Trespass - to become a criminal offence?

pete75
Posts: 12433
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Trespass - to become a criminal offence?

Postby pete75 » 3 Dec 2019, 8:09am

The utility cyclist wrote:
pete75 wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:That would be a criminal offence in its own right and lose the gun owner their license, you can't simply start threatening with a gun simply because someone is on your land and presenting no threat of harm.
So I wouldn't lay awake at night imagining this extremely improbable scenario, I'd carry on wild camping and obviously being careful as always as to where.

The Duke of Omnium's gamekeeper, on his Grace's orders, shoves a gun in your face and orders you off the Ducal estate. He will not be prosecuted and will not lose his gun licence. If you complained after trespass has been made a criminal offence you would be arrested and charged with that offence. That's the way law enforcement works in rural areas.

meanwhile in the real world ...some examples of that would be good because what you're saying is simply not going to happen in the situation I described. the law does not allow someone to point a gun at you simply because you're on their land!


How naive. You appear to know little about power, influence and patronage in this country. What the law says and the manner in which it is enforced can be very different things.

Oldjohnw
Posts: 2863
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: Northumberland

Re: Trespass - to become a criminal offence?

Postby Oldjohnw » 3 Dec 2019, 8:43am

Will Trespass outdoor shops still be OK, he asks facetiously?
John

AndyK
Posts: 812
Joined: 17 Aug 2007, 2:08pm

Re: Trespass - to become a criminal offence?

Postby AndyK » 3 Dec 2019, 1:22pm

Oldjohnw wrote:Will Trespass outdoor shops still be OK, he asks facetiously?

Some of their kit is pretty poor, but I think calling it "criminal" is going a bit far. ;-)

Adnepos
Posts: 85
Joined: 15 Jun 2016, 1:47pm

Re: Trespass - to become a criminal offence?

Postby Adnepos » 3 Dec 2019, 1:39pm

With such a law in place, would the postie deliver my cycle parts (and bills) to my door?

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 13882
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: Trespass - to become a criminal offence?

Postby gaz » 3 Dec 2019, 7:57pm

The (Royal Mail) postie is not trespassing. The postie has a legal duty to deliver from which you are unable to opt out.

If you put up barricades, dig a moat, release the hounds, etc the postie may apply for the legal right not to deliver but it'll be his opt out not yours.

fullupandslowingdown
Posts: 241
Joined: 11 Oct 2007, 5:47pm

Re: Trespass - to become a criminal offence?

Postby fullupandslowingdown » 11 Dec 2019, 9:39pm

I'm looking future forward. 'Today' they want to make trespass a criminal offence. Depending on who you ask there are between 1,000 (tories) and 15,000 (anyone else) homeless people sleeping on the streets. I'm thinking that this new legalisation could then be used to further harass genuine homeless people. I don't know if any of you remember the old days (Mick :lol: ) when it was illegal to be poor! The way this present government is heading, I can't help but fear a near future where "workhouses" are reintroduced for the idle masses.
"Conditions in the casual wards were worse, and deliberately designed to discourage vagrants, who were considered potential troublemakers and probably disease-ridden. Those refused entry risked being sentenced to two weeks of hard labour if they were found begging or sleeping in the open and prosecuted for an offence under the Vagrancy Act 1824."

pete75
Posts: 12433
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Trespass - to become a criminal offence?

Postby pete75 » 19 Dec 2019, 9:03am

gaz wrote:The (Royal Mail) postie is not trespassing. The postie has a legal duty to deliver from which you are unable to opt out.

If you put up barricades, dig a moat, release the hounds, etc the postie may apply for the legal right not to deliver but it'll be his opt out not yours.

A postman has what is known as implied right of access - this can be removed. According to Tames Valley Police :-

Removal of “Implied Rights of
Access” would lead to offences of
Trespass. This would be considered a
civil matter for the landowner or
relevant occupier and Thames Valley
Police would not pursue a criminal
investigation.

Pete Owens
Posts: 1624
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: Trespass - to become a criminal offence?

Postby Pete Owens » 15 Jan 2020, 2:12pm


Labrat
Posts: 179
Joined: 3 Mar 2014, 11:58am

Re: Trespass - to become a criminal offence?

Postby Labrat » 15 Jan 2020, 5:43pm

Pete Owens wrote:Worth reading this from George Monbiot in the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/15/tresspass-trap-law-land-travelling-people-rights


The only problem with this article is that it's [rude word removed].

The proposed legislation, for which the consultation has been published: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-consults-on-new-police-powers-to-criminalise-unauthorised-encampments which makes it clear that this is an intent only to criminalise trespass "with intent to reside".

George then goes on to infer that this is a new thing, an attack on the rights of a minority, however again this is demonstrably false. Section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order act 1994 already criminalises encampments like these, but with the stipulation that those persons have between them six or more vehicles on the land and have caused damage (which is evidentially difficult to prove) or been aggressive/abusive. So, this is not a 'new' thing, but merely a tightening of existing rules. Indeed, legislation aimed at tackling the problems associated with the travelling community are nothing new, dating back till, at least, the Egyptians Act 1530, which sought to outlaw:
"an outlandish people, calling themselves Egyptians, using no craft nor feat of merchandise, who have come into this realm, and gone from shire to shire, and place to place, in great company; and used great subtlety and crafty means to deceive the people--bearing them in hand that they, by palmistry, could tell men's and women's fortunes; and so, many times, by craft and subtlety, have deceived the people for their money; and also have committed many heinous felonies and robberies, to the great hurt and deceit of the people that they have come among...."

However we need to look further. George then infers that this is an invidious attack on the historic institution of Trespass as a purely civil matter, however in this he can once again be proved demonstrably wrong. The Game Act, 1831 criminalises, amongst other things, "persons trespassing in the day-time upon lands in search of game" and allows that "Trespassers in search of game may be required to quit the land, and to tell their names and abodes, and in case of refusal may be arrested." - we then go on to consider the impact of the Vagrancy Act, 1824, which criminalised:
"every suspected person or reputed thief, frequenting any river, canal, or navigable stream, dock, or basin, or any quay, wharf, or warehouse near or adjoining thereto, or any street, highway, or avenue leading thereto, or any place of public resort, or any avenue leading thereto, or any street, or any highway or any place adjacent to a street or highway; with intent to commit an arrestable offence"
which seems pretty exhaustive - and then we look back again at the CJPOA 1994, which additionally outlawed not only aggravated trespass (trespass with intent to intimidate, obstruct or disrupt lawful activities) but also trespass involving groups of 20 or more persons in the open air while listening to amplified music (including music characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats)

So, essentially, George's pretence that Trespass is, indeed ever was, a purely civil matter is fundamentally flawed. Now, are there potential knock on effects for bike packing and wild camping - yes, there could be, and we need a clear explanation of the term 'intent to reside' - So I'm sure a number of our representative groups will be putting forward responses saying that... but this sort of attempt to paint the proposed legislation as some form of creeping attack on our civil rights (in order to continue pushing his sixth-form level personal political agenda of land reform) is alarmist nonsense, and does nobody any favours.

pete75
Posts: 12433
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Trespass - to become a criminal offence?

Postby pete75 » 15 Jan 2020, 5:49pm

Labrat wrote:
Pete Owens wrote:Worth reading this from George Monbiot in the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/15/tresspass-trap-law-land-travelling-people-rights


The only problem with this article is that it's <i>[rude word removed]</i>.

The proposed legislation, for which the consultation has been published: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-consults-on-new-police-powers-to-criminalise-unauthorised-encampments which makes it clear that this is an intent only to criminalise trespass "with intent to reside".

George then goes on to infer that this is a new thing, an attack on the rights of a minority, however again this is demonstrably false. Section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order act 1994 already criminalises encampments like these, but with the stipulation that those persons have between them six or more vehicles on the land and have caused damage (which is evidentially difficult to prove) or been aggressive/abusive. So, this is not a 'new' thing, but merely a tightening of existing rules. Indeed, legislation aimed at tackling the problems associated with the travelling community are nothing new, dating back till, at least, the Egyptians Act 1530, which sought to outlaw:
"an outlandish people, calling themselves Egyptians, using no craft nor feat of merchandise, who have come into this realm, and gone from shire to shire, and place to place, in great company; and used great subtlety and crafty means to deceive the people--bearing them in hand that they, by palmistry, could tell men's and women's fortunes; and so, many times, by craft and subtlety, have deceived the people for their money; and also have committed many heinous felonies and robberies, to the great hurt and deceit of the people that they have come among...."

However we need to look further. George then infers that this is an invidious attack on the historic institution of Trespass as a purely civil matter, however in this he can once again be proved demonstrably wrong. The Game Act, 1831 criminalises, amongst other things, "persons trespassing in the day-time upon lands in search of game" and allows that "Trespassers in search of game may be required to quit the land, and to tell their names and abodes, and in case of refusal may be arrested." - we then go on to consider the impact of the Vagrancy Act, 1824, which criminalised:
"every suspected person or reputed thief, frequenting any river, canal, or navigable stream, dock, or basin, or any quay, wharf, or warehouse near or adjoining thereto, or any street, highway, or avenue leading thereto, or any place of public resort, or any avenue leading thereto, or any street, or any highway or any place adjacent to a street or highway; with intent to commit an arrestable offence"
which seems pretty exhaustive - and then we look back again at the CJPOA 1994, which additionally outlawed not only aggravated trespass (trespass with intent to intimidate, obstruct or disrupt lawful activities) but also trespass involving groups of 20 or more persons in the open air while listening to amplified music (including music characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats)

So, essentially, George's pretence that Trespass is, indeed ever was, a purely civil matter is fundamentally flawed. Now, are there potential knock on effects for bike packing and wild camping - yes, there could be, and we need a clear explanation of the term 'intent to reside' - So I'm sure a number of our representative groups will be putting forward responses saying that... but this sort of attempt to paint the proposed legislation as some form of creeping attack on our civil rights (in order to continue pushing his sixth-form level personal political agenda of land reform) is alarmist nonsense, and does nobody any favours.


Wow. You've discovered trespass for the purposes of crime is a crime.

Labrat
Posts: 179
Joined: 3 Mar 2014, 11:58am

Re: Trespass - to become a criminal offence?

Postby Labrat » 15 Jan 2020, 6:41pm

pete75 wrote:
Wow. You've discovered trespass for the purposes of crime is a crime.


Indeed, and that’s exactly why trespassing on land with an intent to reside there should be a crime

pete75
Posts: 12433
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Trespass - to become a criminal offence?

Postby pete75 » 15 Jan 2020, 6:48pm

Labrat wrote:
pete75 wrote:
Wow. You've discovered trespass for the purposes of crime is a crime.


Indeed, and that’s exactly why trespassing on land with an intent to reside there should be a crime


Residing isn't a crime though.

D363
Posts: 117
Joined: 23 Aug 2014, 3:03pm
Location: Sheffield

Re: Trespass - to become a criminal offence?

Postby D363 » 16 Jan 2020, 7:58am

Labrat wrote:
Pete Owens wrote:Worth reading this from George Monbiot in the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/15/tresspass-trap-law-land-travelling-people-rights


The only problem with this article is that it's <i>[rude word removed]</i>.

The proposed legislation, for which the consultation has been published: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-consults-on-new-police-powers-to-criminalise-unauthorised-encampments which makes it clear that this is an intent only to criminalise trespass "with intent to reside".

George then goes on to infer that this is a new thing, an attack on the rights of a minority, however again this is demonstrably false. Section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order act 1994 already criminalises encampments like these, but with the stipulation that those persons have between them six or more vehicles on the land and have caused damage (which is evidentially difficult to prove) or been aggressive/abusive. So, this is not a 'new' thing, but merely a tightening of existing rules. Indeed, legislation aimed at tackling the problems associated with the travelling community are nothing new, dating back till, at least, the Egyptians Act 1530, which sought to outlaw:
"an outlandish people, calling themselves Egyptians, using no craft nor feat of merchandise, who have come into this realm, and gone from shire to shire, and place to place, in great company; and used great subtlety and crafty means to deceive the people--bearing them in hand that they, by palmistry, could tell men's and women's fortunes; and so, many times, by craft and subtlety, have deceived the people for their money; and also have committed many heinous felonies and robberies, to the great hurt and deceit of the people that they have come among...."

However we need to look further. George then infers that this is an invidious attack on the historic institution of Trespass as a purely civil matter, however in this he can once again be proved demonstrably wrong. The Game Act, 1831 criminalises, amongst other things, "persons trespassing in the day-time upon lands in search of game" and allows that "Trespassers in search of game may be required to quit the land, and to tell their names and abodes, and in case of refusal may be arrested." - we then go on to consider the impact of the Vagrancy Act, 1824, which criminalised:
"every suspected person or reputed thief, frequenting any river, canal, or navigable stream, dock, or basin, or any quay, wharf, or warehouse near or adjoining thereto, or any street, highway, or avenue leading thereto, or any place of public resort, or any avenue leading thereto, or any street, or any highway or any place adjacent to a street or highway; with intent to commit an arrestable offence"
which seems pretty exhaustive - and then we look back again at the CJPOA 1994, which additionally outlawed not only aggravated trespass (trespass with intent to intimidate, obstruct or disrupt lawful activities) but also trespass involving groups of 20 or more persons in the open air while listening to amplified music (including music characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats)

So, essentially, George's pretence that Trespass is, indeed ever was, a purely civil matter is fundamentally flawed. Now, are there potential knock on effects for bike packing and wild camping - yes, there could be, and we need a clear explanation of the term 'intent to reside' - So I'm sure a number of our representative groups will be putting forward responses saying that... but this sort of attempt to paint the proposed legislation as some form of creeping attack on our civil rights (in order to continue pushing his sixth-form level personal political agenda of land reform) is alarmist nonsense, and does nobody any favours.


So why are the consultation questions so obviously loaded then?

Oldjohnw
Posts: 2863
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: Northumberland

Re: Trespass - to become a criminal offence?

Postby Oldjohnw » 16 Jan 2020, 8:39am

What can't be denied is that, most unusually if not uniquely, the party manifesto mentioned a target group by name : travellers.

"First they came for the Communists.........m"
John

Eric the Red
Posts: 29
Joined: 28 Dec 2007, 3:17pm

Re: Trespass - to become a criminal offence?

Postby Eric the Red » 18 Jan 2020, 6:06am

Oldjohnw wrote:What can't be denied is that, most unusually if not uniquely, the party manifesto mentioned a target group by name : travellers.

"First they came for the Communists.........m"

They may not be a problem in Northumberland, but in South Essex.

Illegal occupation of council/private land.
Criminal damage to gain such access.
Flytipping on an industrial scale.
Intimidation and violence towards locals/police.
Fleecing vulnerable people with shoddy gardening/tarmacking etc.
Illegal horse racing on major roads.
Untaxed/uninsured vehicles.
Non-payment of council tax.
Non attendance at school.
Exceding plot quotas on legal sites.
Theft.
Etc.
Etc.
Many of them have houses in Ireland to return to in the winter, but find the 'pickings' here to be profitable - and the police/council can't/won't face up to them.