Tresspassers will (not) be prosecuted...
Discussion
so why is this?
i understand that it's a tort and any incursion generally results in the favorate 'its a civil matter' response but shoukd it be criminal?
having just experienced such an event locally it seems bizarre that police are powerless to move people on/arrest etc etc!
seems that someone else feels the same tho no doubt there is a right to roam arguement elsewhere!
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/220663
i understand that it's a tort and any incursion generally results in the favorate 'its a civil matter' response but shoukd it be criminal?
having just experienced such an event locally it seems bizarre that police are powerless to move people on/arrest etc etc!
seems that someone else feels the same tho no doubt there is a right to roam arguement elsewhere!
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/220663
There are plenty of laws where trespassing becomes criminal without needing it to be criminal per se: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/trespass-and...
You can also add burglary, found on enclosed premises etc.
You can also add burglary, found on enclosed premises etc.
Pica-Pica said:
No thanks. When out walking, and footpaths become ill-defined or missing, it is easy to stray onto fields or tracks that are private land. I don’t think that should be a criminal offence.
There are miles of footpath around here, but we simply cannot keep people out of fields. No matter how polite we are we get abuse. There is a road the dissects the farm that was put in only to service the quarry and now land fill site to take the heavy traffic out of the village. It signposted PRIVATE ROAD and locks at night. But still people walk on it and get the hump when we use it out of hours. One stupid b
h even rode her horse along there during working hours without a saddle. The sooner trespass is a criminal offence the better rix said:
ok, lets put it another way... do we need to legislate further regarding unwelcome encampments? if so how?
Possibly, Ireland have really strong laws when it comes to the Local Authorities providing legal sites, which means they rarely, if ever, need to use their trespassing powers. Pica-Pica said:
No thanks. When out walking, and footpaths become ill-defined or missing, it is easy to stray onto fields or tracks that are private land. I don’t think that should be a criminal offence.
The law proposed is specifically "entering AND occupying land without consent" E.g.... the combination of the two.So unless you accidentally deploy a tent, caravan or camper when out walking, lost. You should be fine.
rix said:
so why is this?
iits a civil matter' but shoukd it be criminal?
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/220663
Both are against the "law", so no fundamental change is proposed. Really.iits a civil matter' but shoukd it be criminal?
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/220663
The difference between the classification of a civil matter to a criminal one changes the way the matter is dealt with.
Currently, depending on the land occupied. Lengthy court orders and/or notice must be obtained before evicting people and regaining control of the land. During this time all kinds of things can happen. The tidy up and legal costs are often huge.
The perpetrators then drive around the corner, and the lengthy process is repeated.
Making this a criminal offence means action can be taken immediately, and repeat offenders could be arrested, locked up and have objects confiscated and sold on by police.
rix said:
so why is this?
i understand that it's a tort and any incursion generally results in the favorate 'its a civil matter' response but shoukd it be criminal?
having just experienced such an event locally it seems bizarre that police are powerless to move people on/arrest etc etc!
seems that someone else feels the same tho no doubt there is a right to roam arguement elsewhere!
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/220663
Forget that! I don't want anymore laws curtailing my freedoms. i understand that it's a tort and any incursion generally results in the favorate 'its a civil matter' response but shoukd it be criminal?
having just experienced such an event locally it seems bizarre that police are powerless to move people on/arrest etc etc!
seems that someone else feels the same tho no doubt there is a right to roam arguement elsewhere!
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/220663
You don't want me on your land put a fence up or sell it to poor people.
kestral said:
Forget that! I don't want anymore laws curtailing my freedoms.
You don't want me on your land put a fence up or sell it to poor people.
Post your address and I'll wander through your house - I'm sure you don't want to curtail my freedom to do that, do you ?You don't want me on your land put a fence up or sell it to poor people.
Oiks ignore fences. Not sure where to start with the "sell it to poor people" line - how would that work - I guess you mean sell it at well below market price, so that the buyer can then sell it on at market price ? Yeah, that makes sense.
gothatway said:
Post your address and I'll wander through your house - I'm sure you don't want to curtail my freedom to do that, do you ?
Oiks ignore fences. Not sure where to start with the "sell it to poor people" line - how would that work - I guess you mean sell it at well below market price, so that the buyer can then sell it on at market price ? Yeah, that makes sense.
It's not a house though, is it? It's not even a garden.Oiks ignore fences. Not sure where to start with the "sell it to poor people" line - how would that work - I guess you mean sell it at well below market price, so that the buyer can then sell it on at market price ? Yeah, that makes sense.
I've cycled off-road on bridleways since the late 70s. I've had my right of way blocked many times, by tractors, by fences and once by a dirty great pit that was impossible to see at dusk. I've seen felled apple trees piled onto a right of way and then set alight.
I belonged to a rights of way group in the 70s and early 80s and I would suggest that anyone who thinks rights of way, and right to roam, should be curtailed should join one, if only for a month or two. It will show you that, with some landowners, it is an eternal battle.
We are losing rights of way on foot, on bicycle, on horseback and RUPPs hand over hoof.
There are precious few requirements, at least enforceable ones, placed on landowners yet many seem unable to comply with the few where the law can be used. The ones who do cooperate (ie conform to their legal requirements) have fewer problems than those who dump manure by the side of bridleways and drive tractors over a footpath in the wet.
In the main these are historic routes that have been used for centuries. Landowners themselves use them to drive vehicles along. Yet ride a bike, perfectly legally, along them and all of a sudden you, with your 2.5" partially inflated tyres, are eroding the surface.
The majority of landowners are fine and rights of way groups tend to work with them. But the minority who decided that rights are only for them and not for people are a right pain.
Derek Smith said:
It's not a house though, is it? It's not even a garden.
Indeed not; it's rather more important than that - it's someone's livelihood. Kestral was whingeing about curtailing his freedom to go where he wants, presumably regardless of the impact he has on others. We have no problem with people who use footpaths or bridleways across our land; we ask them to keep dogs on leads if there are livestock in the fields - and get abused for that, or if we point out to them the signs and maps showing clearly where the public RoWs go (and don't go), we get abused for that, too.As for putting muck heaps beside paths, I wouldn't be at all surprised - you make the land unusable for anything else.
You should try having a reasoned discussion with a council's Rights of Way officer about diverting a path that goes through a farmyard, with all the inherent dangers from machinery, livestock, etc.. Not a chance - they run scared of the organised militant groups like yours.
gothatway said:
Indeed not; it's rather more important than that - it's someone's livelihood. Kestral was whingeing about curtailing his freedom to go where he wants, presumably regardless of the impact he has on others. We have no problem with people who use footpaths or bridleways across our land; we ask them to keep dogs on leads if there are livestock in the fields - and get abused for that, or if we point out to them the signs and maps showing clearly where the public RoWs go (and don't go), we get abused for that, too.
As for putting muck heaps beside paths, I wouldn't be at all surprised - you make the land unusable for anything else.
You should try having a reasoned discussion with a council's Rights of Way officer about diverting a path that goes through a farmyard, with all the inherent dangers from machinery, livestock, etc.. Not a chance - they run scared of the organised militant groups like yours.
I was involved in a diversion case. The rights of way group were approached by the council after a request from the land owner. He wanted the way to go around the edge of the field rather than the historic 'through the centre'. We said yes, despite him being a pain with blocking.As for putting muck heaps beside paths, I wouldn't be at all surprised - you make the land unusable for anything else.
You should try having a reasoned discussion with a council's Rights of Way officer about diverting a path that goes through a farmyard, with all the inherent dangers from machinery, livestock, etc.. Not a chance - they run scared of the organised militant groups like yours.
Militant? The woman who was chair of the group also ran the Girl's Brigade, was admin for the Boy's Brigade and would get you to run a stall at the local Methodist summer fair. She was almost fluffy. Even when barbed wire was found on a fence by a very narrow section of a right of way on foot, she went to see the farmer to discuss it. She came back in tears.
The local rights of way unit in the local authority was a pain to us. However, if you went in with evidence and a solution that was fair to the land owner and not too unfair to walkers, they'd at least listen.
Adjacent to this farm was a bit of Forestry Commission land with cycle/bridleways. The only bridleway from our village to the FC was the one he would tack great pains to find reasons to obstruct. Horses and cycles were obliged to use a narrow road with just enough space for two cars to pass if one was stationary. He knew what he was doing. One of his complaints was that people would wander from the path to avoid the obstructions he'd placed in the way. He dug a pit so that when I cycled through I fell in and damaged my bike and my leg. Still got the scar. I saw the local bobby but was told that all he could do was have a word.
Way markers would disappear. The land owner said the local rights of way group did it, you know, the ones who put them there.
Fair enough, this was north Kent which, in those days, had a number of orchards where 'scrumping', theft of apples, went on. This was normally kids. On occasion there would be an organised raid where a significant amount of crop was nicked, but this wasn't down to walkers but a certain group living nearby who went in with trucks.
I moved away, coming to Sussex. I used to cycle to work using 12 miles of bridleway. I went through two farms. One I had to pass the muck heap right at the start of the bridleway, one used by people to access the South Downs Way. There was a broken gate as well, plus a dew pond that had been dug (do they still dig dew ponds nowadays?) right in the middle of the bridleway. Onto the next farm and the local rights of way group repaired the gates and a little of the fencing. It was a joy to use. They also put steps on a footpath which kept walkers off land.
He had a shepherd who would stop and chat, but only on my way home. When he saw me attacked by a sparrowhawk, he talked away about the bird. It also evidently attacked the sheep and would make them run, but he treated it as one of those things.
The local footpath group could be a bit stroppy but when you realised that they were only 'militant' with a couple of farmers, you could, perhaps, understand why.
Two cases of dogs being shot came to the attention of police. One was a free dog in a field without livestock shot in the presence of the owner, the other was one on a lead, one of those extendable ones. That reached the national press.
There are, I think, land owners and land owners just as their are variables in those who use footpaths or wander.
grumpyscot said:
No law of trespass in Scotland - which is why our "Lord's Prayer" has different wording to England's. However, there is a specific law that covers railway property. Otherwise, as far as I know, the only other Trespass allowed in Scotland is the sports shop!
What about the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 or the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, both of which have laws of trespass that apply in Scotland? Cat
voyds9 said:
So what do you own if you are a landowner and some else has the right to use your property.
I'm sure most of us would object if we owned a car and found someone sat on it.
Agreed. And doubtless landowners would then have a duty of care to these guys (ooh the poor flower got stung by a stinging nettle, nasty farmer should not have allowed it to grow there). Suspect they think that "all property is theft". Except theirs of course.I'm sure most of us would object if we owned a car and found someone sat on it.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff