Change to trespass laws

[R Mutt]

I'm seeing a lot on social media this week about moves to make trespass a criminal offence but appears this is nothing new, (so I won't dig out old articles for the sake of a link)

The main focus of this seems to be to hinder Travellers and expedite their removal, but of course this then becomes a political thing about the 1% who own half the land (fact check?)

Is this another step away from equality or a necessary law to protect people's rights? This allegedly then impacts rights of public access but the right to roam is unaffected and no one is going to now call the police for walking across on their land or are they?

[bigandclever]

R Mutt said:

This allegedly then impacts rights of public access but the right to roam is unaffected and no one is going to now call the police for walking across on their land or are they?

Enough of them will.

[anonymous-user]

Surely walking and setting up camp can be differentiated in law ?

[JagLover]

R Mutt said:

The main focus of this seems to be to hinder Travellers and expedite their removal, but of course this then becomes a political thing about the 1% who own half the land (fact check?)

Its not really about the 1%

Most traveller encampments we hear about on here are either on public land or on commercial land, such as retail estates. You dont hear of many large landed estates suffering.

The travelling lifestyle is a valid way of life and the government should ensure there are sufficient sites for UK travellers (the Irish ones can stay in Ireland). illegal encampments make the lives of local residents a misery and, often, reduces their access to green space. The situation has been tolerated as most of the decision makers are in London and so unaffected. If all of these travellers had been camping in London parks for the last few decades then the matter would have been tackled long ago.

[bigandclever]

Iwantafusca said:

Surely walking and setting up camp can be differentiated in law ?

It’s the threat to walking and, for example, mountain bike trails, or wild swimming, or kayaking, or bike-packing and on and on. It’s another sledgehammer to crack a nut change to legislation that, on the whole, doesn’t really need that much change to ‘you’re now a criminal if you deliberately step off a public path’ but you can’t directly discriminate against, say, the more mobile members of society. I believe most plod are against the change, current legislation being sufficient, and landowners are all for it, quelle surprise. The losers will be the plebs like me who enjoy the countryside but don’t fancy a criminal record for being there (hyperbole-aside )

[JagLover]

bigandclever said:

It’s the threat to walking and, for example, mountain bike trails, or wild swimming, or kayaking, or bike-packing and on and on. It’s another sledgehammer to crack a nut change to legislation that, on the whole, doesn’t really need that much change to ‘you’re now a criminal if you deliberately step off a public path’ but you can’t directly discriminate against, say, the more mobile members of society. I believe most plod are against the change, current legislation being sufficient, and landowners are all for it, quelle surprise. The losers will be the plebs like me who enjoy the countryside but don’t fancy a criminal record for being there (hyperbole-aside )

I am a keen walker myself but, aside from when I get lost, don't need to trespass in order to pursue my hobby. There are usually good walks all over on existing rights of way.

[R Mutt]

JagLover said:

bigandclever said:

It’s the threat to walking and, for example, mountain bike trails, or wild swimming, or kayaking, or bike-packing and on and on. It’s another sledgehammer to crack a nut change to legislation that, on the whole, doesn’t really need that much change to ‘you’re now a criminal if you deliberately step off a public path’ but you can’t directly discriminate against, say, the more mobile members of society. I believe most plod are against the change, current legislation being sufficient, and landowners are all for it, quelle surprise. The losers will be the plebs like me who enjoy the countryside but don’t fancy a criminal record for being there (hyperbole-aside )

I am a keen walker myself but, aside from when I get lost, don't need to trespass in order to pursue my hobby. There are usually good walks all over on existing rights of way.

Same, which is why I want to get an idea of how valid these concerns are for the likes of you or I, and what is just politically exaggerated because it protects 'rich landowners' and adds to the struggle of a minority but as you state, not necessarily over the same land.

Surely as with traveller sites, most of this owned by the council or National Trust anyway.

[Flippin' Kipper]

R Mutt said:

JagLover said:

bigandclever said:

It’s the threat to walking and, for example, mountain bike trails, or wild swimming, or kayaking, or bike-packing and on and on. It’s another sledgehammer to crack a nut change to legislation that, on the whole, doesn’t really need that much change to ‘you’re now a criminal if you deliberately step off a public path’ but you can’t directly discriminate against, say, the more mobile members of society. I believe most plod are against the change, current legislation being sufficient, and landowners are all for it, quelle surprise. The losers will be the plebs like me who enjoy the countryside but don’t fancy a criminal record for being there (hyperbole-aside )

I am a keen walker myself but, aside from when I get lost, don't need to trespass in order to pursue my hobby. There are usually good walks all over on existing rights of way.

Same, which is why I want to get an idea of how valid these concerns are for the likes of you or I, and what is just politically exaggerated because it protects 'rich landowners' and adds to the struggle of a minority but as you state, not necessarily over the same land.

Surely as with traveller sites, most of this owned by the council or National Trust anyway.

Is that because the trespass was done on your behalf?

Kinder Trespass

[R Mutt]

Flippin' Kipper said:

R Mutt said:

Same, which is why I want to get an idea of how valid these concerns are for the likes of you or I, and what is just politically exaggerated because it protects 'rich landowners' and adds to the struggle of a minority but as you state, not necessarily over the same land.

Surely as with traveller sites, most of this owned by the council or National Trust anyway.

Is that because the trespass was done on your behalf?

Kinder Trespass

You still cant camp on those which I would assume is to prevent it turning in to a settlement. Not sure why gypsies opt for council car parks instead when that's not permitted either.

[Electro1980]

JagLover said:

bigandclever said:

It’s the threat to walking and, for example, mountain bike trails, or wild swimming, or kayaking, or bike-packing and on and on. It’s another sledgehammer to crack a nut change to legislation that, on the whole, doesn’t really need that much change to ‘you’re now a criminal if you deliberately step off a public path’ but you can’t directly discriminate against, say, the more mobile members of society. I believe most plod are against the change, current legislation being sufficient, and landowners are all for it, quelle surprise. The losers will be the plebs like me who enjoy the countryside but don’t fancy a criminal record for being there (hyperbole-aside )

I am a keen walker myself but, aside from when I get lost, don't need to trespass in order to pursue my hobby. There are usually good walks all over on existing rights of way.

Aside from when you get lost. I think that’s rather the point. There are land owners that will already hurl abuse at people who have taken a wrong turn on a poorly marked footpath or had to take a route around an obstruction. I don’t really fancy having a criminal record, or even having to talk to the police, because I turned at the first gate rather than the second or went along the field boundary rather than across the middle of a plowed field.

I am guessing that there is no suggestion that the penalties for failing to maintain a right of way will change?

[CubanPete]

I think in all cases the CPS will not be interested in prosecuting lost / respectful ramblers. But it does provide a tool to address those causing trouble.

Trespass is pretty much unenforceable at the moment as a civil offence. It's expensive to follow the legal route and is limited to reclaiming material loss.

[JuniorD]

JagLover said:

R Mutt said:

The main focus of this seems to be to hinder Travellers and expedite their removal, but of course this then becomes a political thing about the 1% who own half the land (fact check?)

Its not really about the 1%

Most traveller encampments we hear about on here are either on public land or on commercial land, such as retail estates. You dont hear of many large landed estates suffering.

The travelling lifestyle is a valid way of life and the government should ensure there are sufficient sites for UK travellers (the Irish ones can stay in Ireland). illegal encampments make the lives of local residents a misery and, often, reduces their access to green space. The situation has been tolerated as most of the decision makers are in London and so unaffected. If all of these travellers had been camping in London parks for the last few decades then the matter would have been tackled long ago.

The decision makers down in London haven't managed to do too much about rough sleepers

[R Mutt]

Walking in the countryside over the weekend I realised most of this land belongs to farmers receiving EU subsidies to have nothing on it.

Maybe post Brexit they can make access a condition of subsidies.

[Starfighter]

Or at the very least the maintaining the exiting RoW.

[Funk]

R Mutt said:

Not sure why gypsies opt for council car parks instead when that's not permitted either.

There's not much to steal in the middle of nowhere.