Scottish Government approves Lomond camping ban

[Tomsie]

Wonder what his solutions are, have they being printed here on another page.

[CJM Skye]

Matt. In the difficult situation you and the police officer were in I dont see how a camping ban would help. The situation it seems would have panned out the same. Some fairly serious offences were comitted there. Was anyone brought to justice? Is that the usual outcome? If so there is little point in one police officer turning up on there own. You can guarantee that if that was a normal hill walker camping they may well have been charged with something on the spot. Probably breathalysed if they had car keys on them. Maybe lost there license when they had no intention to drive. What im saying is they are easy targets. The police have got to take the rough with the smooth and it is these neds that have to be clamped down on. Maybe the police should use their resources differently for a few months. I bet at the same time as your incident there was 2 burly officers sitting in a big warm car on the A9 trying to catch someone doing 65mph The government and the police have to rethink their priorities I would say.
The camping ban will only work for the neds who have some fear of the police or courts and i dont know what proportion that is

Louts like this don`t fear the law, the only people who seem to worry are your ordinary everyday person. Surely with the revenue that these areas contribute to the country annually extra funding for proper policing should be made available as a priority. The areas involved are national assets and people like this should be hammered by the courts, for pete`s sake we had a police officer and members of the public being chased by some maniac with a large knife. Give the police the extra officers and funds to really sort this out with the courts handing out some severe prison sentences so that they will think twice about crawling out from under their stones in the first place. There would not be a need for a ban if the anti social criminal element were dealt with properly.

[matt_outandabout]

In the difficult situation you and the police officer were in I dont see how a camping ban would help.

I agree, and this is my point.

We HAVE the laws already, what we do not have are the resources and will to deal with this.

Can you imagine how in a city, should an officer be threatened and 'chased', it would be responded too?

I know we cannot have hundreds of officers on duty - but we have police, we have rangers and wardens, we have community who are willing and able to get stuck in (i.e. me on my daily commute, happy to report issues, even if they were rarely able to respond).

There was no pragmatism from the council - no metal bins provided for rubbish, no regular clean up, no signs encouraging good practice and efforts to fine miscreants for littering etc.

Cameron's article shows a small insight into some creative, long term efforts that may deliver some changes - it is so frustrating that this issue has been around for nearly a decade, and so few 'new' approaches have been tried, and a door now shut on the ideas it feels.

[ptc*]

Currently there are plans for a large campsite at Balloch up for approval. The backpacker in me is glad that finally visiting folks will have somewhere to pitch a tent, the cynic in me sees the bylaws as conveniently moving people elsewhere and funneling money into someone's pocket.

West Loch Lomondside is a real problem now in summer with stoopids pulling their cars off the road onto those little sloping patches of dirt by the water, spending the night, leaving all their crap behind and burning down the trees. But we've got laws to cover that kind of behaviour, no?

[gman]

West Loch Lomondside is a real problem now in summer with stoopids pulling their cars off the road onto those little sloping patches of dirt by the water, spending the night, leaving all their crap behind and burning down the trees. But we've got laws to cover that kind of behaviour, no?

Yes, but it's one of those laws that's easy to break without getting caught. If the police made it a priority they could find themselves explaining why they missed the target response time for a domestic abuse callout while a dozen officers were checking for litter at Firkin Point.

[ptc*]

Yes, but it's one of those laws that's easy to break without getting caught. If the police made it a priority they could find themselves explaining why they missed the target response time for a domestic abuse callout while a dozen officers were checking for litter at Firkin Point.

Absolutely. How can we make it a ned free zone though? I wish there was a way.

[stuart mclovin]

Great piece by Cameron McNeish but this decision is the SNP all over - use a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Minorities sing bad songs at football - ban certain language although they can't tell the fans what language is offensive.

Minorities drink too much - tax all alcohol.

Minorities leave a mess when camping - ban all camping.

Meanwhile their MSP's are caught using offensive language in social media, bunging money to a festival organiser whose festival is sponsored by Tennents where getting steaming is practically encouraged.

And to think this party ultimately holds control in this country due to the mess of Corbyns labour and Camerons tories being vilified by all across the country.

What sad times we live in, George Orwell wasn't far wrong when writing 1984.

[peterwalton]

Be they Scottish, English, or Welsh, politicians always have their own agenda.It is a sad reflection on our society that we naively vote in these people on false promises and lies. We need to start teaching our children common sense as one of the most important lessons in school, as well as at home, as they will be the politicians of the future.

[EBowman]

I admit I am new to this debate, having come from the US. However, it seems odd to me that prohibitions and permits are being proposed without tackling the real problem, which seems to me is the idea that going into the wild is about getting drunk. In many US parks alcohol is simply banned. Obviously the police tend to enforce this only when people are drunk, and it is easy to enforce (as in, 'Pour out your beer on the ground. Now.'). Regulate the booze, not the access, and make sure there are enough rangers/wardens/police to do the job. It's not like Scotland has a shortage of unemployed people who'd love a job taking care of a park....

[Giant Stoneater]

Fair point! But employing more rangers / wardens / police requires money to pay them. Rangers and wardens would, presumably, have to be paid by the Loch Lomond national park. From where would the park authorities get the money? Extra police officers would have to be paid for by the Scottish Government, which would mean less money to spend on health, social work, education, roads, etc.

The SNP seem to have a bottomless pit of money with free this and that and with free childcare on the way at £800m initial start up and annual costs of £800m and rising, am sure they could find a little bit of money to help police this scheme proper.

[NickyRannoch]

Fair point! But employing more rangers / wardens / police requires money to pay them. Rangers and wardens would, presumably, have to be paid by the Loch Lomond national park. From where would the park authorities get the money? Extra police officers would have to be paid for by the Scottish Government, which would mean less money to spend on health, social work, education, roads, etc.

The SNP seem to have a bottomless pit of money with free this and that and with free childcare on the way at £800m initial start up and annual costs of £800m and rising, am sure they could find a little bit of money to help police this scheme proper.

Maybe they think childcare is more important than park rangers? I would tend to agree.

[Backpacker]

I admit I am new to this debate, having come from the US. However, it seems odd to me that prohibitions and permits are being proposed without tackling the real problem, which seems to me is the idea that going into the wild is about getting drunk. In many US parks alcohol is simply banned. Obviously the police tend to enforce this only when people are drunk, and it is easy to enforce (as in, 'Pour out your beer on the ground. Now.'). Regulate the booze, not the access, and make sure there are enough rangers/wardens/police to do the job. It's not like Scotland has a shortage of unemployed people who'd love a job taking care of a park....

Fair point! But employing more rangers / wardens / police requires money to pay them. Rangers and wardens would, presumably, have to be paid by the Loch Lomond national park. From where would the park authorities get the money? Extra police officers would have to be paid for by the Scottish Government, which would mean less money to spend on health, social work, education, roads, etc.

One possible way of limiting drunken behaviour in the outdoors would be to increase the price of alcohol. The Scottish Government, as far as I am aware, wants a minimum pricing policy on alcohol. This may or may not work. For example, I suspect that stuart mclovin would be against such a policy. - Earlier post. The argument is academic as I think that a minimum pricing policy is against European Union regulations. I may have got this wrong.

Maybe the SNP can pay for it out of the £350 Million underspend

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34426237

[Giant Stoneater]

I admit I am new to this debate, having come from the US. However, it seems odd to me that prohibitions and permits are being proposed without tackling the real problem, which seems to me is the idea that going into the wild is about getting drunk. In many US parks alcohol is simply banned. Obviously the police tend to enforce this only when people are drunk, and it is easy to enforce (as in, 'Pour out your beer on the ground. Now.'). Regulate the booze, not the access, and make sure there are enough rangers/wardens/police to do the job. It's not like Scotland has a shortage of unemployed people who'd love a job taking care of a park....

Fair point! But employing more rangers / wardens / police requires money to pay them. Rangers and wardens would, presumably, have to be paid by the Loch Lomond national park. From where would the park authorities get the money? Extra police officers would have to be paid for by the Scottish Government, which would mean less money to spend on health, social work, education, roads, etc.

One possible way of limiting drunken behaviour in the outdoors would be to increase the price of alcohol. The Scottish Government, as far as I am aware, wants a minimum pricing policy on alcohol. This may or may not work. For example, I suspect that stuart mclovin would be against such a policy. - Earlier post. The argument is academic as I think that a minimum pricing policy is against European Union regulations. I may have got this wrong.

Maybe the SNP can pay for it out of the £350 Million underspend

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34426237

The £350 Million will be well gone on part of childcare because to implement free childcare to everyone they have to buy private nurseries over so the SNP stick to there policy of free childcare to everyone.

[Tomsie]

In many US parks alcohol is simply banned. Obviously the police tend to enforce this only when people are drunk, and it is easy to enforce (as in, 'Pour out your beer on the ground. Now.'). Regulate the booze, not the access.

Good idea

[gman]

Cameron McNeish has thousands of Twitter followers, but he struggles to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with him. He doesn't give any detail of his solution ('a camping provision based on Scandinavian lines') so I had a quick Google at what goes on over there. They have similar access rights to Scotland apart from their nature reserves and national parks which have no-camping zones.

He also mentions a retired police chief who believes the camping ban on the east side had no effect on litter etc, and that other measures were responsible. I don't think it's plausible that the ban had zero effect, but it's worthwhile to get advice from the police before enacting the ban and Police Scotland are actually in favour of it.

So his two arguments - Scandinavia and police advice - can be used against him. I think he was disappointed that his advice wasn't followed by Nicola Sturgeon, who referred it to the appropriate minister, but he allows a bit of sour grapes to creep into his article and his accusations against the park convenor come close to defamation.