Gov. consultation on the law of trespass

[Silver-Fox]

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

That being the case would there be any reason for the land owner to move them on.

 

[gus-lopez]

(especially if the alternative is a criminal record).

It would be for murder.

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

Exactly. Like the Terrorism legislation used for anything , & all encompassing.the gagging laws, the one way US/UK 'extradition treaty that the yanks think covers anything & everything except what there citizens get up to.

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

Becoming par for the course in many countries now.

 

[DuxDeluxe]

That being the case would there be any reason for the land owner to move them on.

No reason at all. They are regulars and nearly all the locals like to see them. The land owner is the council

 

[Paddywack]

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.

Although I paddle on the canals, with a towpath, a lot of my paddling is done on whitewater rivers. In such cases we access and egress the river from a public right of way but the bit inbetweener can be contentious, that's the area that this new legislation might impact on.

 

[Googlebot]

Although I paddle on the canals, with a towpath, a lot of my paddling is done on whitewater rivers. In such cases we access and egress the river from a public right of way but the bit inbetweener can be contentious, that's the area that this new legislation might impact on.

Here lies the issue, it isn’t taking away horrible peoples rights, it’s taking away everyone’s rights.

While many will support the idea due to travellers who leave a mess and others like them, it will inherently restrict us all.

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

 

[romany]

Although I paddle on the canals, with a towpath, a lot of my paddling is done on whitewater rivers. In such cases we access and egress the river from a public right of way but the bit inbetweener can be contentious, that's the area that this new legislation might impact on.

I should clarify you need to have a river licence to do that type of tow path camping and I would suggest the all England canoe club membership which covers you for many miles of waterways gives you liability insurance and works out cheaper than just a licence for the river Thames from the environment agency

 

[Silver-Fox]

No reason at all. They are regulars and nearly all the locals like to see them. The land owner is the council

I doubt they would be moved on then.

 

[Paddywack]

I should clarify you need to have a river licence to do that type of tow path camping and I would suggest the all England canoe club membership which covers you for many miles of waterways gives you liability insurance and works out cheaper than just a licence for the river Thames from the environment agency

I know, many moons ago I used to work for the predecessor of the Canals and River Trust and have been a member of British Canoeing for more than forty years.

 

[PeteH]

No One, least of all any, but an unreasonable "landowner", would be against access of the type described above. What the vast majority wish to see, is the removal of the "right to abuse". The proposals BTW, appear to parallel the "Irish" Model, which I am given to understand is why so many so called "Irish tinkers" (other descriptions available) and the main perpetrators of the issue along with a large cadre of Ex EU "travellers". Are now virtual permanently in the UK mainland. To that extent, the proposals are actually quite proportionate.

There have been several cases in recent times of these "abusers" occupying Camp sites, and refusing to pay!. I understand even the CCC or CC, have been victims of this abuse with physical threats and vandalism. These are people who, and I totally agree with Eddie here, the answer would be, Shotguns, rope, and a large tree. The last infestation of a HULL park. cost thousands to clear up and put parts of the park out of use for many weeks because of the danger to children from left behind drug paraphernalia, the illegal occupiers had been "dealing".

 

[SpeedyDux]

Here lies the issue, it isn’t taking away horrible peoples rights, it’s taking away everyone’s rights.

While many will support the idea due to travellers who leave a mess and others like them, it will inherently restrict us all.

In England and Wales there is no right to trespass. You would struggle to find land that isn't in some kind of ownership whether public or private. Effectively there is no vacant land up for grabs.

You can use a public highway to pass and repass and some other recognised reasonable uses e.g. stopping for a picnic or to change a flat tyre. That is as far as such existing "rights" go. Camping on a highway is not a reasonable use. A House of Lords case says so.

Any use without consent of land you don't own for wild camping isn't a "right", it is merely tolerated trespass. Inevitably, someone else's ownership rights are being breached. Whether they suffer damage or financial loss is a totally separate issue.

As far as that article by Monbiot goes, if you click on the comments you will notice that the readers' comments that refer to the problems of unauthorised Traveller encampments and the resulting clean-up costs are the ones that tend to get the most uptics. Even from registered Guardian readers. They aren't all virtue-signalling SJWs.

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

 

[Googlebot]

In England and Wales there is no right to trespass. You would struggle to find land that isn't in some kind of ownership whether public or private. Effectively there is no vacant land up for grabs.

You can use a public highway to pass and repass and some other recognised reasonable uses e.g. stopping for a picnic or to change a flat tyre. That is as far as such existing "rights" go. Camping on a highway is not a reasonable use. A House of Lords case says so.

Any use without consent of land you don't own for wild camping isn't a "right", it is merely tolerated trespass. Inevitably, someone else's ownership rights are being breached. Whether they suffer damage or financial loss is a totally separate issue.

As far as that article by Monbiot goes, if you click on the comments you will notice that the readers' comments that refer to the problems of unauthorised Traveller encampments and the resulting clean-up costs are the ones that tend to get the most uptics. Even from registered Guardian readers. They aren't all virtue-signalling SJWs.

I don’t disagree, however currently trespass is a civil matter and won’t end up with you being arrested. Accidentally straying into someone’s field means you can be arrested if trespass is criminalised.

 

[SpeedyDux]

I don’t disagree, however currently trespass is a civil matter and won’t end up with you being arrested. Accidentally straying into someone’s field means you can be arrested if trespass is criminalised.

Not so sure that "accidentally" is a good excuse in the age of GPS. You are of course aware that causing damage to property while trespassing becomes a criminal matter. It doesn't seem to be used much even when the Travellers damage gates or fences. In order to untie the hands of the Police, the arguably bogus status of Irish Traveller as a separate "race" under the Equality Act ought to be repealed. Common sense says they are simply Irish or of Irish heritage.

Sadly the old common law offence of conspiracy was abolished in 1977. Otherwise, if 2 or more Travellers conspired to set up an illegal encampment by trespassing jointly, they could have been prosecuted today for conspiracy to trespass. Punishable by up to 6 months jail.

Conspiracy used to be an excellent catch-all offence to add to the charge sheet although the liberals hated it. Perhaps its time will come again.

 

[mitzimad]

The problem is laws get used in ways they were not intended.local roofer £400 fine for having crisp and sandwich wrappers in his van prosecuted under laws designed to stop fly tippers is a prime example data protection laws are a nightmare when your wife although named on the policy can not speak to her insurers due to data protection
laws should be specific in what there aim is before being passed

 

[mitzimad]

with regards to the traveller problem all thats needed is some backbone in the police force oops i mean service. to prosecute for fly tipping and criminal damage

 

[Googlebot]

with regards to the traveller problem all thats needed is some backbone in the police force oops i mean service. to prosecute for fly tipping and criminal damage

You mean the CPS? The Police don’t prosecute.

To arrest you also need evidence, funnily enough nobody knows who first broke the fence or lock to get in, or alternatively little Tommy did it who is 9 and this unarrestable.

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

 

[mitzimad]

You mean the CPS? The Police don’t prosecute.

To arrest you also need evidence, funnily enough nobody knows who first broke the fence or lock to get in, or alternatively little Tommy did it who is 9 and this unarrestable.

one camera van outside the site recording full vehicle in and coming out empty would be enough to convict on the fly tipping take on of the moneymaking speed checks for a few days as i said lack of will

 

[cornish boy]

There should be a right to roam.

Why?
Being honest, I find it strange that you think you should have the right to roam around my garden without asking?

 

[Coolcats]

[

Why?
Being honest, I find it strange that you think you should have the right to roam around my garden without asking?

i did not say to roam around someone’s garden, however the right to roam across open land tracks and pathways is something else.

 

[cornish boy]

i did not say to roam around someone’s garden, however the right to roam across open land tracks and pathways is something else.

You accept that people freely roaming around my garden is unacceptable. However you will have to explain to me why you think it is acceptable for people to freely roam over the other land we own when there is already a well established network of public footpaths and bridleways for them to use, and is maintained at the cost of the landowner.

 

[2x2camper]

You accept that people freely roaming around my garden is unacceptable. However you will have to explain to me why you think it is acceptable for people to freely roam over the other land we own when there is already a well established network of public footpaths and bridleways for them to use, and is maintained at the cost of the landowner.

Not all land which is accessible has a public footpath or bridleway to it. If we left it to the land owners what we could visit we would never be able to visit any of it. Just because someone owns land should not mean it is exclusively for them to use.

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

 

[cornish boy]

Not all land which is accessible has a public footpath or bridleway to it.

If there is no footpath or bridleway to it, how on earth can it deemed by roamers as 'accessable'?

If we left it to the land owners what we could visit we would never be able to visit any of it.

Except for the fact the current law places responsibility upon the landowner to maintain public footpaths and bridleways

Just because someone owns land should not mean it is exclusively for them to use.

Are you saying that just because someone owns a house should not mean it is exclusively for them to use?

 

[PeteH]

with regards to the traveller problem all thats needed is some backbone in the police force oops i mean service. to prosecute for fly tipping and criminal damage

Too simple, There`s far more money to be made persecuting the motoring public. Hell. Report a Burglary, the best you can hope for is a Crime Number. Even if you have full CCTV of the perpetrators "bang to rights".

Are you saying that just because someone owns a house should not mean it is exclusively for them to use?

I believe you will find that in the law on such things, there is a clause that excludes, what you regard as your dwelling and its immediate curtilage?. So "roaming" your house or garden is not covered, that remains "trespass". Only land which is regarded as "open", Ie Fields, woods, Ancient bye-ways etc; are seen as "roam-able".

 

[cornish boy]

Only land which is regarded as "open", Ie Fields, woods, Ancient bye-ways etc; are seen as "roam-able".

Seen in law as "roam-able" or viewed by Joe Public as "roam-able"?

 

[cornish boy]

Answered my own question!

You can access some land across England without having to use paths - this land is known as ‘open access land’ or ‘access land’.

Access land includes mountains, moors, heaths and downs that are privately owned. It also includes common land registered with the local council and some land around the England Coast Path.

Your right to access this land is called the ‘right to roam’, or ‘freedom to roam’.

What you can and cannot do
You can use access land for walking, running, watching wildlife and climbing.

There are certain activities you cannot usually do on open access land, including:

• horse-riding
• cycling
• camping
• taking animals other than dogs on to the land
• driving a vehicle (except mobility scooters and powered wheelchairs)
• water sports

But you can use access land for horse-riding and cycling if:

• the landowner allows it
• public bridleways or byways cross the land – horse riders and cyclists can ride along these
• there are local traditions, or rights, of access

Dogs on open access land
You must keep your dog on a lead no more than 2 metres long on open access land:

• between 1 March and 31 July - to protect ground-nesting birds
• at all times around livestock

On land next to the England Coast Path you must keep your dog under close control.

There may be other local or seasonal restrictions. These do not apply to public rights of way or assistance dogs.

Excepted land
On access land some areas remain private (‘excepted land’). You do not have the right to access these areas, even if they appear on a map of open access land.

Excepted land includes:

• houses, buildings and the land they’re on (such as courtyards)
• land used to grow crops
• building sites and land that’s being developed
• parks and gardens
• golf courses and racecourses
• railways and tramways
• working quarries

 

[PeteH]

Seen in law as "roam-able" or viewed by Joe Public as "roam-able"?

I think that is somewhat "take your pick?". There is IMV. a vast difference between, your living room and the North Yorks Moors. ( or Exmoor)

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

 

[PeteH]

Answered my own question!

You can access some land across England without having to use paths - this land is known as ‘open access land’ or ‘access land’.

Access land includes mountains, moors, heaths and downs that are privately owned. It also includes common land registered with the local council and some land around the England Coast Path.

Your right to access this land is called the ‘right to roam’, or ‘freedom to roam’.

What you can and cannot do
You can use access land for walking, running, watching wildlife and climbing.

There are certain activities you cannot usually do on open access land, including:

• horse-riding
• cycling
• camping
• taking animals other than dogs on to the land
• driving a vehicle (except mobility scooters and powered wheelchairs)
• water sports

But you can use access land for horse-riding and cycling if:

• the landowner allows it
• public bridleways or byways cross the land – horse riders and cyclists can ride along these
• there are local traditions, or rights, of access

Dogs on open access land
You must keep your dog on a lead no more than 2 metres long on open access land:

• between 1 March and 31 July - to protect ground-nesting birds
• at all times around livestock

On land next to the England Coast Path you must keep your dog under close control.

There may be other local or seasonal restrictions. These do not apply to public rights of way or assistance dogs.

Excepted land
On access land some areas remain private (‘excepted land’). You do not have the right to access these areas, even if they appear on a map of open access land.

Excepted land includes:

• houses, buildings and the land they’re on (such as courtyards)
• land used to grow crops
• building sites and land that’s being developed
• parks and gardens
• golf courses and racecourses
• railways and tramways
• working quarries

There you go then. Sorted

 

[2x2camper]

Answered my own question!

You can access some land across England without having to use paths - this land is known as ‘open access land’ or ‘access land’.

Access land includes mountains, moors, heaths and downs that are privately owned. It also includes common land registered with the local council and some land around the England Coast Path.

Your right to access this land is called the ‘right to roam’, or ‘freedom to roam’.

What you can and cannot do
You can use access land for walking, running, watching wildlife and climbing.

There are certain activities you cannot usually do on open access land, including:

• horse-riding
• cycling
• camping
• taking animals other than dogs on to the land
• driving a vehicle (except mobility scooters and powered wheelchairs)
• water sports

But you can use access land for horse-riding and cycling if:

• the landowner allows it
• public bridleways or byways cross the land – horse riders and cyclists can ride along these
• there are local traditions, or rights, of access

Dogs on open access land
You must keep your dog on a lead no more than 2 metres long on open access land:

• between 1 March and 31 July - to protect ground-nesting birds
• at all times around livestock

On land next to the England Coast Path you must keep your dog under close control.

There may be other local or seasonal restrictions. These do not apply to public rights of way or assistance dogs.

Excepted land
On access land some areas remain private (‘excepted land’). You do not have the right to access these areas, even if they appear on a map of open access land.

Excepted land includes:

• houses, buildings and the land they’re on (such as courtyards)
• land used to grow crops
• building sites and land that’s being developed
• parks and gardens
• golf courses and racecourses
• railways and tramways
• working quarries

No one sensible expects to be able to go everywhere.