[News] Do What You Likies

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Re someone defending them - not on here I agree and I'm not going to search the internet for statements from loons. But the was a B&H Councillor a few years back who defended them to the hilt. Claimed the problem was us the locals not being welcoming. Lizzie Dean IIRC. And the party she belonged to ? The Greens. So apparently it's our fault they rob, assault, carry out criminal damage and be general pain in the arses.

The quickest and easiest way to deal with it would to be to make trepass a criminal offence rather than a civil one - like Ireland did - and force the police to enforce it. Also for the police to sieze any vans etc that don't have a valid MOT, VED or insurance. Problem being the police are scared. Strangely I was driving a car for a couple of months without insurance unknowingly - long story - and I got a very polite letter from Sussex Police to insure now or else. I bet they don't treat these 'people' in the same way as us normal citizens - just want to get them moved on so make their lives a bit easier.

Indeed.

So there is a choice for the voter then: there is a candidate who will stop climate change, but only in return for our accepting the blame for any criminal activity undertaken by 'travellers'. A simple and straightforward political bargain of the sort we can all understand.

If you you have a majority Green council down your way presumably the locals have embraced the bargain above. If you don't have a majority Green council it is like so many positions advertised by unelectable minority parties - irrelevant.

It would be nice to make trespass a criminal offence, though, if that one simple change would put a stop to it all. I wonder why it hasn't happened?

 

[WATFORD zero]

The quickest and easiest way to deal with it would to be to make trepass a criminal offence rather than a civil one - like Ireland did - and force the police to enforce it. Also for the police to sieze any vans etc that don't have a valid MOT, VED or insurance. Problem being the police are scared. Strangely I was driving a car for a couple of months without insurance unknowingly - long story - and I got a very polite letter from Sussex Police to insure now or else. I bet they don't treat these 'people' in the same way as us normal citizens - just want to get them moved on so make their lives a bit easier.

That's my understanding as well, but for some reason Governments going back years have failed to act. IIRC it was the change to the Irish law that significantly increased the problem here. The only reason I can think of, is that possibly this only happens in certain limited geographical areas and there is insufficient pressure on the Government to change the law to stop it

But what laws are currently available are insufficient and it requires Government intervention. Some interesting stuff here

Law to stop Travellers occupying land without consent is enacted

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/law-to-stop-travellers-occupying-land-without-consent-is-enacted-1.1087107

Sound advice which I apply to any cold caller, a curt "not interest" and the front door is closed.

And this. NEVER engage with a cold caller. If you want something doing instigate it yourself using information widely available to identify suppliers/trades etc.

 

[Eric the meek]

Indeed.

So there is a choice for the voter then: there is a candidate who will stop climate change, but only in return for our accepting the blame for any criminal activity undertaken by 'travellers'. A simple and straightforward political bargain of the sort we can all understand.

If you you have a majority Green council down your way presumably the locals have embraced the bargain above. If you don't have a majority Green council it is like so many positions advertised by unelectable minority parties - irrelevant.

It would be nice to make trespass a criminal offence, though, if that one simple change would put a stop to it all. I wonder why it hasn't happened?

Does anyone have any data on a) has it worked in Ireland and b) are there any implications we should be aware of?

Being in a position of almost total ignorance on the matter, I would be surprised if the solution is that simple, or comes without unforeseen effects, difficulty to implement and prosecute etc.

 

[GT49er]

Indeed.

So there is a choice for the voter then: there is a candidate who will stop climate change, but only in return for our accepting the blame for any criminal activity undertaken by 'travellers'. A simple and straightforward political bargain of the sort we can all understand.

If you you have a majority Green council down your way presumably the locals have embraced the bargain above. If you don't have a majority Green council it is like so many positions advertised by unelectable minority parties - irrelevant.

It would be nice to make trespass a criminal offence, though, if that one simple change would put a stop to it all. I wonder why it hasn't happened?

There are arguments against making trespass a criminal offence - unrelated to the Traveller problem - right to roam, for examlple. Perhaps the criminal offence should be 'Trespass with causing damage' - which would protect the genuine countryside walker or rambler, but which would certainly by appliccable to the faeces spreaders with machine tools and diggers.

Unlicensed vehicles should of course be towed away and destroyed as a matter of course.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

It does seem to be the norm now, police the normally law abiding, ask the real bad guys if they wouldn’t mind just toning it down a bit?

Returning home to Hove after an Amex game I saw a couple of crowd barriers ajar, the station was not packed but beginning to thin out post match, I dipped through the gap to maximise my chance of the next train. Didn’t queue jump, just wanted to get to the train a bit quicker. I soon had PC jobsworth tapping me on the shoulder from behind threatening me with arrest if I did not return to the now unnecessary detour.

Are the riot shields and helmets, batons and pepper spray inoperable when real trouble makers are around? Are they only licensed for use against football fans?

I actually have a lot of admiration for those who don the uniform on the front line. Their bosses and senior officers are very often complete cock wombles.

I don't see that you have any evidence at all for your final inference. I suspect it is the other way round, and PC99 was just being a tit. Common sense becomes increasingly scarce as one moves down the employee food chain.

My old Pal, "@Monty_UK" couldn't update his ticket on his phone for the last game. He phoned the club and was told most emphatically that it doesn't matter, and that he could still get in by showing his season ticket on his phone. I understand he could have sold his matchday ticket, but further consideration reveals that he would have had to sit on the blokes lap if he wanted to sneak in himself. Therefore this shouldn't have been an issue. But the bloke on the turnstile refused to let him in, refused call a supervisor to check, made him go to the club shop or whatever it is, and my pal missed the first 30 minutes of the game.

One can make a case for anything based on little or no evidence.

At this juncture perhaps I should say that I haven't seen any law breaking by the travelling community with my own eyes (apart from a few days of caravans on the green here, 30 years ago). Would that give me grounds tor arguing that this whole thread is stuff and nonsense? Then I reminded myself of the 'fallacy of composition', aka arguing from the specific to the general......

 

[The Clamp]

There are arguments against making trespass a criminal offence - unrelated to the Traveller problem - right to roam, for examlplw. Perhaps the criminal offence should be 'Trespass with causing damage' - which would protect the genuine countryside walker or rambler, but which would certainly by appliccable to the faeces spreaders with machine tools and diggers.

Unlicensed vehicles should of course be towed away and destroyed as a matter of course.

“Trespass while causing damage” is a crime. Burglary and/or criminal damage. Trespass becomes burglary/criminal damage as soon as someone attempts to damage or remove property from a site they have no permission to be on/in.

The police simply don’t enforce this law in certain circumstances. I don’t really know why they don’t.

 

[wellquickwoody]

I don't see that you have any evidence at all for your final inference. I suspect it is the other way round, and PC99 was just being a tit. Common sense becomes increasingly scarce as one moves down the employee food chain.

My old Pal, "@Monty_UK" couldn't update his ticket on his phone for the last game. He phoned the club and was told most emphatically that it doesn't matter, and that he could still get in by showing his season ticket on his phone. I understand he could have sold his matchday ticket, but further consideration reveals that he would have had to sit on the blokes lap if he wanted to sneak in himself. Therefore this shouldn't have been an issue. But the bloke on the turnstile refused to let him in, refused call a supervisor to check, made him go to the club shop or whatever it is, and my pal missed the first 30 minutes of the game.

One can make a case for anything based on little or no evidence.

At this juncture perhaps I should say that I haven't seen any law breaking by the travelling community with my own eyes (apart from a few days of caravans on the green here, 30 years ago). Would that give me grounds tor arguing that this whole thread is stuff and nonsense? Then I reminded myself of the 'fallacy of composition', aka arguing from the specific to the general......

I still wonder why someone’s decision was not to actually stop the law breaking by travellers?

 

[Motogull]

“Trespass while causing damage” is a crime. Burglary and/or criminal damage. Trespass becomes burglary/criminal damage as soon as someone attempts to damage or remove property from a site they have no permission to be on/in.

The police simply don’t enforce this law in certain circumstances. I don’t really know why they don’t.

Because it would be pointless?

Plod: "Name?"
Suspect "Smith"
Plod "Address?"
Suspect: "No fixed abode"
Plod: "You are bailed until ..."
Suspect: "of course I'll return officer"

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

There are arguments against making trespass a criminal offence - unrelated to the Traveller problem - right to roam, for examlplw. Perhaps the criminal offence should be 'Trespass with causing damage' - which would protect the genuine countryside walker or rambler, but which would certainly by appliccable to the faeces spreaders with machine tools and diggers.

Unlicensed vehicles should of course be towed away and destroyed as a matter of course.

What if there was no damage? Just a load of caravans, noise and perhaps litter?

I don't see any problem with using Trespass. There are laws about what 'roaming' means in the UK. It does not include parking of vehicles, setting up a dwelling or exploiting the land for personal or commercial gain. This is because "people exercising the right of access have certain duties to respect other people's rights to manage the land, and to protect nature.". To me this means that cars vans and caravans plonked in a park or private lands can be legally removed.

I suspect these people try to exploit laws about 'right's to dwelling, health etc. I would imagine it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to change the law to state that breach of Trespass trumps any justification of Trespass on the grounds of obtaining succour or shelter, or preserving one's human rights.

My guess is this isn't rocket science to fix, but it is being exploited by the legal profession in much the same way the philosophers exploited the answer to the question about Life, the Universe and Everything to create endless wrangling and unending income, in the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Universe.

Who knew?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Because it would be pointless?

Plod: "Name?"
Suspect "Smith"
Plod "Address?"
Suspect: "No fixed abode"
Plod: "You are bailed until ..."
Suspect: "of course I'll return officer"

The solution to that is simple isn't it. No bail for people with no fixed abode.

(I am not, and never was, a liberal).

 

[Bodian]

It would be nice to make trespass a criminal offence, though, if that one simple change would put a stop to it all. I wonder why it hasn't happened?

There are arguments against making trespass a criminal offence - unrelated to the Traveller problem - right to roam, for examlplw. Perhaps the criminal offence should be 'Trespass with causing damage' - which would protect the genuine countryside walker or rambler, but which would certainly by appliccable to the faeces spreaders with machine tools and diggers.

Please don't encourage the Government to make trespass a criminal offence. They (the Tories anyway) have suggested it before and failed - and rightly so.

>90% of the footpaths and bridleways in this country came into existence because people trespassed - and established a right. And this still happens. But it wouldn't in future, because a key point in English law is that you cannot establish a right through a criminal act.

A law against trespass would have unintended knock-on effects (or intended, if most of the law-makers are also landowners) - much like the way the government rushed through the anti-protest legislation without thinking it through fully. This was designed to stop protestors on roads and so on, and increased the penalty for obstruction of the highway from £1,000 to an unlimited fine and/or a year in jail. What they didn't realise is that this also means that landowners who block off footpaths can now face the same penalty - which wasn't their intention at all, they weren't meaning to upset their mates in this way! Ha.

 

[southstandandy]

A year ago 32 vehicles pitched up on Lancing Manor. I was in the park when the Vehicle Licensing agency chaps were there. Took the dog on a long walk and returning home I spoke to one of them and asked them what they were doing. They were checking for taxed and insured vehicles. Apparently not one of the 32 vehicles was taxed or registered for insurance.

Outcome = no action taken.

You and me do this - taken to court.

 

[Bodian]

What if there was no damage? Just a load of caravans, noise and perhaps litter?

I don't see any problem with using Trespass. There are laws about what 'roaming' means in the UK. It does not include parking of vehicles, setting up a dwelling or exploiting the land for personal or commercial gain. This is because "people exercising the right of access have certain duties to respect other people's rights to manage the land, and to protect nature.". To me this means that cars vans and caravans plonked in a park or private lands can be legally removed.

I suspect these people try to exploit laws about 'right's to dwelling, health etc. I would imagine it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to change the law to state that breach of Trespass trumps any justification of Trespass on the grounds of obtaining succour or shelter, or preserving one's human rights.

Driving on land other than a highway without lawful authority is already a criminal offences under s34 of the Road Traffic Act.

And this is also proposed https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-2021-factsheets/police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-2021-unauthorised-encampments-factsheet

 

[junior]

“Trespass while causing damage” is a crime. Burglary and/or criminal damage. Trespass becomes burglary/criminal damage as soon as someone attempts to damage or remove property from a site they have no permission to be on/in.

The police simply don’t enforce this law in certain circumstances. I don’t really know why they don’t.

So the police are called by a local resident who says 30 caravans have just driven onto the local sports pitch and a metal barrier sawn through.

You're the police officer that turns up. Which traveller are you arresting for burglary? See the problem?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Please don't encourage the Government to make trespass a criminal offence. They (the Tories anyway) have suggested it before and failed - and rightly so.

>90% of the footpaths and bridleways in this country came into existence because people trespassed - and established a right. And this still happens. But it wouldn't in future, because a key point in English law is that you cannot establish a right through a criminal act.

A law against trespass would have unintended knock-on effects (or intended, if most of the law-makers are also landowners) - much like the way the government rushed through the anti-protest legislation without thinking it through fully. This was designed to stop protestors on roads and so on, and increased the penalty for obstruction of the highway from £1,000 to an unlimited fine and/or a year in jail. What they didn't realise is that this also means that landowners who block off footpaths can now face the same penalty - which wasn't their intention at all, they weren't meaning to upset their mates in this way! Ha.

I am not sure I follow your objection. The last point is an unintended benefit of a law change surely?

Your first point, are you saying that nobody has ever established a right through a criminal act? If true, and you mean that someone cannot establish a right to walk through my garden by breaking into my garden, then.....good.

The right to roam act of 2000 has given access to all sorts of places. I don't see why we need to keep trespass as a non-criminal act just in case someone wants to trespass somewhere that got missed in the right to roam map redrawing. I don't see that using trespass to establish a right is necessary to defend, going forward. Give me an example of where this would be a good thing? And show me how that trumps using trespass as a means to stop once and forever the 'traveller menace' of nuisance trespass?

Finally - lots of laws have been changed after illegal acts (of protest or civil disobedience). Even the poll tax was changed because of rioting. New laws may make it harder to protest, but this won't stop laws being changed as a result of protest, if the cause is just and the support for change is widespread.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Driving on land other than a highway without lawful authority is already a criminal offences under s34 of the Road Traffic Act.

And this is also proposed https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-2021-factsheets/police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-2021-unauthorised-encampments-factsheet

Great. So when this happens and the police just shrug their shoulders they should be reported and reprimanded for dereliction of duty.

 

[The Clamp]

Obviously I understand why the police don’t follow the letter of the law. You’d have to take 50+ adults into custody. Interview them. Search caravans and investigate. Find a place for all the children and dogs to go. Impound dozens of vehicles.

They know this and they know the police can’t do it.

It’s an unsolvable problem.

 

[GT49er]

What if there was no damage? Just a load of caravans, noise and perhaps litter?

The amount of litter (and health hazard) that lot peave behind can bee construed as damage. If the place neeeds a clean up squad to un-pollute it, tha's enough!

 

[Hugo Rune]

Obviously I understand why the police don’t follow the letter of the law. You’d have to take 50+ adults into custody. Interview them. Search caravans and investigate. Find a place for all the children and dogs to go. Impound dozens of vehicles.

They know this and they know the police can’t do it.

It’s an unsolvable problem.

Indeed.

If the Police were to impound dozens of vehicles, they’d be having to deal with dozens of vehicle thefts the following day once the 50+ adults are released.

 

[GT49er]

Please don't encourage the Government to make trespass a criminal offence. They (the Tories anyway) have suggested it before and failed - and rightly so.

>90% of the footpaths and bridleways in this country came into existence because people trespassed - and established a right. And this still happens. But it wouldn't in future, because a key point in English law is that you cannot establish a right through a criminal act.

A law against trespass would have unintended knock-on effects (or intended, if most of the law-makers are also landowners) - much like the way the government rushed through the anti-protest legislation without thinking it through fully. This was designed to stop protestors on roads and so on, and increased the penalty for obstruction of the highway from £1,000 to an unlimited fine and/or a year in jail. What they didn't realise is that this also means that landowners who block off footpaths can now face the same penalty - which wasn't their intention at all, they weren't meaning to upset their mates in this way! Ha.

Did you not understand the bit about trespass not being a criminall offence unless damage was caused?. People walking does not cause damage, traveller camps do.