Jump to content

I wonder if this will be applied to the waterways ?


Alan de Enfield

Featured Posts

14 minutes ago, sirweste said:

Apologies again for taking this off topic.

 

Agriculture land I agree on. No sense in it. But vast areas of land in this country are owned by huge estates, it is these areas which we should be free to venture upon. I ride my mountain bike regularly through forests owned by water companies. Now and then a 'ranger' comes to try and give me an earful. For the simplicity of exploring our land I would not want to be made a criminal.

There were many arguments against right to roam in Scotland, barely any of the fears properly materialised and the right they now have is something we should aspire to.

 

If you were to be treated as a criminal for merely walking though much of our / your nation, how can you really belong to that nation?

But this proposed Law would not stop you doing that. This is only about those who would to set up "unauthorised encampmemts".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have, the water companies don't want you there, 'there's plenty of paths for you to ride on' over and over on same paths. The right to explore our natural land should be a right not a wish. 

But yes, not if you're wanting to trapse over agricultural land; and why would you want to, not exactly full of natural splender is it

2 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

But this proposed Law would not stop you doing that. This is only about those who would to set up "unauthorised encampmemts".

See post 22

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, sirweste said:

 

 

Have you done the consultation? It's not worded so that it's limited to people setting up encampments. Though I disagree with that too. People sleeping rough, squatting in abandoned derelict buildings have got things hard enough without being made criminals.

 

To my original point, the first question:

 “To what extent do you agree or disagree that knowingly entering land without the landowner’s permission should only be made a criminal offence if it is for the purpose of residing on it?”

That is a dirty question imho. If you agree you are criminalising the way of some communities / cultures, if you disagree you are not limiting the criminalisation to just travellers / Roma but to everyone...for any purpose...

And my apologies, I realise this is off topic, I'm annoying meself by taking it off topic

Yes, as quoted above, and even that post says "for the purpose of residing on it".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, sirweste said:

But yes, not if you're wanting to trapse over agricultural land; and why would you want to, not exactly full of natural splender is it

I am not suggesting people should wander willy nilly over agricultural land but your reference to natural splendor attracts a reply.  There are some birds, the Stone Curlew being an example, that can only be seen on agricultural land.

Edited by Jerra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sirweste said:

But yes, not if you're wanting to trapse over agricultural land; and why would you want to, not exactly full of natural splender is it

Maybe your definition of "Agricultural" is different to mine.

 

For example a mountain side (Snowdon ?) on which sheep are kept is Agricultural.

 

I walk (hike) about 1000 miles per year, I hate the 'paving' of the Pennine Way (I  understand why) but it is no longer the wilds that I first walked in the early 70's. A bit like tarmacking the towpath. It changes the character.

The tracks up Snowden are now similar and still there are complaints that it is not 'wheelchair friendly' enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The tracks up Snowden are now similar and still there are complaints that it is not 'wheelchair friendly' enough.

A bit like the report on Trip Adviser complaining about the lack of café and railway on Skiddaw.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Maybe your definition of "Agricultural" is different to mine.

 

For example a mountain side (Snowdon ?) on which sheep are kept is Agricultural.

 

I walk (hike) about 1000 miles per year, I hate the 'paving' of the Pennine Way (I  understand why) but it is no longer the wilds that I first walked in the early 70's. A bit like tarmacking the towpath. It changes the character.

The tracks up Snowden are now similar and still there are complaints that it is not 'wheelchair friendly' enough.

our agriculture definitions are indeed different. I wouldn't count the vast areas in Snowdonia as agriculture, sparse hill farming isn't, in my head agriculture.

 

I agree completely, understand why the tourist traps need to be paved to prevent further and further erosion from our ever increasing population. However as a child brought up at the foot of Kinder and with one of my great grandparents taking part in the mass trespass I do not believe that we should be increasing the sanitisation of the outdoors or further restricting access to it. Education is what we all need. 

 

This law feels like a back door way to criminalise us common folk getting on to the various lords estates. Which is exactly what I would expect from the lot we have in power at the moment (and foreseeable)

  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, sirweste said:

This law feels like a back door way to criminalise us common folk getting on to the various lords estates. Which is exactly what I would expect from the lot we have in power at the moment (and foreseeable)

It could certainly make catching gamekeepers shooting rare birds of prey more difficult.  Back in the days when the RedKite population was down to 70 birds of prey there were permanent watches in some places.  This could at a stretch be classed as encampment.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Game keepers are a pain when I ride up in the north york moors. I find it immensely alienating that such huge portions of this land are kept off limits simply so some folk can shoot some birds.

 

I agree with keeping a watch on game keepers being more difficult too. The report that came out a year ago makes this important, though there's no evidence of illegal killing, a hen harrier is 10 times more likley to die / disappear on a managed moorland than elsewhere.

Again, we need to follow Scotland's example and in this case make estates liable for the actions of their keepers. Making it a criminal offence to step off a footpath is completely in the wrong direciton

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Jerra said:

There are some birds, the Stone Curlew being an example, that can only be seen on agricultural land.

Must admit, when I wrote the bit about natural splendor I did think about birds and insects on crop fields. But I kind of chose to ignore it / thought they must be visible in 'wild' flora..?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, sirweste said:

Game keepers are a pain when I ride up in the north york moors. I find it immensely alienating that such huge portions of this land are kept off limits simply so some folk can shoot some birds.

 

I agree with keeping a watch on game keepers being more difficult too. The report that came out a year ago makes this important, though there's no evidence of illegal killing, a hen harrier is 10 times more likley to die / disappear on a managed moorland than elsewhere.

Again, we need to follow Scotland's example and in this case make estates liable for the actions of their keepers. Making it a criminal offence to step off a footpath is completely in the wrong direciton

Any change would be an advantage but as far as I know Scotland hasn't changed much ven with the estate being liable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sirweste said:

Must admit, when I wrote the bit about natural splendor I did think about birds and insects on crop fields. But I kind of chose to ignore it / thought they must be visible in 'wild' flora..?

In the UK they spend almost all their time in dry stoney ground with very sparse vegetation.  I have heard of non nesting in any habitat other than ploughed fields in the UK.  Mainly found in Wiltshire and Norfolk.  The British population is in the region of 350 pairs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sirweste said:

Not to say I don't understand the ecological benefit of hill farming. It's just in my head it isn't worked land as such

So any farm that only has live stock is not farming? I think you need to re-think your ideas about farming and agriculture.

  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scotland has had a Trespass Act since 1865. The relevant part reads

Every person who lodges in any premises, or occupies or encamps on any land, being private property, without the consent and permission of the owner or legal occupier of such premises or land, and every person who encamps or lights a fire on or near any road or enclosed or cultivated land, or in or near any plantation, without the consent and permission of the owner or legal occupier of such road, land, or plantation shall be guilty of an offence punishable as herein-after provided.

(Maximum fine currently £200)

 

Doesn't help with the Traveller problem, though : it's not considered Politically Correct or Advisable to apply it to them!

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I recall the main penalty for this offence is not just criminalisation of the culprit,but confiscation and possible destruction of the offending "residence". For rough sleepers, it means the trashing of their tents, for travellers confiscation of the caravan and therefore for boaters, the removal and scrapping of their boats. No need for a court order or years of appeals any more - not much good winning your appeal when your boats wrecked. The problem with all this badly worded and rushed legislation is the unforeseen consequences.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Iain_S said:

Scotland has had a Trespass Act since 1865. The relevant part reads

 

(Maximum fine currently £200)

 

Doesn't help with the Traveller problem, though : it's not considered Politically Correct or Advisable to apply it to them!

I was talking to someone about this and they pointed out that the Trespass Act had been repealed and Superseded by the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003.

Is that your understanding ?

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2003/2/contents

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, sirweste said:

Apologies again for taking this off topic.

 

Agriculture land I agree on. No sense in it But vast areas of land in this country are owned by huge estates, it is these areas which we should be free to venture upon.. I ride my mountain bike regularly through forests owned by water companies. Now and then a 'ranger' comes to try and give me an earful. For the simplicity of exploring our land I would not want to be made a criminal.

There were many arguments against right to roam in Scotland, barely any of the fears properly materialised and the right they now have is something we should aspire to.

 

If you were to be treated as a criminal for merely walking though much of our / your nation, how can you really belong to that nation?

But vast areas of land in this country are owned by huge estates, it is these areas which we should be free to venture upon.

 

 

Sorry? Why? Its not your land so you have no rights whatever to trespass.   Think about if it was your land, would you want a load of path churning vandals speeding through it leaving gates open etc.?

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Boater Sam said:

But vast areas of land in this country are owned by huge estates, it is these areas which we should be free to venture upon.

 

Sorry? Why? Its not your land so you have no rights whatever to trespass.   Think about if it was your land, would you want a load of path churning vandals speeding through it leaving gates open etc.?

My limited experience of interacting with those working on large Scottish estates (on which I walk, more or less annually) has been entirely positive. Note that access rights in Scotland specifically don't include either motor vehicular access or vandalism. Much of my walking has not included paths either. That is part of the joy.

I do understand that more enclosed farming is more vulnerable to both open gates and unintended damage to crops. But it is interesting that there simply isn't a great sense of animosity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I disagreed, it should apply to all trespassers.

 

I bet if I was to wander about in some 'townies' front garden, digging holes, taking flowers, breaking fences the Police would soon be called.

Why as a 'land owner' should I be treated any differently ?

 

I had years of the 'Badger Protection Tree Huggers' breaking fences and wandering across my fields to make sure I had not dug up the Badger sett since their last visit a couple of days ago.

Even with the damage, the Police said it was a civil matter and they could do nothing.

 

There are many, many footpaths, bye ways and bridle-tracks, areas of 'Right to Roam' & permissive rights of way why should they need to be able to wander freely across agricultural land without the land owners permission ?

Just remember that those pretty roads that we use to get to the shops, work, cinema ro wherever were once just tracks across someone's lands.

 

Driving up the M6 you only have permission to do so.

 

And don't start on parking outside your own house . . . 

11 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

As I recall the main penalty for this offence is not just criminalisation of the culprit,but confiscation and possible destruction of the offending "residence". For rough sleepers, it means the trashing of their tents, for travellers confiscation of the caravan and therefore for boaters, the removal and scrapping of their boats. No need for a court order or years of appeals any more - not much good winning your appeal when your boats wrecked. The problem with all this badly worded and rushed legislation is the unforeseen consequences.

Looks like we will get a lot of that in the next few years. Always the consequence of a lack of proper scrutiny when one party is too dominant. It is not necessarily that the original idea is wrong but new legislation is notoriously hard to get right without causing undue unintended consequences.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I was talking to someone about this and they pointed out that the Trespass Act had been repealed and Superseded by the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003.

Is that your understanding ?

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2003/2/contents

The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 amended the Trespass Act. It added subsection 2, which reads : "Subsection (1) above does not extend to anything done by a person in the exercise of the access rights created by the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003"

Provided that the Land Reform Act is complied with, the Trespass Act doesn't apply. However, the Land Reform Act does include a requirement to act responsibly, and comply with the Access Code,

In practice, I don't think it makes much difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.