Government plans to criminalise trespass

[crfishwick]

Wild camping is technically illegal in England and Wales (with some exceptions), unless you have permission of the landowner.
This change is clearly aimed at travellers setting up encampments for weeks at a time, and wouldn't affect walkers because
A. They're generally on rights of way or land with access rights
B. It wouldn't be worth the bother
C. The police have better things to do, and almost certainly wouldn't turn up

Of Course, George Monbiot has a loss-making newspaper to try and restore to profitability and the government are nasty, wicked, evil Tories, so let's not allow the facts to get in the way of our outrage!

.
Illegal in England and Wales certainly. But if and when this is introduced it will be even worse for hikers!
Even in Scotland since the "new" right to roam act was introduced certain areas are a NO NO. Will probably even get worse in the future! Thanks to certain high profile journalists endorsing the changes years ago!

[Marty_JG]

Similarly, police forces in the UK who do not have problem travellers have nothing meaningful to say about districts who do.

And vice versa.

Have you thought that through? Forces with a problem that might require an expansions of powers have a right to ask for those powers. Forces without those problems do not have a reasonable right to demand those powers do not exist at all, instead they can use their discretion not to adopt those powers.

That I am aware of the isle of Auskerry does not have an armed response unit. And that's reasonable given their low instances of armed criminality. But because of that they do not to have an informed opinion on whether or not Glasgow should have the right an armed response unit. Auskerry, rather, can use their discretion not to implement an armed response team.

[al78]

Illegal in England and Wales certainly. But if and when this is introduced it will be even worse for hikers!

Will it? We have public rights of way and open access land, they won't be able to touch you on these. The primary issue will be for wild campers, and those who go off path across land that the public doesn't have a right to walk over.

The Forest of Bowland might be a problem area, because there are few rights of way, and I'm not sure if it is open access. If not, it would be almost impossible to legally hike on the high ground.

[Essan]

Even if passed, you'd still need to have at least 2 cars with you to be affected by the legislation Those with 6 cars are already breaking the law.

Anyone who goes wild camping with 2 cars deserves to be banned!

The only difference is that at present, if a gang of you drive up to Grisedale Tarn to camp for a week, it's a civil rather than criminal offence.

[Sgurr]

Of Course, George Monbiot has a loss-making newspaper to try and restore to profitability!

Grauniad actually showed a small operating profit this year...the first in several years.

[davekeiller]

@al78, not only would you have to leave a public right of way in an area where there is no legal right of access, you would have to knowingly and deliberately do so with the intention of setting up an encampment. You would also have to be caught by the landowner or his representative.
Even if hikers fell under the remit of this law (and I don't think they do), it's vanishingly unlikely that anyone would actually bother to bring a prosecution against a responsible hiker.

[Paul Webster]

Although this thread has been reported, it's a valid topic. However, please remember to stick to the topic and keep wider party politics out of the thread.

[dav2930]

Similarly, police forces in the UK who do not have problem travellers have nothing meaningful to say about districts who do.

And vice versa.

Have you thought that through? Forces with a problem that might require an expansions of powers have a right to ask for those powers. Forces without those problems do not have a reasonable right to demand those powers do not exist at all, instead they can use their discretion not to adopt those powers.

That I am aware of the isle of Auskerry does not have an armed response unit. And that's reasonable given their low instances of armed criminality. But because of that they do not to have an informed opinion on whether or not Glasgow should have the right an armed response unit. Auskerry, rather, can use their discretion not to implement an armed response team.

Gun crime isn't the most appropriate analogy, though, is it? In the case of the US there is a hugely compelling argument for having much stricter gun laws at a Federal level. But such laws obviously would only affect potential gun owners. Criminalizing trespass is an entirely different thing. Since the ostensible target of the new law is the travelling community (which itself raises questions of prejudice against a minority group on the part of the government), criminalizing trespass in general is proverbially using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. If a minority of police forces feel they could do with greater powers to deal with conflicts between landowners and the travelling community, then any extra powers granted to them should be tailored to fit those specific problems, not generalized to potentially curtail other freedoms which may be interpreted as 'trespass'. If it were just a question of whether or not a particular area is affected by these issues, then those police forces who are least affected would surely have no reason to actively dislike the new legislation. The fact that many forces do feel this way indicates that the issues are wider - that forces might be expected to enforce the new legislation under various interpretations of 'trespass'.

[crfishwick]

Illegal in England and Wales certainly. But if and when this is introduced it will be even worse for hikers!

Will it? We have public rights of way and open access land, they won't be able to touch you on these. The primary issue will be for wild campers, and those who go off path across land that the public doesn't have a right to walk over.

The Forest of Bowland might be a problem area, because there are few rights of way, and I'm not sure if it is open access. If not, it would be almost impossible to legally hike on the high ground.

Forest of Biwland I live there! AND the landiwners woukd certainly try to bend any law to suite themselves. The worst place in England for wildlife persecution and walkers.
BTW
Even now in England you can see signs and for eons signs saying trespassers will be prosecuted! Illegal signage is rife!

[Marty_JG]

Gun crime isn't the most appropriate analogy, though, is it? In the case of the US there is a hugely compelling argument for having much stricter gun laws at a Federal level.

Can you state them? Cities, states and counties can already create strict gun laws. For example in Chicago you already need a very difficult to obtain state licence to own, there are background and ownership tests on private sales, concealed carry comes after a mandatory course and with more background checks (and there are counties that choose to prohibit concealed carry), no open carry, waiting periods, all sales to be videotaped, one sale at a time (can only purchase on gun per month), red flag laws, journey laws, silencer bans, scope laws, storage laws, trigger lock laws, loss report laws, gun sales tax, ammunition sales tax, no stand-your-ground, innumerable others.

So what provisions of Federal law do you think are lacking?

criminalizing trespass in general is proverbially using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. If a minority of police forces feel they could do with greater powers to deal with conflicts between landowners and the travelling community, then any extra powers granted to them should be tailored to fit those specific problems,

How does a Parliament create laws for individual Forces to use at individual times without it overwhelming the business of Parliament?

[dav2930]

Gun crime isn't the most appropriate analogy, though, is it? In the case of the US there is a hugely compelling argument for having much stricter gun laws at a Federal level.

Can you state them? Cities, states and counties can already create strict gun laws. For example in Chicago you already need a very difficult to obtain state licence to own, there are background and ownership tests on private sales, concealed carry comes after a mandatory course and with more background checks (and there are counties that choose to prohibit concealed carry), no open carry, waiting periods, all sales to be videotaped, one sale at a time (can only purchase on gun per month), red flag laws, journey laws, silencer bans, scope laws, storage laws, trigger lock laws, loss report laws, gun sales tax, ammunition sales tax, no stand-your-ground, innumerable others.

So what provisions of Federal law do you think are lacking?

Ones that require all states and cities to have the same, strict gun laws perhaps? As I say, though, I don't think gun crime is a good analogy for the issue of trespass. I'm simply conceding that there may well be a case to be made for stricter laws across the board concerning gun ownership in the US, without conceding that a similar case can be made for criminalizing trespass. All this stuff about gun crime and armed response units is irrelevant in the present context.

criminalizing trespass in general is proverbially using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. If a minority of police forces feel they could do with greater powers to deal with conflicts between landowners and the travelling community, then any extra powers granted to them should be tailored to fit those specific problems,

How does a Parliament create laws for individual Forces to use at individual times without it overwhelming the business of Parliament?

That's not what I'm saying. Any such laws, if deemed necessary, would be for any force to use at any appropriate time; but in order to avoid unacceptable infringements of current civil liberties, they would have to be carefully formulated to meet the specific problems they are ostensibly intended to address, rather than generalized under the umbrella of 'trespass'. If they were formulated carefully enough, parliament would only need to pass them once. But in any case that is all based on the assumption that such laws are needed, which itself is a concession to your argument that a minority of police forces feel they could do with greater powers for dealing with problems created by the travelling community in their areas (and therefore ought to have them).

[davekeiller]

@crfishwick, I don't think it's illegal to have a sign stating "trespassers will be prosecuted". It's a bit of a misnomer, because trespass is a civil offence so the landowner would have to bring a civil case (i.e. sue the trespasser).

If people actually read the consultation document, you will find that they are specifically consulting on whether to criminalise trespass with the intention of setting up an unauthorised encampment. There is no proposal to criminalise trespass in general, so this proposed law can't be used to stop day hikers walking across private land. In theory it could conceivably be used to try and stop wildcampers. However the proposals suggest that a criminal offence is only committed in the following situations:
1. The encampment prevents people entitled to use the land from making use of it
2 the encampment is causing or likely to cause damage to the land or amenities
3. those on the encampment have demanded money to vacate the land
4. those on the encampment are engaged in, or likely to be engaged in, anti-social behaviour

I think it's unlikely that a wildcamper would fulfil any of the above, so this wouldn't criminalise them either.

[crfishwick]

@crfishwick, I don't think it's illegal to have a sign stating "trespassers will be prosecuted". It's a bit of a misnomer, because trespass is a civil offence r.

I think I knew that Still an intimidating signage that quite a lot of people still believe!

With reference to the said consultative document I have thourally perused it. It seems as though it may not affect the general public but you never know till it's too late!