New trespass laws......

[Alan De Enfield]

That's not only very dated but not an accurate representation of the reality. The world moves along

https://www.askthe.scottish.police.uk/content/Q56.htm

https://www.gov.scot/policies/landscape-and-outdoor-access/public-access-to-land/

I am aware of the 2003 Act and have been reading thru' it.
The 2003 Act says the access code must be adhered to (and lists the access code conditions)

In 2005 the old 1865 Trespass Act was amended with the addition of 'section 2' which states that if the 2003 Access code conditions are adhered to, then the 1865 Act is not applied. If the Access conditions are not adhered to then the old 1865 Act of trespass is implemented.

Parties lodging in premises or encamping on land, without permission, guilty of an offence.
(1) 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.

(2) 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 (asp 2).]

 

[Toddy]

The Responsible Right of Access is the one that supersedes It's the one, fishing, farmland in crop or lambing, and curtiledge of a demense apart, that is relevant and the one the police and bailiffs go by.

The key word is 'responsible'. The only issues we're having with it up here are where folks aren't....like along Loch Lomondside

 

[swotty]

Change petition here if anyone fancies signing....

https://www.change.org/p/robert-lar...ndit_var=v3&utm_content=fht-19544148-en-gb:v2

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

 

[Wander]

I shall give any new trespass laws the same adherence and respect I give the current ones.

 

[Billy-o]

I wonder if the epiphenomena of Brexit will end with this theft of Albion by our perfidious bourgeoisie. Talk about 'be careful what you wish for'.

 

[GuestD]

https://www.outdooraccess-scotland.scot/practical-guide-all/camping

 

[GuestD]

I shall give any new trespass laws the same adherence and respect I give the current ones.

From experience, enforcement of the law is a totally different matter. If the police are involved, they more than likely to ask you to move on than charge you. Plus, there is a whole avalanche of serious crime to be delt with, making someone responsibly wild camping way way down the list, of crime target's for the constabulary to deal with. Can you imagine the D@ly Fail. "Police chase man in tent while knife crime soars."

 

[Laurentius]

First they have to catch you, and second they have to object if they do. Risk is relative according to what you are doing and where.

 

[Janne]

Maybe a good incentive to lose some weight and practice running?

 

[Billy-o]

Well, maybe. I have to admit that have I had some unpleasant run-ins with farmers, their help and other land management types. The point is that they shouldn't be in a position to feel entitled to act foul-mouthed, pushy, thuggish, threatening and aggressive in the first place. Having the law on their side just makes them worse.

 

[bobnewboy]

But have you considered where they may be coming from? Maybe they have had to deal with numbers of intruders on their land who have despoiled their crops, or stolen their animals or other goods? That is all in addition to their usual work pressures in managing their land in the first place. Some unwanted guests may consider life easier if they offer apologies after the act, rather than seek permission in the first place, but the farmer isn’t to know. If people act responsibly whenever and wherever possible, such friction could be avoided.

 

[MikeeMiracle]

I think this new law is more about having powers to easily remove travelers than those wild camping / bushcrafting.

 

[Janne]

I think this new law is more about having powers to easily remove travelers than those wild camping / bushcrafting.

Which I pointed out very early in this thread, before it went Government hating.

Gives powers to the Police to remove 2 illegally parked caravans instead of 6.

 

[Billy-o]

But have you considered where they may be coming from?

Thanks for this bobnewboy. I do see this as the other side of the argument, but have never really gone along with it. One of several reasons I moved to north america was in order to gain free and ready access to land. It isn't all national parks everywhere you go, though there are a lot of them, especially in the west here, and they are very big and you go where you like and do what you want in them (with the responsibility caveat, that Toddy adds). But, and maybe this is because I have been away for a while, it seems that in the UK people have fallen in line with a general principle that the landowner can do what they like and everyone else should damned well be grateful and behave themselves.

I mostly grew up in a mining valley which, whilst it was itself industrial, backed on to mountain farmland and open country - everyone played on the hills, went where they liked, did what they liked, camped, walked, courted, whatever, skirting farmhouses for the sake of privacy and civility. I remember an incident: I used to kayak a lot with my brother round the South Wales coast line and on the big rivers, Usk, Wye, Severn, on the reservoirs etc. My dad dropped us off once along on the Severn (in the mid-70s) and we couldn't find a place to put in for ages because of the signs saying it was private land. We both got increasingly agitated until we just thought sod it and put in where where the boats were. When I got back my granddad explained to me about the Mass Trespass movement and Kinder Scout and how the land belongs to everyone - even if someone uses threatening behaviour - like laws, signs, yelling, thumping, damaging your property - to keep you off.

I think with these things, you are right, it does depend where you are coming from, and it maybe that the positions are simply irreconcilable. And that's OK, so long as we understand that it is a stand off not an accommodation or a situation where one side of the argument should be allowed to prevail legally over the other.

It does cause unpleasantness when some person starts yelling the odds about the Law. It doesn't matter if they are in the right or in the wrong, they are going to get a mouthful back and, well, the nature of things then is that they escalate. We know that not all country people are shy creatures who behave with impeccable deference and wouldn't dream of doing anything that wasn't quite right, right?

 

[Corso]

Thanks for this bobnewboy. I do see this as the other side of the argument, but have never really gone along with it. One of several reasons I moved to north america was in order to gain free and ready access to land. It isn't all national parks everywhere you go, though there are a lot of them, especially in the west here, and they are very big and you go where you like and do what you want in them (with the responsibility caveat, that Toddy adds). But, and maybe this is because I have been away for a while, it seems that in the UK people have fallen in line with a general principle that the landowner can do what they like and everyone else should damned well be grateful and behave themselves.

Doesn't look like the Law in Canada is any different than the UK...

www.legalline.ca/legal-answers/trespassing-on-someones-property/

 

[Billy-o]

Maybe; Canada is large and complex, provincially, federally. But what is the point you are trying to make, Corso?

 

[Corso]

Just that you are no more 'free' over there to invade and set up camp on somones property than you would be over here

 

[Billy-o]

I don't think I said that ... but your post makes a neat point. To the north of England is Scotland, where there is a pretty liberal right to roam. To the north of that are those Scandinavian countries where similar liberties are enjoyed. Yet the argument you seem to indicate here appears to turn not to that progressive example for a narrative, but to an example of Canada where the access laws have been written in the light of a general, colonially-minded effort to keep ethnically indigenous peoples on the reserves allowed them. I don't know if irony is the right word to use, but there is definitely something there.

 

[Corso]

problem is Rights seem to go before Responsibilities far too often these days.

There are plenty of examples where these rights have been abused in these free countries


Scotland are starting to back out of theri right to roam

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17965186.wild-camping-bid-ban-tents-scotlands-beauty-spots/

and just taking one Scandinavian country for example - Sweden, its not that disimilar to the UK

• You are allowed to access any land, except private residences, the immediate vicinity (230 feet) of a dwelling house and cultivated land.
  
• You can access any beach as long as you stay away from private residences.
• You are allowed to catch fish in the five big lakes and along the entire coastline.

dosent seem that free or much different to the UK to me?

Only thing the Scandinavian countries and Canada have going for them is greater land mass per capita

 

[Janne]

In Scandinavia, you are not allowed to stay more than one or maybe two nights in the same place.
It is called (translated) ‘Every man’s right’ but in teaching about it the emphasis is on the obligations.

So it is illegal for a group of people to park their caravans on a public or private space for days or weeks.
So you could say that England is adjusting the law to the Scandinavian level.

Edit: and remember, there is no new law change, it is just an idea sent out for consultation.