Causing damage to private property would certainly be a criminal offence, I believe you mention that in your post #72 along with leaving excrement and litter.I'm confused - which of the things I've mentioned would be criminal offences?
Causing damage to private property would certainly be a criminal offence, I believe you mention that in your post #72 along with leaving excrement and litter.I'm confused - which of the things I've mentioned would be criminal offences?
I don’t think it even has to be visible, if the title holder merely says that he thinks the trespasser has a knife that would give reasonable grounds for the police to conduct a search. It’s sneaky and an abuse of the law but it is a tactic that has been used successfully by South Yorkshire Police against hunt saboteurs in the past.Unless you have a fixed blade visible, then it can be construed as armed trespass which is a criminal offence.
Depends. Can't say definitive as I only have my opinion based on convention where I wildcamp.So is the gist that if you can do something without express permission of another ,as long as the other is oblivious to the act its permissible?
Depends. Can't say definitive as I only have my opinion based on convention where I wildcamp.
My wildcamping activities really only extends to Scottish highlands and the Lake District. In both instances I am camping on open land, above the last fence and in a very discrete manner. I am also using a tarp and bivvy, stove to boil water with a soldering mat underneath to prevent / reduce damage. I camp for one night in one spot only and do not stay for long at each pitch, just enough to refresh for the next day and usually a lot less than 8 hours sleep recommended.
Scotland there is a legal right for this so that is not an issue if done responsibly like I describe.
Lake District is not legal camping. It is a civil matter though and this is what you are possibly thinking about. The landowner (or renter) has very little legal rights to remove you other than polite request to vacate their land and if not legal action if the criteria to meet that is met. That is how I understand the legal situation.
In real life wildcamping is mostly done in the LD responsibly (large organisations excepted it seems). The attitude from the farmers is that mostly there is no harm being done so they do not bother with stopping it. There are popular places that can get a bit messy (large outdoor organisations take a role in causing this it seems), but mostly not significantly than the mess from day walkers doing jobbies in the woods.
It is often the case that people describe the situation in the LD as being implied permission. This has not got legal standing but has become tradition going back generations.
In my experience I have actually met farmers on the fells with obvious backpacking kit and had chats. I have never shied away from telling them my intentions. I have always had replies that in the Cumbrian way was as positive as you'd get (you might know what I mean). Sometimes I might get a tip,something like to avoid somewhere.
I have not requested permission nor had a problem with my wikdcamping. Right or wrong is kind of irrelevent because it simply is the case. I do not think that most of the farmers on the upland areas (sheep farming) of the LD are that bothered by responsible wildcamping. I think this is the only case where I have done something on farmland without landowner's permission.
One aside, the LD is not widely owned by the farm operators but by large organisations like National Trust and United Utilities I understand. With the NT I think I read something about wildcamping on a part of their site relating to LD. Something about not being legal but accepted above the fell wall. If it is still there does that count as permission?
If there is a convenient commercial campsite on my route, I will pay to use it although I have often felt exploited in England because of unreasonable fees. In practice, however, it is often very difficult to ask permission because one doesn't know where to ask, especially when bedding down for the night in remote country while on a trek. I remember once being given permission and paying to put my tent up in a paddock adjoining a house after the owner asked me what I thought he ought to charge me and twice offering to pay farmers I met after having pitched for the night unbeknownst to them: on both occasions they refused payment. Over the years I have found farmers pleasant and helpful on the whole, but I may be harking back to a time before there few of us "wild" camping and those who were knew how to behave in the countryside.
Clear cut assault. Add on the stupidity of filming your admission to it and 6 months in prison seems appropriate.
Yeah, 'egging' and the like can often fall under assault.Same true of protestors 'milkshaking' politicians ?
If the land is owned by the National Trust or United Utilities you will find that there are Byelaws in place which allow them to remove or fine any person transgressing against those byelaws. These privately owned properties are either open access or permissive access, neither of which allow for wild camping. Unless you have heard that wild camping is tolerated in certain places directly from the NT or UU themselves I would take it with a pinch of salt if I were you. (From a former employee of the NT)Depends. Can't say definitive as I only have my opinion based on convention where I wildcamp.
My wildcamping activities really only extends to Scottish highlands and the Lake District. In both instances I am camping on open land, above the last fence and in a very discrete manner. I am also using a tarp and bivvy, stove to boil water with a soldering mat underneath to prevent / reduce damage. I camp for one night in one spot only and do not stay for long at each pitch, just enough to refresh for the next day and usually a lot less than 8 hours sleep recommended.
Scotland there is a legal right for this so that is not an issue if done responsibly like I describe.
Lake District is not legal camping. It is a civil matter though and this is what you are possibly thinking about. The landowner (or renter) has very little legal rights to remove you other than polite request to vacate their land and if not legal action if the criteria to meet that is met. That is how I understand the legal situation.
In real life wildcamping is mostly done in the LD responsibly (large organisations excepted it seems). The attitude from the farmers is that mostly there is no harm being done so they do not bother with stopping it. There are popular places that can get a bit messy (large outdoor organisations take a role in causing this it seems), but mostly not significantly than the mess from day walkers doing jobbies in the woods.
It is often the case that people describe the situation in the LD as being implied permission. This has not got legal standing but has become tradition going back generations.
In my experience I have actually met farmers on the fells with obvious backpacking kit and had chats. I have never shied away from telling them my intentions. I have always had replies that in the Cumbrian way was as positive as you'd get (you might know what I mean). Sometimes I might get a tip,something like to avoid somewhere.
I have not requested permission nor had a problem with my wikdcamping. Right or wrong is kind of irrelevent because it simply is the case. I do not think that most of the farmers on the upland areas (sheep farming) of the LD are that bothered by responsible wildcamping. I think this is the only case where I have done something on farmland without landowner's permission.
One aside, the LD is not widely owned by the farm operators but by large organisations like National Trust and United Utilities I understand. With the NT I think I read something about wildcamping on a part of their site relating to LD. Something about not being legal but accepted above the fell wall. If it is still there does that count as permission?
Yes but more often than not charges are not pressed are they?Yeah, 'egging' and the like can often fall under assault.
I think it is true of other acts, isn't it?Yes but more often than not charges are not pressed are they?
My gist is if the law is being asked to prosecute some farmhand that hasn't fully thought things through and acted in temporary anger that results in a sentence then the same needs to be true of other acts.
True - But I would rather see the law applied equally , across the board , then specifically and somewhat discriminatory when it suits some.I think it is true of other acts, isn't it?
Personally I don't think acting in temporary anger is reason enough to avoid having to answer for your actions.
Yeah, I totally agree. I've got no respect for that kind of thing at all.True - But I would rather see the law applied equally , across the board , then specifically and somewhat discriminatory when it suits some.
I think we are in essence agreeing it just amazes me when I see protesters deface national monuments , throw various unknow liquids into politicians faces ( regardless of their politics ) and charges are not applied.
I would call it injury when clothes (and other personal items) are destroyed by stinking manure fluid. Bet that stink never can be washed out.If we examine a lot of these milkshake/egg/manure assaults there is no actual injury
If we examine a lot of these milkshake/egg/manure assaults there is no actual injury, rather there is insult, mockery and inconvenience caused to the victims, nothing more than a bruised ego.
If we examine a lot of these milkshake/egg/manure assaults there is no actual injury, rather there is insult, mockery and inconvenience caused to the victims, nothing more than a bruised ego.