Gov. consultation on the law of trespass (1 Viewer)

[Nigel Crompton]

The trespass trap: this new law could make us strangers in our own land | George Monbiot

A government consultation being framed as a crackdown on travelling people is an assault on all citizens’ freedoms, says Guardian columnist George Monbiot

www.theguardian.com

 

[David and Sally]

Presumably he has never had anyone trespass on his land. Typical leftie crap.

Go Boris, Go get it done.

 

[DuxDeluxe]

I just looked at who wrote the article........

it has been commented on here before, I think

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[eddie]

About time too. I am currently involved with my Local MP and through her the Home Secretary and the Police Complaints Commission trying to get some protection from gypsies for campsite owners

Currently the Police will aide and abet them in the theft of our services, whilst will arrest my staff if derogatory terms are used, whilst they are being threatened with knives.

 

[Puddleduck]

Does the "right to roam" in Scotland work because there is a lower population density ?

There is no trespass in Scotland but there is Criminal Damage.

 

[Jim]

How do you get past the first paragraph? Literally impossible for me to do so.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Gellyneck]

Jim This is it

 

[Jim]

Thanks, when I say it was impossible, i meant that it was impossible for me to read another word past the first paragraph of bile .. Thanks anyway

 

[Gellyneck]

Thanks, when I say it was impossible, i meant that it was impossible for me to read another word past the first paragraph of bile .. Thanks anyway

I wondered that myself but being the fine upstanding chap you are ........

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[romany]

Perhaps instead of trying to class it as left or right wing crap it should be looked at in the context of other laws that have been passed that have had bad effects on people it wasn't intended to
ie the definition of car parking and camping, also perhaps its time we called out these questionnaires that give councils and governments the answers they want.

I think we need some form of reforms to protect Land owners/ campsite owners from problems like Eddie has but some of the things he has stated are already against the law so the question for me is if the police didn't enforce those breaches what makes you think they would enforce new laws except against easy targets it probably wasn't intended for if the new law is badly formed

 

[Rapido925M]

Sounds like a great law to me: any FLT stopping in a layby or farm-gateway can be arrested, hauled off to the nearest nick and forced to prove that they were only going to be there for a short time .

Presumably a dentists appointment in a town 200 miles away in 2 months time would not be sufficient: after all, you could intend staying in-situ for well over a month.

Proving that you had a nice house in that town could be construed as only being a consequence of being unable to sell it.

Every night ought to be spent on a proper regulated campsite: you know it makes sense (especially if the alternative is a criminal record).

Gordon

 

[Phill D]

having been the land owner ( and i use term lightly, as in the plot our home is built on ) involved in a dispute over trespass with a local "freedom fighter "!

i have deleted the rest of my post..... to save me and my blood pressure..

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[busby]

About time too. I am currently involved with my Local MP and through her the Home Secretary and the Police Complaints Commission trying to get some protection from gypsies for campsite owners

Currently the Police will aide and abet them in the theft of our services, whilst will arrest my staff if derogatory terms are used, whilst they are being threatened with knives.

Can't go upsetting them they are an ethnic minority, bit like the perverted Asians in Derby, Rotherham and Manchester who prayed sexually on vulnerable young girls,,Police turned a blind eye for years so as not to be accused as racist..Disgusting.BUSBY.

 

[DuxDeluxe]

It is a public consultation, so you know what is going to happen as soon as the “yuman rites” lawyers paid for by various groups get their hands on it. If it survives that then any proposed law is going to be seen as an affront to a traditional way of life, ignoring the rights of the landowners - as Eddie put it above

 

[Coolcats]

There should be a right to roam, but it should be a right to roam with respect and by that i mean if you wish to walk across the countryside you should be allowed to do so. But conversely the land that you are crossing will be owned by someone, repect the crops close the gates keep dogs on leads and use the footpaths etc where a farmer has not put the foot path back across a field the. Walk around it. Other than that the right to roam should be something we can all do.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[David and Sally]

We all understand who this is aimed at so let's not sugar coat it.

Groups of 'travellers' who take over land and leave a whole load of mess behind after they have nicked everything not bolted down or done over pensioners to tarmac their drives.

Slobs who use motorhomes as travelling cess pits - as per the post re emptying a cassette onto a car park.

Those who move onto legitimate sites then won't pay for their stay or electric and are then quite inclined to threaten the staff if they stand up to them.

These are nasty, nasty people. Unfortunately the more decent travellers get caught up in the backlash. There is a lad near us camps on the verges and keeps his horses there whilst he makes and sell wooden carvings. Nice lad and does no harm.

Sod they idea they are ethnic minorities and need protection. It's the councils and landowners that need protection from them.

 

[Rapido925M]

Can't go upsetting them they are an ethnic minority, bit like the perverted Asians in Derby, Rotherham and Manchester who prayed sexually on vulnerable young girls,,Police turned a blind eye for years so as not to be accused as racist..Disgusting.BUSBY.

Or, as the ex-Detective Inspector said on BBC Breakfast this morning, because preventing crimes does not show up on official statistics. Thank the "bean counters" for making public servants more interested in accountability than in serving the public.

Gordon

 

[romany]

having been the land owner ( and i use term lightly, as in the plot our home is built on ) involved in a dispute over trespass with a local "freedom fighter "!

i have deleted the rest of my post..... to save me and my blood pressure..

The funny is for your last bit of your post as having been involved with trespass disputes I know they are anything but funny, which is why the new laws need to be discussed and worked out I for one am fed with people enjoying themselves bothering no one being prosecuted, and the itinerants who know every old damn law that hasn't been repealed and uses it to delay and cost councils a fortune there is a difference

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Rapido925M]

We all understand who this is aimed at so let's not sugar coat it.

So if you are caught doing 30mph in the 20mph zone near the school in my village at midnight, will you happily accept being banned from driving for excessive speed?

We all understand why the 20mph limit is there but that doesn't mean that you would not be breaking the law and committing a criminal offence.

Did you imagine that Counter Terrorism legislation would be used against UK citizens peacefully protesting on a public highway?

Once it's on the Statute Books, we will have little say in how it is used.

Totalitarian regimes love to have laws which sound reasonable but can be used for the advantage of the ruling classes "if necessary".

Gordon

 

[DuxDeluxe]

We all understand who this is aimed at so let's not sugar coat it.

Groups of 'travellers' who take over land and leave a whole load of mess behind after they have nicked everything not bolted down or done over pensioners to tarmac their drives.

Slobs who use motorhomes as travelling cess pits - as per the post re emptying a cassette onto a car park.

Those who move onto legitimate sites then won't pay for their stay or electric and are then quite inclined to threaten the staff if they stand up to them.

These are nasty, nasty people. Unfortunately the more decent travellers get caught up in the backlash. There is a lad near us camps on the verges and keeps his horses there whilst he makes and sell wooden carvings. Nice lad and does no harm.

Sod they idea they are ethnic minorities and need protection. It's the councils and landowners that need protection from them.

I think the ones that you spoke about were camped near Sainsbury’s Redditch before Christmas.. they always clean up after themselves and were selling wreaths and carvings. Nice to see locals giving them bags of carrots for the horses etc. Some low life stole all their wreaths one night though.
I would hate to see this traditional family group persecuted by a new law

 

[Phill D]

Totalitarian regimes love to have laws which sound reasonable but can be used for the advantage of the ruling classes "if necessary".

not sure i understand

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[David and Sally]

So if you are caught doing 30mph in the 20mph zone near the school in my village at midnight, will you happily accept being banned from driving for excessive speed?

If I had enough points and that was the penalty I would have to suck in and take it.

Can't see what that's got to do with trespass though.

 

[Jim]

Totalitarian regimes love to have laws which sound reasonable but can be used for the advantage of the ruling classes

New avatar anyone

 

[PeteH]

As I understand it This is roughly what is being proposed? :-

These proposed amendments to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 include:

• lowering the number of vehicles needed to be involved in an unauthorised camp before police can act from 6 to 2
• giving the police powers to direct offenders to sites in neighbouring local authorities - currently they can only direct trespassers to sites in the same area
• allowing officers to remove trespassers from camping on or beside a road
• increasing the time - from 3 months to a year - during which offenders are not allowed to return to a site they have already been removed from

The gov.; paper :- https://assets.publishing.service.g...thorised_Encampments_-_consultation_paper.pdf

As such it is unlikely to impact on single Motorhomes who stop for less that 48hrs in any place?.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[MyrtleGuru]

Perhaps instead of trying to class it as left or right wing crap it should be looked at in the context of other laws that have been passed that have had bad effects on people it wasn't intended to
ie the definition of car parking and camping, also perhaps its time we called out these questionnaires that give councils and governments the answers they want.

I think we need some form of reforms to protect Land owners/ campsite owners from problems like Eddie has but some of the things he has stated are already against the law so the question for me is if the police didn't enforce those breaches what makes you think they would enforce new laws except against easy targets it probably wasn't intended for if the new law is badly formed

Yes, it seems to be a knee-jerk reaction of all flavours of government to introduce yet more laws so that they are seen to be doing something, when what is really needed is enforcement of the existing laws – but that costs money. Aggravated trespass was already made a criminal offence back in 1994.

 

[Paddywack]

Well I appear to be in a minority, as a FLT, a paddler who has previously been accused of trespass and a walker in wild country these changes could affect me.

These are the questions in the consultation, with my personal responses and a link to the online consultation form. I don't doubt more powerful responses could be made, and with far greater authority, but my instinct is that we actually need a volume of responses on a scale which can at least prompt a review of proposals.

1. To what extent do you agree or disagree that knowingly entering land without the landowner’s permission should only be made a criminal offence if it is for the purpose of residing on it?

Knowingly entering land without a landowner's permission is something ordinary, everyday people do day in, day out, across the country and for generations, ordinary, everyday people have discretely wild-camped everywhere from local woodland and river banks to remote "off the grid" spots where we can enjoy true solitude.

2. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the act of knowingly entering land without the landowner’s permission should only be made a criminal offence if it is for the purpose of residing on it with vehicles?

For millions who love the outdoors, sleeping in vehicles sets us up for dawn starts and allows recovery time after long days of activity. Ordinary, everyday people park up in places where this strikes them as reasonable, knowing full well that no formal arrangement is in place, and trusting that others will also see the activity as reasonable.

3. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the landowner or representatives of the landowner should take reasonable steps to ask persons occupying their land to remove themselves and their possessions before occupation of the land can be considered a criminal offence?

Police can already require encampments to be vacated within very short timeframes, and have the power to arrest (and impound vehicles) if those concerned do not comply - and do not support the criminalisation of unauthorised encampment!

4. To what extent do you agree or disagree that a criminal offence can only be committed when the following conditions have been met?

The Police should and do have powers where a group with reasonable alternatives is deliberately obstructing ordinary, everyday (legitimate) activity, has caused significant damage or is actively engaging in anti-social behaviour.

5. What other conditions not covered in the above should we consider?

In a country where definitive maps don't even come close to documenting the places local people have walked for generations and in which Historic Rights of Way initiatives are getting little traction we need to recognise that what is "reasonable" in accessing land is (and almost certainly always will be) contested. I urge that we drop any and all legislation with the scope to criminalise activity that ordinary, everyday people have engaged in day in, day out for generations.

11. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the number of vehicles needing to be involved in an unauthorised encampment before police powers can be exercised should be lowered from 6 to 2 vehicles?

Groups of 3-6 camper vans can routinely be found almost anywhere that outdoor enthusiasts wish to make an early start for a bit of hillwalking, canoeing or whatever. Irrespective of the intent of this sort of provision (and no matter how framed) we could expect an adverse impact on ordinary, everyday enthusiasts with an understandable anxiety about having their perfectly reasonable activity treated as criminal.

13. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the police should be granted the power to seize property, including vehicles, from trespassers who are on land with the purpose of residing on it?

The possibility of Police abusing these powers would have huge implications for ordinary, everyday members of the Public who occasionally or routinely access and reside on land in what they consider to be entirely "reasonable" ways.

18. Do you have any other comments to make on the issue of unauthorised encampments not specifically addressed by any of the previous questions?The legislation as currently framed would criminalise these entire ways of life in the outdoors - but the broader language of criminalising "intentional trespass" is even more worrying.

Many of us with dogs "intentionally trespass" almost every time we get out - just using habitual routes which everyone uses but where no access is marked on maps and no "permissive path" arrangement have been formalised.

Canoeists and kayakers will "intentionally trespass" on each and every outing. That may be launching, stopping to empty boats, breaking for lunch, scouting at horizon lines, portaging obstacles or getting off rivers.

Fundamentally, trespass to remain a civil matter so that ordinary, everyday people are not thinking they are engaged in "criminal" activity if they deviate from a footpath to simply find a discrete spot for a pee on a country lane or a busy trail.

Strengthening police powers to tackle unauthorised encampments

Please take a few minutes to take our survey.

www.homeofficesurveys.homeoffice.gov.uk

 

[eddie]

Change the shotgun laws and allow landowners to shoot at trespassers and solve all of these arguments

My land my property, not anyone elses

I wonder how the people that complain that these laws could stop them doing whatever they like, would feel if they opened their motorhome door and found someone having a crap in their loo?

"I need one, you have one, you weren't using it, its my right to do what I want"

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[romany]

Change the shotgun laws and allow landowners to shoot at trespassers and solve all of these arguments

My land my property, not anyone elses

I wonder how the people that complain that these laws could stop them doing whatever they like, would feel if they opened their motorhome door and found someone having a crap in their loo?

"I need one, you have one, you weren't using it, its my right to do what I want"

I would expect them to ask first so I could charge my normal £1.50 fee

 

[romany]

Well I appear to be in a minority, as a FLT, a paddler who has previously been accused of trespass and a walker in wild country these changes could affect me.

These are the questions in the consultation, with my personal responses and a link to the online consultation form. I don't doubt more powerful responses could be made, and with far greater authority, but my instinct is that we actually need a volume of responses on a scale which can at least prompt a review of proposals.

1. To what extent do you agree or disagree that knowingly entering land without the landowner’s permission should only be made a criminal offence if it is for the purpose of residing on it?

Knowingly entering land without a landowner's permission is something ordinary, everyday people do day in, day out, across the country and for generations, ordinary, everyday people have discretely wild-camped everywhere from local woodland and river banks to remote "off the grid" spots where we can enjoy true solitude.

2. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the act of knowingly entering land without the landowner’s permission should only be made a criminal offence if it is for the purpose of residing on it with vehicles?

For millions who love the outdoors, sleeping in vehicles sets us up for dawn starts and allows recovery time after long days of activity. Ordinary, everyday people park up in places where this strikes them as reasonable, knowing full well that no formal arrangement is in place, and trusting that others will also see the activity as reasonable.

3. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the landowner or representatives of the landowner should take reasonable steps to ask persons occupying their land to remove themselves and their possessions before occupation of the land can be considered a criminal offence?

Police can already require encampments to be vacated within very short timeframes, and have the power to arrest (and impound vehicles) if those concerned do not comply - and do not support the criminalisation of unauthorised encampment!

4. To what extent do you agree or disagree that a criminal offence can only be committed when the following conditions have been met?

The Police should and do have powers where a group with reasonable alternatives is deliberately obstructing ordinary, everyday (legitimate) activity, has caused significant damage or is actively engaging in anti-social behaviour.

5. What other conditions not covered in the above should we consider?

In a country where definitive maps don't even come close to documenting the places local people have walked for generations and in which Historic Rights of Way initiatives are getting little traction we need to recognise that what is "reasonable" in accessing land is (and almost certainly always will be) contested. I urge that we drop any and all legislation with the scope to criminalise activity that ordinary, everyday people have engaged in day in, day out for generations.

11. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the number of vehicles needing to be involved in an unauthorised encampment before police powers can be exercised should be lowered from 6 to 2 vehicles?

Groups of 3-6 camper vans can routinely be found almost anywhere that outdoor enthusiasts wish to make an early start for a bit of hillwalking, canoeing or whatever. Irrespective of the intent of this sort of provision (and no matter how framed) we could expect an adverse impact on ordinary, everyday enthusiasts with an understandable anxiety about having their perfectly reasonable activity treated as criminal.

13. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the police should be granted the power to seize property, including vehicles, from trespassers who are on land with the purpose of residing on it?

The possibility of Police abusing these powers would have huge implications for ordinary, everyday members of the Public who occasionally or routinely access and reside on land in what they consider to be entirely "reasonable" ways.

18. Do you have any other comments to make on the issue of unauthorised encampments not specifically addressed by any of the previous questions?The legislation as currently framed would criminalise these entire ways of life in the outdoors - but the broader language of criminalising "intentional trespass" is even more worrying.

Many of us with dogs "intentionally trespass" almost every time we get out - just using habitual routes which everyone uses but where no access is marked on maps and no "permissive path" arrangement have been formalised.

Canoeists and kayakers will "intentionally trespass" on each and every outing. That may be launching, stopping to empty boats, breaking for lunch, scouting at horizon lines, portaging obstacles or getting off rivers.

Fundamentally, trespass to remain a civil matter so that ordinary, everyday people are not thinking they are engaged in "criminal" activity if they deviate from a footpath to simply find a discrete spot for a pee on a country lane or a busy trail.

Strengthening police powers to tackle unauthorised encampments

Please take a few minutes to take our survey.

www.homeofficesurveys.homeoffice.gov.uk

Your not alone along with being an FLT I am also a canoeist but its also about education you are allowed to wild camp between the river and the recognised =(important bit) tow path there has to be enough room without encroaching over the tow path not many river fronting landlords seem to know this.

 

[MyrtleGuru]

Hmm... Why am I suddenly reminded of the mass trespass of Kinder Scout. What goes around comes around, eh?

So much more civilised in Scandinavia with their allmansret.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}