock-down questionnaire.
Your simple notion of trespass is just that, simple. Would you be aware that, aside from whether swotty little 11yr old birdwatchers deserve to be terrorised by a Duke's armed goons for trying to see his (lol) woodpeckers, historic rights of access for the public (National Parks Legislation, Countryside Rights of Way Act) have stemmed from "trespass"? Try not to worry so much that I was an eleven year old trespasser, and try to see the bigger picture which the little story illustrates - the unreasonable exclusion of the public from huge swathes of the country in anachronistic ownership. It's not the same as people encroaching on the suburban garden, although I can see the issues trigger conservatives.
My views much simpler. You wandered onto private land as an 11 year old, got a bollocking & its got nothing to do with class or snobbery.
The only thing I have not seen in your veritable avalanche of words that would do a thesaurus proud is any indication that you could have been at fault in any way whatsoever.
...that’s rather ornery and arbitrary of you don’t you think ?