This proposed change in the law is being considered according to a couple of news pieces I have come across in the last week. Whilst it has been suggested as a means to control illegal traveller sites how might it effect those of us prone to poaching cheeky trails?

I too read this article, it’s on the bbc website this morning. I think in reality it’d be a fairly conceited effort from the police to catch people on cheeky trails, they’d have to be waiting at some point along it to catch you. But it’s the irony of the suggestion that gets me, deliberate trespass is precisely what opened the countryside to the masses. Is the problem of unapproved traveller sites that much of a problem? I don’t think so.  Do the current laws not adequately deal with it?  I think they do, at least when they’ve popped up where I live they’re fairly short lived.

tricky, there was an incident near to me recently that may have created some of the momentum for petitions, etc.

A group of travellers tried to gain access to a football pitch, but were seen by locals who then blockaded the entrance with cars and bodies preventing more from getting onto the land; a stand off ensued, police were called who ‘forced’ the locals to get out of the way under threat of breach of the peace and false imprisonment (of the travellers already on the site), upon which the travellers then just piled on because that’s not a police matter, but requires the local authority to evict them. Which they did a couple of days later but by then the site was a tip.

So I’m not for trespass becoming a criminal offence, but something doesn’t seem right with the above.

I would have thought that the current aggravated trespass law could be amended to cover that sort of thing rather than needing a brand new sledgehammer/nut scenario.

Can’t imagine that the police will be delighted at potentially having to flit from attempted traveller encampment to traveller encampment to stop them setting up. At least currently the travellers get to stay on the site for a week or so before they have to be evicted. Getting repeatedly chucked off after a few hours by the police is going to cause a lot more confrontation.

As far as MTBing is concerned, criminalising a pretty benign activity won’t necessarily lead to more enforcement, but presumably more police-bothering by a handful of landowners and angry ramblers.

Difficult one, my employer has had some horrendous bills from evicting and cleaning up after  travellers and also a legal bill that was astronomical after apparently causing deep anguish to some mothers to be as they had no safe place to give birth to their children after they overstayed the negotiated trespass with our land agent time by months and were evicted (massive job, police, bailiffs, security, recovery vehicles etc) .  Some bleeding heart top lawyer took on their case for free and dragged it all the way up the court system.

So yes it’s a problem and the current system needs improving.

This doesn’t include the local fields and pitches that get invaded annually, the petty vandalism, theft and scamming of the elderly that follows.

Yes they do need a place to stay, legal pitches but they do need to clean up their act and integrate more with society

The thing is it doesn’t need enforcement – just the threat of it.

Most ‘law abiding’ mtbers aren’t going to want a criminal conviction for anything. It would need to be disclosed to employers etc.

So put some signs up in the local cheeky wooded spot people have been riding for years that hidden cctv is in use, Strava being checked etc and that police will be involved for those seen repeatedly using the site and the problem disappears with no actual police involvement.

Blame it on your garmin if you do a cheeky trail – that’s what drivers do !

https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/proposals-to-make-tresspassing-a-criminal-offence/

Aye, got to keep the plebs off the turf.

But if it has to be defended, send them out to “Die for Freedom”

The BBC article suggests that the Irish law, as amended in 2002 to reduce problems from travellers, may be a model for the UK. I’ve looked at what the Irish law says. As I read it, to commit an offence you’d need to ‘occupy’ the land, not just enter it, or you’d have to bring something onto the land that would damage it or interfere with its use. So riding cheeky trails would probably not be covered, digging or creating features could be, and wild camping could be.

The BBC article suggests that the Irish law, as amended in 2002 to reduce problems from travellers, may be a model for the UK. I’ve looked at what the Irish law says. As I read it, to commit an offence you’d need to ‘occupy’ the land, not just enter it, or you’d have to bring something onto the land that would damage it or interfere with its use

I’m sure there are anti-MTB people who would argue that bikes cause significant erosion and damage land (I’m not trying to open that debate here) and that cyclists disturb sheep/cows and interfere with its use — I wouldn’t want to be the person who becomes the test case for the CPS lawyer who wears red socks on the weekends.  I’d have though in many cases s34 of the Road Traffic Act already covers most of the “problem” – and if it doesn’t then extension or revision would achieve the same objective as the publicly objected behaviour almost always involves a motorised vehicle.  Presumably however, there is also an objection to the “occupy” type “political” protest movement who tend to use tents…

This doesn’t include the local fields and pitches that get invaded annually, the petty vandalism, theft and scamming of the elderly that follows.

Yes they do need a place to stay, legal pitches but they do need to clean up their act and integrate more with society

Ah, nothing like some stereotyping and mild racism to make people integrate better.  They “are” society (many people close to the travelling community, especially the romany community would suggest that “their” society actually functions far better than the UK population’s as a whole).

Local authorities policies / procedures may make them more likely to leave the place a mess.  If you can’t get in to the local tip/recycling centre without proving residence, or in commercial vehicles then you are encouraging travellers to just dump it.  If the local authority proactively evicts people rather than provides useful facilities and is reasonably welcoming, then its hardly surprising if people leave devastation behind.  Not every site is left like that or requires eviction notices for travelling people to do what travelling people do, and move on… so perhaps a little more thought is needed on why some sites or authorities have more issues.

So put some signs up in the local cheeky wooded spot people have been riding for years that hidden cctv is in use, Strava being checked etc and that police will be involved for those seen repeatedly using the site and the problem disappears with no actual police involvement.

You jest, but this is pretty much what happened at Swinley.

Poly – are you seriously suggesting that travellers are incapable of putting their rubbish in a normal car (rather than a van) and using a council tip?  They dump it because they couldn’t give a flying toss.  Blaming the ‘non-travelling’ part the same society for the travellers’ anti social behaviour is a nonsense.

Given that the police dont even bother to turn up for thefts round here let alone anything else I cant see it being enforced unless landowners know the right people

poly

“Local authorities policies / procedures may make them more likely to leave the place a mess. If you can’t get in to the local tip/recycling centre without proving residence, or in commercial vehicles then you are encouraging travellers to just dump it.”

Does this mean that every person in the UK who owns a commercial vehicle no longer needs to pay to dispose of their waste and can just dump it because of authorities policies / procedures?

Could have saved myself a fortune as I’ve been doing the right thing according to society for years.

Travellers, protesters, MTBers – scum, the lot of ’em

Surely these travellers could be deported back to Ireland like we’d deport any other foreigner.

who wears red socks on the weekends

Ah, nothing like some stereotyping and mild racism to make people integrate better.

If the local authority proactively evicts people rather than provides useful facilities and is reasonably welcoming, then its hardly surprising if people leave devastation behind.

Isn’t that a bit chicken and egg?  You could equally argue that if they didn’t leave devastation behind then they wouldn’t need to be proactively evicted.  I’m not sure which of the two is causal of the other but I wouldn’t be quick to jump to any one conclusion I don’t think.

cb – how many traveller sites have you been to?  how many of them have “normal cars”?  I’m sure some do, but if your vehicle is a transit van how would you put the rubbish in a car to take it to the tip?

hedley – I believe each L.A. operates its own criteria.  As I understand it, here, permanent residents who own a commercial vehicle can apply (with proof of residence) for a permit to use a commercial vehicle a relatively small number of times a year; there is no provision for commercial vehicles to pay at the site.  I believe the neighbouring LA’s run different rules but on a similar theme.  Some are more rigorously enforced than others.  I’m not suggesting there should be carte blanche – but if you make it hard to dispose of waste properly, don’t be surprised if people don’t bother.

Nico – 🙂

Cougar – there are sites which I see get used, moved on naturally from (when the work is done on new opportunities seem better further away) and the site gets left pretty tidy, and then gets revisited each year or two.

Are travellers the new e-bikers?

In the BBC article;

“The government said the majority of the traveler community were law-abiding.”

This is very different from my experience. Further proof of how far out of touch our government are from what happens in the real world

Except travellers would hijack whilst not paying for the electric they want.

Jef – what is your accurately recorded statistical experience that suggests >50% of all travellers are law breaking?  Its sufficiently vague a statement that I doubt the Government is wrong – but does “out of touch” mean factually wrong or “disconnected from the narrative we like to tell ourselves, even if it is factually incorrect”?

Poly.

Good points Re LA’s and waste disposal. Although to counter that I still see a lot of cars on traveller sites that aren’t commercial so to me there is still no excuse.

Our Charity recently had to clear up after travellers broke into the car park of the building we use (again).

They cut the gate lock (then denied there was a lock and we couldn’t prove otherwise as there was (at that point) no CCTV covering the gate.

We had to (ok, decided it was sensible to) remove all of our kit from the building and kept at least two members of the charity on site at all times to protect the building. The landlord had to go through the usual process to have them moved on which they did, but they left a mess. The landlord was well used to this process.

Unfortunately, this experience is not new and so far every dealing I’ve had has been similar. It might be a minority of travellers causing the issues, but like every minority, they do seem to be the majority as not one group I have had experience with has ever been lawful and left the site in the same state they found it or not caused criminal damage to property for no other reason than they felt like it

I drink in some seriously rough pubs and even they won’t have traveller weddings or wakes. Just not worth it when it kicks off.

How would anyone prove you were deliberately trespassing by riding a bike along a path/trail anyway?

You just say you were following a path that people have been using for years and you didn’t know it was private land. Its a bit different to parking a caravan, tying up some horses and starting a driveway tarmacing business!!

😉

How would anyone prove you were deliberately trespassing by riding a bike along a path/trail anyway?

It would make no difference whether it was deliberate or not, if it was criminal offence. A speeding driver who didn’t spot the speed limit signs is still guilty. It’s a legal principle that ignorance is no defence.

You just say you were following a path that people have been using for years and you didn’t know it was private land

Clearly you dont live anywhere near me. The number of “private land no entry” signs has gone up spectacularly. Generally in really unpleasant garish colours.

It would make no difference whether it was deliberate or not,

Surely if we’re creating a crime of deliberate trespass then the intentions of the trespasser (deliberate or otherwise) are paramount in proving that?

Section 4 and 5 of the Public Order Act already cover intentions (IIRC, IANAL)

 Yes they do need a place to stay, legal pitches.. 

uhuh

..but they do need to clean up their act..

some probably do. Then again, that comment would be true of just about every subset of society too

 and integrate more with society

You what there? They are society, just like you are, just like all the other subsets that you don’t mix with much. Not sure why these should integrate, and with what? They should integrate with the local Muslim population and start going to mosque on a Friday? Integrate with the local Britains First lot and start attending demos outside court houses calling for the Muslims to “be sent home”? Anyway, integration’s a two way street (well, more of a multi-way spaghetti junction, but anyway..) so what are you doing to integrate with the travelling members of our society?

In the BBC article;

“The government said the majority of the traveler community were law-abiding.”

This is very different from my experience. Further proof of how far out of touch our government are from what happens in the real world

Unless your experience is as a statistician or sociologist looking specifically at criminal offending rates in travelling community then I’d suggest that your experience is irrelevant and doesn’t support your assertion in the slightest. The government, for all their failings, do employ, or commission others, who do look at the facts on these matters before they pronounce on them.

I’m reminded of one of the many previous trollfests on here when travellers were mentioned when at least one poster seemed to sincerely struggle with the idea that “all the thieves are gypsies” (which, by the way, is very much not an assertion I’m making) is not equal to “all the gypsies are thieves”

On the cheeky trail question, I reckon the police will very quickly get very sick of a small number of very persistent people reporting every cycling infraction on their local footpaths as soon as it is defined as an offence and they can do this. To be followed by copious letters to the local newspaper about how the police are failing to enforce the law…..

This is a bit like “All cyclists jump red lights”

Surely if we’re creating a crime of deliberate trespass then the intentions of the trespasser (deliberate or otherwise) are paramount in proving that

Apologies, I’d forgotten that ‘deliberate’ was in the thread title – misled by looking at the Irish law which doesn’t mention deliberate.

The government, for all their failings, do employ, or commission others, who do look at the facts on these matters before they pronounce on them.

Whilst i completely agree with your point i don’t think in this or most similar instances the government saying “a small minority of…” has anything to do with facts and statistics, it’s an arse covering exercise so the minister in particular or the government in general can try avoid being labeled swivel eyed xenophobes by saying “we said it’s not all” even when what’s clearly driving the policy is knee jerk populist swivel eyed xenophobia as it is in this case.

This is very different from my experience. Further proof of how far out of touch our government are from what happens in the real world

<div>You could also argue that it’s the bad eggs that stand out and give everyone a bad name.</div>
<div></div>
<div>Certainly my anecdotal experience of visiting traveller sites while working with the LA many, many years ago suggested that there are sites that have a patriarchal ‘family’ that look after and police their site, and there are others that don’t and the sites are thoroughly abused.</div>

I drink in some seriously rough pubs and even they won’t have traveller weddings or wakes. Just not worth it when it kicks off.

Ah, seriously rough pubs. Those well known beacons of evidence based non-racist decision making.

It may be difficult for travellers to dispose of waste legally but that doesn’t explain why it is left strewn about all over the place? Or why when camping in my van for a week or two I don’t have trouble getting rid of my household waste easily. Commercial waste and of course being law abiding they will be registered with a license for….

of course being law abiding they will be registered with a license for….

Having never tried to do so i may be wrong but I’ll bet you a beer you can’t get that licence without a fixed address.

I should’ve included a note about not making this thread about travellers albeit I guess the title was suitably vague.

What I wondered about but failed to convey was whether landowners might find themselves emboldened when confronting trail users who might be where they ought not.

Having never tried to do so i may be wrong but I’ll bet you a beer you can’t get that licence without a fixed address.

Well then the law abiding will not be able to operate aspects of business that require a waste lisence.