[Closed] I got told off earlier!!

but can there not be a difference between owning a plot that is reasonable for homing you and your fam.. and owning a tract of beautiful native woodland

You can borrow your home from the state to meet your needs, but you cant own it and pass it on.

None of this pick-and-choose communism sunshine! 😉

Allows me to crack out a favourite joke:
Why did Marx drink camomile?
Because all property is theft.

but can there not be a difference between owning a plot that is reasonable for homing you and your fam.. and owning a tract of beautiful native woodland..?

depends, couldn't the squatters argue the same that isn't wrong that you own a house with more rooms than people, especially when we should be saving the world resources and not squandering them with excess.

If you disagree with property ownership, you shouldn't be selective in which bit you disagree with.

but can there not be a difference between owning a plot that is reasonable for homing you and your fam.. and owning a tract of beautiful native woodland..?

So everything beyond your garden fence should be nationalised? What about shares in companies owned by your pension fund, should they be nationalised? What if he views the wood as his pension and intends to sell it to fund his retirement (in which case the less public access to it and resulting liability the more it's probably worth)?

You can borrow your home from the state to meet your needs

What if you have a spare bedroom? Should spare bedrooms be nationalised?

you shouldn't be selective in which bit you disagree with.

I will and I am and there's nothing you can do to stop me so ner ner ne ner ner

So everything beyond your garden fence should be nationalised?

that's a bit of a leap.. I was merely challenging the boys blind subservience to the oppressive laws drawn up by TJs french blokes

thisisnotaspoon - Member

"it used to be common land and stolen by a bunch of imported French aristocrats".

I know you're in Scotland where various battles of yesteryear are still deemed relavent for discussion in parliment, but 1000 years is a long time to be bearing a grudge!

🙂

Should spare bedrooms be nationalised?

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/04/take-housing-fight-wealthy ]According to George Monbidiot it should[/url]

Those who use more than their fair share should pay for the privilege, with a big tax penalty for under-occupation.

Stoner - Member

Should spare bedrooms be nationalised?

According to George Monbidiot it should

Those who use more than their fair share should pay for the privilege, with a big tax penalty for under-occupation.

twunt.

That's not fair, you're making me look like I suppourt Monboit's point of view, you're making me out to be worse than Hitler drowning fluffy kittens.

If you live in a council house you are going to be evicted if you have spare bedrooms under condem proposals

If you live in a council house you are going to be evicted if you have spare bedrooms under condem proposals

[OT benifit scrounger rant deleted]

So this land is open to walkers but not cyclists? the cyclist is doing no harm? I would continue to ride it.

[b][u]yunki[/u][/b] - [u]Member[/u]

but can there not be a difference between owning a plot that is reasonable for homing you and your fam.. and owning a tract of beautiful native woodland..?

No. The key word here is 'own'.

www.dictionary.com

Own

[b][i]verb (used with object)[/i][/b]

3. to have or hold as one's own; possess: [i]They own several homes.[/i]

As I said earlier, if he owns the land, then he can do whatever he likes with it, and grant/deny access to whomever he so wishes. If he decided to deny somebody access because they were wearing blue trousers and it was a Tuesday, he would be quite within his rights to do so. Equally, if he decides to deny access to bike riders because he doesn't want people riding bikes on his land, or even if he just plain doesn't like bike riders, that's his call.

Whether you agree with or approve of what he does with his privately owned land is irrelevant.

As I said earlier, if he owns the land, then he can do whatever he likes with it.

Not true.

In some circumstances you have access rights, he is very constrained as to what can be done with the land and also have various obligations

[b]TandemJeremy[/b] - [u]Member[/u]

So this land is open to walkers but not cyclists? the cyclist is doing no harm? I would continue to ride it.

And, in doing so, you would be tresspassing.

[b]TandemJeremy[/b] - [u]Member[/u]

Not true.

In some circumstances you have access rights, he is very constrained as to what can be done with the land and also have various obligations

Those circumstances being...? The OP has only mentioned footpaths, not bridleways. Cycling on footpaths is illegal, therefore the right of access is negated.

Yup - and if asked to leave by the landowner I would - by the shortest available route. Thats all he can do.

Tresspass is a load of feudal nonsense so long as no harm is being done. I wouldn't trample crops in the name of riding where I want but riding around a bit of woodland?

I can see what you're saying there relliot.. and full marks for stridently attempting to quote law and letter.. very cute

I was simply trying for a more abstract look at the situation.. from the other side of the fence (sic)

relliott6879

It was claimed that the landowner can do what they want - I merely pont out that in the general case this is not true. Landowners are very constrained in what they can do and rightly so

What about 2nd house owners TJ?

If you own more than one [s]bit of land[/s] [b]house[/b] should the second [s]bit of land[/s] [b]house[/b] be open for anyone to use for free?

Tresspass is a load of feudal nonsense so long as no harm is being done.

Who defines 'harm'? I agree that if there are footpaths then riding a bike is not going to cause much more harm than a dog walker, but if there are no public rights of way at all, one should stay out.

but if there are no public rights of way at all, one should stay out.

Why?

If walkers are allowed but bikes are not there is no good reason not to use it.

If walkers are allowed, there [b]is[/b] a public right of way.

If walkers are allowed but bikes are not there is no good reason not to use it.

TJ you seem to mis-understand the whole point, its his land so he can do as he likes! What you believe has nothing to do with it. We live in the UK which isn't a communist state, and UK laws apply not TJ's law.

As for leaving by the shortest route, under UK law its shortest or easiest, so he can send you back the way you came.

And finally if you act in a threatening manner he can use force to remove you, and as you love pointing out what one person find threatening another may not (see all the dog threads for example, where you find the mere existence of dogs on the planet threatening). So if he feels threatened he can use force regardless of if you feel you were acting in a threatening behaviour or not.

Yes you could go to the Police, but its your word against the landowners who found you trespassing and damaging his property (unless you have a hover bike that is), yes you can explain to the Police that his great-great-great-great-great-great et al. grandfather stole it from the Saxon's but I suspect they won't care.

TJ you really are a ridiculous little man.

If walkers are allowed but bikes are not there is no good reason not to use it.

If walkers are allowed, there is a public right of way.

Not if its a permissive path.

Permissive Path

It is possible for landowners to allow access over their land without dedicating a right of way. These accesses are called permissive paths. To the user they are often indistinguishable from normal highways, but there are some important differences.
A permissive path must have some sign or similar indication that it is not intended to be a right of way.
The landowner can close off or divert the path if they wish to do so, without any legal process being involved.
The landowner can make restrictions which would not normally apply to highways, for example to allow horse riding but not cycling, or the other way around.

What you believe has nothing to do with it.

UK laws apply not TJ's law.

TJ you really are a ridiculous little man.

but surely what you believe has everything to do with it..?

If you believe that the law of trespass in this case is antiquated and worthy of derision (not that I do necessarily.. I'm just putting forward a scenario) and you're not overly bothered about the consequences of flouting the law or sensitive to the owners legal rights then it's up to you innit!

No richc - its you that fails to understand the basic point.

Yes I would obey the law which simply is that if the landowner or his agent found me on the land and asked me to leave I would do. that is the extent of the sanctions he has.

it would not stop me from using the land again in future so long as I was doing no harm.

Why all the piffle about threatening behaviour I don't know - I would simply comply if asked .

Its not "his land he can do what he likes" - he is constrained by the laws of the land and quite rightly =- as am I however in the case of tresspass the only sanction he has is to ask me to leave and I would do so without protest.

TJ is proably thinking about Access Land where you may have a right to roam on foot but not by other means. The woods may or may not be Acess Land.

If you keep returning to ride there OP he (or his agent) can keep telling you to leave. He could take out an injunction restraining you from going onto his land and, if successful, breach of such injunction may be a criminal offence.

[b]TandemJeremy[/b] - [u]Member[/u]

Yes I would obey the law which simply is that if the landowner or his agent found me on the land and asked me to leave I would do. that is the extent of the sanctions he has.

it would not stop me from using the land again in future so long as I was doing no harm.

So because the punishment (in this case, being asked to leave a piece of land that you have no right to be on) is menial, you would quite happily repeat the crime?

That thinking is akin to some little scroat repeatedly TWOCing cars because, "Well, I is only gunna get a slap on the wrist, innit?"

The fact that you disagree with a law or rule does not give you [i]carte blanche[/i] to ignore it.

Actually in the UK, with UK law is someone keeps on trespassing a landowner can apply for an injunction. If you then ignore this and break the injunction that's a criminal offence, which can carry a jail sentence.

That's where UK law differs from TJ's law.

Trespass is not a crime! You need to understand the definition of a crime.

Got any cases of anyone having an injunction taken out on them for this sort of thing? the landowner wouldn't even know who you are to take out an injunction.

Its nothing like twocing cars hence there is no criminal sanction.

Right, all round to TJ's garden for a party Saturday night? He won't mind.

TJ, in the UK breaking an injunction is a criminal offence.

So if you repeatability trespass and an injunction is granted you will be breaking the law. Not that hard to understand is it?

Got any cases of anyone having an injunction taken out on them for this sort of thing?

Thing is TJ in the UK, under UK law (getting the theme here?) an injunction can be granted for this. So I don't see why you need examples or them being granted?

OK it may be unlikely, but its still possible and I should imagine that a county court would be more than willing to grant one against someone who claims trespassing is his Saxon right, and sends a clear message to the Norman oppressors.

Although I'm not going to do the research for you TJ, there are numerous cases of injunctions being taken out to restrain persons from entering various premises. Unless you can categorically prove that an injunction cannot be taken out without being fully aware of the grounds for which that injunction is applied for, how can you be so definite in your assertions?

Whilst trespass may be a civil offence, continuous entry on to land from which you have been repeatedly asked to leave may indeed lead to grounds for an injunction. Harrassment; action likely to cause a breach of the peace (and not necessarily by the trespasser); I'm sure a lawyer could come up with various other grounds.

Injunctions for repeated trespassing are rare because not many people are selfish enough to repeatedly trespass having been asked not to by the landowner.

[img] [/img]

Damn those Normans! Damn them!

You obsequious lot - really. Never a cheeky trail? never break a speed limit?

1) trespass is not a crime
2) an injunction to prevent trespass is not the same as one to prevent someone entering a premises. I agree it could be done in principle but seeing as the landowner has no right to your name and address then practically its impossible
3)As none of you have anything to back your assertions apart from the usual distortions of my position then I think the basic point stands. Thre is no crime committed, there is nothing the landowner can do bar ask you to go

I wouldn't do this if walkers were excluded as well but if walkers are allowed on the land then there is no good reason to ban bikes thus I have no moral problem in ignoring the daft position the landowner has taken

do you think the kinder scout trespassers should have been locked up?

Nicknoxx - Member

Injunctions for repeated trespassing are rare because not many people are selfish enough to repeatedly trespass having been asked not to by the landowner.

find me any evidence of one ever having been granted in this sort of situation.

TJ, it will be difficult to find a case that exactly matches these circumstances because as I've said, it would be rare to find a [s]c**t[/s] person rude enough to continue to use private property having been asked not to, however in [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10490748 ]this[/url] case a landowner was granted an injunction against a repeated trespasser.

Thats nothing like this case

So you think its acceptable for a landowner to allow walkers but not bikes on his land and are prepared to just meekly obey this when there is no harm from riding bike there and no crime committed nor sanction available.

Weird. really incomprehensible. Do you never use cheeky trails at all?

Nicknoxx - Member

TJ, it will be difficult to find a case that exactly matches these circumstances because as I've said, it would be rare to find a c**t person rude enough to continue to use private property having been asked not to

Reaaaaally? We've had threads on here where people proudly declare just that, I'm sure, and without being called c**ts.

Indeed northwind - and people who build trails on private land without the landowners permission.

Unfortunately these cases come down to the technicality of the law, rather than the spirit of the law.

If mountain bikers and walkers to were trampling over arable crops and destroying the landowners rightful usage of his land, I would hope the law would protect the landowner.

If the landowner wanted to isolate acres of land that has been in common community usage, just to demonstrate his power and wealth, I hope the law would side with the greater community.

There is a line somewhere between the two, and in England I don't think they have got it quite as right as in Scotland.

I agree with TJ 🙂

If the OP has been doing it for years and has been asked to leave once, then in reality its unlikely hes going to bump into the chap anytime soon....so all this talk of restraining orders is pretty irrelevant...id bash on and reconsider if he asks you again

And regardless of the law, anyone who compares the OPs situation to camping out in someones front garden is just being silly and pedantic..