• This topic has 36 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 3 years ago by Pook.
Viewing 37 posts - 1 through 37 (of 37 total)
  • Trespass
  • whitestone
    Free Member

    Part of the Tory party’s manifesto was to criminalise trespass – at the moment it’s a civil offence. There’s a petition here https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/300139 but it’s also worth writing to your MP raising objections to it. Try and find out what their interests are and what they campaign for then try and show how the legislation would affect those.

    If you think it doesn’t affect you: every ridden on a footpath? made a trail? Got lost? If this legislation itself doesn’t actually reverse CRoW then it puts in much of the groundwork towards doing so.

    I’m trying to recall the legislation from the mid 1980s, probably traveller/rave related, that almost immediately got misused against rough sleepers. Anyone remember it?

    dannyh
    Free Member

    Signed it ages ago.

    It ain’t gonna make any difference.

    “Build, build, build”

    Whatever is left of the countryside will be bought up as private land for the mansions of the very developers who ripped up the rest of it to cram shitty little overpriced brick boxes on.

    They’ll then fence their mansions in and live happily ever after on the proceeds (and fight tooth and nail to protect ‘their’ green space whilst destroying ever bugger else’s).

    Rant over.

    eskay
    Full Member

    but it’s also worth writing to your MP raising objections to it.

    My MP is Rees ******* Mogg. Utter waste of time writing to that bellend about anything concerning the Tories plans/policies.

    ****

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    whitestone
    Free Member

    @eskay – you have my sincerest sympathies.

    dannyh
    Free Member

    I’m trying to recall the legislation from the mid 1980s, probably traveller/rave related, that almost immediately got misused against rough sleepers. Anyone remember it?

    I sort of recall it, but probably by hearing about it in this context.

    Make no mistake, when Johnson and his rabble do this it will be immediately ‘misused’ by landowners everywhere to clamp down on stuff that actually does no harm whatsoever (like riding a bike on a footpath).

    This is about that great guiding principle of Tory thought: “What is mine is mine whether I have any actual use for it or not”.

    trailwagger
    Free Member

    What do you see as the issue with the new legislation? I assume that if you are not anywhere you shouldn’t be then it`ll have little direct effect on you?

    jeffl
    Full Member

    So the Tories are trying to push it through with fear-mongering about gypsies/travellers camping on your drive, your front garden or what have you.

    The reality is that it can be used to give you a criminal record if you do something as incredulous as riding on a footpath. Additionally whilst England and Wales should be pushing for greater access to the outdoors, in the same style as Scotland, this will actually make it harder to move to a Scottish model.

    Now the reality is that the police are not going to have time to actually sit and wait for people to ride past on a footpath, but the possibility will exist.

    Plus when some twonk says “it’s illegal for you to ride here”, they’ll be correct. Personally I’ve been riding more cheeky footpaths since lockdown, as long as you follow rule 1 I don’t see what the issue is.

    stumpyjon
    Full Member

    I’d be more than happy for this if it was linked to right to roam legislation, make it easier to evict the travellers etc. who are a real, costly nightmare for landowners whilst giving every one else the right to enjoy proper, responsible access. As above, it will be brought in to clamp down on travellers and then be used to erode everyone else’s rights.

    Mind you it was a manifesto promise so probably not high on the agenda, bit like the 40 new hospitals etc.

    nickc
    Full Member

    If you think it doesn’t affect you: every ridden on a footpath?

    Hmmm, IANAL but I’m not convinced that trespass even as a criminal offence would fly here. If you’re on a footpath, that’s a public place, and you’re a member of the public, you’ve a right to be there. Riding or not…

    Plus when some twonk says “it’s illegal for you to ride here”, they’ll be correct

    Not necessarily, the Tories want to change trespass to make it an offence, that’s nothing to do with being on a footpath. Trespass is about depriving some-one of the enjoyment of their private land, if there’s a footpath through it (ie a public place) they would probably struggle to prove trespass…If you’re not on a footpath, they can already say “Get orf moi laannd” and you should comply.

    Still, I doubt it will make any difference to where I ride.

    trailwagger
    Free Member

    Now the reality is that the police are not going to have time to actually sit and wait for people to ride past on a footpath, but the possibility will exist.
    Plus when some twonk says “it’s illegal for you to ride here”, they’ll be correct. Personally I’ve been riding more cheeky footpaths since lockdown, as long as you follow rule 1 I don’t see what the issue is.

    I don’t ride footpaths. My opinion is that it causes conflict which presents a barrier to any kind of reform to allow greater access. Calling them “cheeky” doesn’t lesson the impact or change the fact that you shouldn’t really be riding there. Imagine if all the ramblers in the world suddenly decided to walk along some “cheeky” mtb trails.

    trailwagger
    Free Member

    and then be used to erode everyone else’s rights.

    What rights? You will still be able to access public rights of way.

    Greybeard
    Free Member

    What do you see as the issue with the new legislation? I assume that if you are not anywhere you shouldn’t be then it`ll have little direct effect on you?

    Where I’m allowed to be is not as clear cut as you might think. I believe there’s a public right of navigation on physically navigable rivers, dating back to Magna Carta; other people don’t believe that. It’s never been tested in court. At the moment, if I’m carefully and considerately canoeing down a river and a landowner thinks I’m trespassing, they can ask me to leave. Assuming I do, end of story. If trespass becomes an offence, they could have me prosecuted. That prospect would effectively stop me paddling. Similarly, there are places where I ride my bike on a footpath, but I believe that the landowner doesn’t object to that (Winter Hill, for example). If I’m wrong, I could be prosecuted under the proposed law. Such a prosecution could have lost me my job.

    Besides which, trespass has only ever been a civil wrong in England and Wales – that’s been, in the opinion of society, the appropriate level of protection for land ownership. What this Government want to do is to shift the balance of society in favour of the well off, and we should resist that. How they persuaded millions of not so well off people to vote them in is a different question.

    nickc
    Full Member

    If I’m wrong, I could be prosecuted under the proposed law

    How? If you’re on a footpath you’re on public land, you can’t be depriving someone of their private enjoyment of their land if there’s a public right of way across it.

    My opinion is that it causes conflict which presents a barrier to any kind of reform to allow greater access.

    I respect your opinion, but I take the opposite view. The current law is stupid, and it needs changing, without challenging and breaking stupid laws we will never get better laws.

    trailwagger
    Free Member

    if I’m carefully and considerately canoeing down a river and a landowner thinks I’m trespassing, they can ask me to leave.

    Land owners own the land, not the water is my understanding of this. So as long as you are not mooring on the banks and having a picnic then no problem.

    Similarly, there are places where I ride my bike on a footpath, but I believe that the landowner doesn’t object to that

    So you have the landowners permission? That’s not trespassing so no problem.

    What this Government want to do is to shift the balance of society in favour of the well off, and we should resist that

    Do they?

    pdw
    Free Member

    If you’re on a footpath you’re on public land

    No, you’re on private land that has a right of way across it.

    you can’t be depriving someone of their private enjoyment of their land if there’s a public right of way across it.

    I’m with you there. In most cases, it’s hard to see how whether someone is on a bike or not affects the landowner’s private enjoyment of their land.

    Poopscoop
    Full Member

    I’d email to my MP but I’m pretty sure she has never voted against the government, ever.

    I’ll sign the petition though.

    My default position with this bunch is that if they bring in anything that can be subverted then it will be.

    Zero trust.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    What this Government want to do is to shift the balance of society in favour of the well off, and we should resist that

    Do they?

    What Tories always want to do is reduce government and increase authoritarianism. What that means is people who own stuff can do what they want with it, and **** everyone else. And people who break those rules get severely punished. So in terms of land access, this is exactly what they are doing. It’s squarely aligned with Tory philosophy.

    trailwagger
    Free Member

    What Tories always want to do is reduce government and increase authoritarianism. What that means is people who own stuff can do what they want with it, and **** everyone else. And people who break those rules get severely punished. So in terms of land access, this is exactly what they are doing. It’s squarely aligned with Tory philosophy.

    Yep. What’s wrong with people owning what they have worked hard for? The alternative is communism, is it not?

    Poopscoop
    Full Member

    Bloody Scottish communists.😉

    nickjb
    Free Member

    What’s wrong with people owning what they have worked hard for?

    Out of interest what percentage of land owners in the UK worked hard for it (as opposed to inherited it)?

    Greybeard
    Free Member

    So you have the landowners permission?

    Not explicitly, just implicitly, which is why I might be wrong.

    jeffl
    Full Member
    brads
    Free Member

    I hate people owning massive tracts of land and excluding the public from it.
    Who determined that they own it ? some rich fanny 400yrs ago.?
    Scotland has it almost right.

    One thing that really annoys me is the ability(or lack of) to ride my dirt bike on wild land.
    Public land for public use imo.

    stumpyjon
    Full Member

    One thing that really annoys me is the ability(or lack of) to ride my dirt bike on wild land.

    Totally different issue, the harm from you doing that is an order of magnitude away from walkers and cyclists. Noise, pollution, threat to other trail users, damage and erosion. The first 2 are negligible for walkers and cyclists, the second 2 insignificant. Your enjoyment of powered trails is outweighed by your impact on others, not the same for walkers and cyclists.

    endoverend
    Full Member

    The general consensus from that thread a few weeks back about whether one should ride summits in the Lakes was that a lot of riders aren’t interested in obeying the rules which is fair enough, but there was a misapprehension that rules would eventually soften towards Scottish access and this Tory legislation flies in the face of that potentially. I can’t see it making much difference to riders in practice as although it may alter the morals, they’ll still be no more guilty of disobeying the law than the majority of motorists who speed every time they get behind the wheel – a bad analogy but that happens every minute of every day and is essentially equally unpreventable and a useful retort when accused of ones infractions.

    The solution for the Lakes is that once Scotland gains its freedom in independance we need to campaign to have the Scottish border moved to below the Lakes – it doesn’t need to go far – then we can have the country divided into the interesting mountain regions up the Northern end and leave dull flatland England to the oppressive flag waving greedy privatise the air if they could Englanders.

    Nobeerinthefridge
    Free Member

    We’ll swap the lake district for trident, not a problem.

    CountZero
    Full Member

    I don’t ride footpaths. My opinion is that it causes conflict which presents a barrier to any kind of reform to allow greater access.

    Conflict with who? There are plenty who’re more than happy to make life as difficult as possible for people riding bikes even when they’re entitled to, I’ve met them, and even been physically threatened, on a path through a park in Chippenham that was a section of a Sustrans Route!
    There’s a bridlepath between Castle Combe and Long Dean, that suddenly becomes a footpath at the parish boundary; clearly, the route along the side of the valley would have been used by horses and pack animals, but during the 1960’s there were changes to rights of way definitions, formalising RoW, some parishes defined a route as bridleway, others as footpath, so you get situations where I can legally ride a bike, then instantly be guilty of trespassing by crossing an invisible line.

    You can see the bridleway starts at Danks Down Wood, at the 111 metre contour, then changes at the parish boundary at Grains Quarry Plantation, running into Castle Combe; plenty of people in and around that area would be more than happy to impose restrictions on public access – the owner of Colham Mill used to graze Highland Cattle along that path, allowing it to turn into an almost impassable quagmire during wet periods, effectively preventing walkers and cyclists from using the route.

    brads
    Free Member

    Totally different issue, the harm from you doing that is an order of magnitude away from walkers and cyclists. Noise, pollution, threat to other trail users, damage and erosion. The first 2 are negligible for walkers and cyclists, the second 2 insignificant. Your enjoyment of powered trails is outweighed by your impact on others, not the same for walkers and cyclists

    Never said it was the same issue but it is very very similar.
    And I don’t believe the damage done is that bad, if any, and do not think my enjoyment is outweighed by a negligible impact.

    And to say that mountain bikers cause no damage or erosion is laughable.
    It’s all a matter of scale, but I’ll not labour the point as I suspect plenty on here will be on that bandwagon sharpish.

    endoverend
    Full Member

    You’re missing a trick…all the dirtbikers up my end just ride around on ebikes now any way – easily distinguishable by the mildly out of place full face and motocross style clothing worn rather than cycling originated gear. Runs for cover.

    Nobeerinthefridge
    Free Member

    The idea that most landowners have worked hard for their acreage is laughable.

    The acceptance, almost revelling, in being a pleb turns my stomach.

    thegreatape
    Free Member

    Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 was the raves one.

    yourguitarhero
    Free Member

    Imagine a world you can’t imagine. Now, do that 32 times.

    Then come to Scotland for a while.

    The idea that someone can *own* land is halfway between Ozymandias and watching a movie because it’s on Channel 4 at 10 o clock. i.e. very English people in their 50’s

    chestercopperpot
    Free Member

    Does this not leave the door open for businesses to use the Police like private security.

    They will be rushed off their feet and then some!

    Pook
    Full Member
    RustySpanner
    Full Member

    Mass trespass gained us access to our trails.
    Civil disobedience is our only weapon.

    We have to fight.
    Our right to roam is being taken away.

    Are you prepared to stand up for your beliefs?
    Are you prepared to take a beating?

    whitestone
    Free Member

    @yourguitarhero – my dad was a farmer and ‘owned’ the farm. Well his attitude was that he was the custodian for future generations, i.e. my brother and myself, so he wasn’t “get off my land” in fact quite the opposite: he was more than happy for people to enjoy it so long as they didn’t affect him making a living. In the days before the motorway network was as extensive as it is now we’d drive through whatever town on our way to wherever we were going on holiday and he’d comment that he wouldn’t like to live there and that he and we were lucky so he didn’t mind those that lived there appreciating what he’d got. I suspect he’d have been fine with the CRoW legislation.

    Curiously he was against actual footpaths – they carry with them restrictions regarding what stock, specifically bulls, can be on the land they cross, but fine with general access.

    As ever, just saying “group X are like …” is simplistic and invariably wrong.

    Pook
    Full Member

    No it didn’t, well not solely anyway. The Mass trespass was one event in decades of activity pushing the changes. It took another 17 years after the mass trespass for national parks to be established.

    The Spirit of the Kinder Trespass

Viewing 37 posts - 1 through 37 (of 37 total)

The topic ‘Trespass’ is closed to new replies.