'Permanent Lockdown' (Freedom to Roam)

[papasmurf]

Yes - exactly my point.

But that took ten years before it happened.

[Javert]

In the end in was 40 arrest warrants and a massive amount of police officers shifted them.

Yes - exactly my point.

[papasmurf]

Often these type of things are not due to lack of existing legal powers, but more because local councils don't want to spend the enormous amount of money to physically and safely enforce the removal of the people.



Therefore it would not just be a matter of the powers, but maybe putting a legal obligation on authorities to enforce within reasonable time limits.

In the end in was 40 arrest warrants and a massive amount of police officers shifted them.

[Javert]

But it doesn't work.  Two illegally occupied sites in the area where I live took over ten years to get the people forcibly removed.

Often these type of things are not due to lack of existing legal powers, but more because local councils don't want to spend the enormous amount of money to physically and safely enforce the removal of the people.



Therefore it would not just be a matter of the powers, but maybe putting a legal obligation on authorities to enforce within reasonable time limits.

[Hyperduck Quack Quack]

In general I support widening of Right to Roam but I wouldn't make it universal but right now I support lockdown for as long as it's needed. At the moment there's an over-riding reason why people shouldn't be out and about all over the place. In normal times that reason is non-existant.



Criminal trespass already exists - it applies to military bases, railway lines and airports. You can also be prosecuted for trespassing on a motorway under road traffic laws.

[papasmurf]

So what do you want to happen to them?



Deport them all? Lock them all up? Shoot them all? Continually move them from place to place?

Ship the lot to an uninhabited island, give them survival training and leave them there.

[Borg Refinery]

That doesn't work either:-



More at link:-



https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/firefighters-no-longer-enter-travellers-4071668">https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornw ... rs-4071668">https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/firefighters-no-longer-enter-travellers-4071668



Firefighters will no longer enter travellers' site without police escort after being coughed at

It comes after a CCTV pole was sabotaged and crews were coughed at and told they wish they'd get coronavirus

So what do you want to happen to them?



Deport them all? Lock them all up? Shoot them all? Continually move them from place to place?

[Borg Refinery]

:thup:

[Thomas]

"Throughout the history of these isles, exclusion from the land has been a major source of social conflict. It remains so today. Last month, Boris Johnson extolled the "ancient, inalienable right of free-born people of the United Kingdom". But before the pandemic began, his government proposed to criminalise trespass in England and Wales. This is the opposite policy to Scotland's, where there is now a comprehensive right to roam."



https://www.monbiot.com/2020/04/24/permanent-lockdown/">https://www.monbiot.com/2020/04/24/permanent-lockdown/#



92% of land is privately owned in England.



Re the trespass policy;



"..enabling the police to confiscate the homes of "anyone whom they suspect to be trespassing on land with the purpose of residing on it""





https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/15/tresspass-trap-law-land-travelling-people-rights">https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ple-rights">https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/15/tresspass-trap-law-land-travelling-people-rights



Contrast & compare;



What is it?

Most land in Scotland is owned by very few people, so the Scottish Access Rights basically give you the right to access that land in Scotland for recreational and educational purposes, be it cycling, running, walking or pitching a tent. There are only a few exclusions, like the curtilage of buildings and farmyards, quarries, railway property and airfields. There are three key principles that are very important to mention: You have to respect the interests of other people, care for the environment and take responsibility for your own actions.

I think to in depth explain the difference between scotland and england over right to roam would take more than a post on a political thread. You may not want to hear it , many english people who think "britian" is a country dont , but it flags up yet again the difference in law , culture and ancient traditions and history between our two countries.



A brief summary as i understand it , Englands whole legal system  , parliament and elite are based fully on property rights and land ownership. With the emphasis in law on protecting private land ownership , including stopping "trespass".



If you follow the trail , you will se this goes back in history to 1066 , and the norman invasion of england , and subsequent brutal military conquest where all the native english lords were dispossessed and the normans put into their laws "we own england and everything in it."( and its subsequent evolution in english law over the coming centuries)



Contrast that with scottish history where the normans didnt conquer scotland in 1066 , and didnt really start to appear in scotland for the best part of the next century , where it was a slow process of assimilation into scotland unlike what happened in england.



Scotlands laws ( originally called the brehon laws same as ireland , from the old irish breitheamh - to judge) specifically forbade any sort of private property/land ownership , the land was held in common. This slowly began to change ( unlike in england) from the 12th century onwards under feudalisation( an extremely slow process where feued land and private land ownership was still unkown in north west scotland  hundreds of years later).



Basically as i understand it , in scotland we had the situation up to the ther land reform act in 2003 , where the ancient traditions of the semi communist gaels sat alongside feudal scottish law until the scottish government codified and put into scots law legislation formally acknowledging this situation.



A good summary of the conflicting traditions of the people and feudal law is the story of the trespasser on the duke of buccleuchs land in scottish folklore...



A scotsman is walking home with a brace of pheasants .He unexpectedly meets the landowner , the duke of buccleuch , who promptly berates him for trespassing and demands he hands over the pheasants.



"you land " asks the scot.



"aye" says the duke , "and my pheasants".



"and who did you get this land from?"



"i inherited it from my faither" replies the duke.



"and who did he get it from?"



"His faither of course. This land has belonged to my family for 400 years!"



" so how did your family come to possess this land 400 years ago?" asks the scot.



"well .......well...they fought for it!"



"fine then" says the scot."take yer jaicket aff and i`ll fight ye for it now!"



The story illustrates that while land rights appear sacred and legitimate , they are nothing more than the product of non too wholesome history. Also it shows the contempt the scots held land rights in , and how the people have always regarded the land held in common.



Tam johnston in 1909 , labour politician and scot.ec of state summed it up  when he said...



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DaXsxF4X0AAjfXY?format=jpg&name=small">



and of course there is an ancient saying in scottish and irish which goes...



"Is treasa  tuath na tighearna"  ( a people are stronger than a lord.)



A good book on the subject would be the green msp andy wightmans "the poor had no lawyers" , which would better tell the story of who owns scotland how they got it , and the traditions and laws behind the land reform act and the subsequent moves to further diminish private land ownership in scotland.





https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1344736319l/14614429.jpg">

[papasmurf]

IMHO the law needs amending, but as stated in one of the earlier articles, best to get local authorities give the travellers sites to pitch on rather than forcing them from place to place.

That doesn't work either:-



More at link:-



https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/firefighters-no-longer-enter-travellers-4071668">https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornw ... rs-4071668">https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/firefighters-no-longer-enter-travellers-4071668



Firefighters will no longer enter travellers' site without police escort after being coughed at

It comes after a CCTV pole was sabotaged and crews were coughed at and told they wish they'd get coronavirus

[Borg Refinery]

But it doesn't work.  Two illegally occupied sites in the area where I live took over ten years to get the people forcibly removed.

IMHO the law needs amending, but as stated in one of the earlier articles, best to get local authorities give the travellers sites to pitch on rather than forcing them from place to place.

[papasmurf]

papa:



Amending the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to give the police greater powers to remove, arrest and re-direct those occupying land without the permission of the landowner."

But it doesn't work.  Two illegally occupied sites in the area where I live took over ten years to get the people forcibly removed.

[Borg Refinery]

papa:



Amending the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to give the police greater powers to remove, arrest and re-direct those occupying land without the permission of the landowner."



Executive summary

We would like to consult on measures to;

• Criminalise the act of trespassing when setting up an unauthorised encampment in

England and Wales.

We would also like to consult on the following alternative approach to this issue:

• Amending section 62A of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to permit

the police to direct trespassers to suitable authorised sites located in neighbouring

local authority areas.

• Amending sections 61 and 62A of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to

increase the period of time in which trespassers directed from land would be unable

to return from 3 months to 12 months.

• Amending section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to lower the

number of vehicles needing to be involved in an unauthorised encampment before

police powers can be exercised from six to two or more vehicles.

• Amending section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to enable

the police to remove trespassers from land that forms part of the highway.



https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/844954/Unauthorised_Encampments_-_consultation_paper.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiS1YH66LPpAhUPiFwKHQIXCXcQFjABegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw1mNZsj-DfCzIEe6ctIakLa">https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/844954/Unauthorised_Encampments_-_consultation_paper.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiS1YH66LPpAhUPiFwKHQIXCXcQFjABegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw1mNZsj-DfCzIEe6ctIakLa



You can trust Priti Patel if you want - I don't.

[papasmurf]

It is too broad a definition, 'intending to reside' could be interpreted liberally (or illiberally as it were) to sort out anyone the govt has a problem with. People who have stopped off and are sitting around for example.



And you can't trust this govt, really.



I don't see what's wrong with the Scots law, it covers any abuses and by-laws can be intro'd to stop trouble in problem areas, as has happened.

Residing is specific have one's permanent home in a particular place.

[Borg Refinery]

What is wrong with that?

It is too broad a definition, 'intending to reside' could be interpreted liberally (or illiberally as it were) to sort out anyone the govt has a problem with. People who have stopped off and are sitting around for example.



And you can't trust this govt, really.



I don't see what's wrong with the Scots law, it covers any abuses and by-laws can be intro'd to stop trouble in problem areas, as has happened.