Petition: Amend PCSC Bill to withdraw power to seize vehicles used as mobile homes

[trevskoda]

Also known down here as Cornwall Lies.....

The gov is always telling you porkies just to control and harvest your dosh, time folk wakened up.

 

[Rolyan57]

At the other end of the spectrum is
Dont stop anywhere as you "might" be on private land ,,,two minutes along comes the owner and the police,,, vehicle gone and you in prison...
All fair I guess....

But that won’t happen. The ‘triggers’ mean that you have refused to leave when asked, and are also likely to cause significant damage.

There is not a cat in hells chance that you will somehow find yourself arrested and your van impounded. Let’s keep this sensible.

 

[Tookey]

Real world;

Recently I stayed in Quantock Hills, in a car park that was maintained by the 'Friends of Quantock' which is a charity. There was a 'no overnight parking' sign but after googling I came to the conclusion that they had no right to dictate that.

So my concern after reading the proposed Bill is if 'Friends of Quantock' officially requested the police to enforce their 'no over night parking' wishes then are the police then under obligation.

I am not concerned about my van been seized or anything like that but would this Bill remove my actual right to stay, the wording seems to imply it could but I'm really not sure. With regards to the wording 'are likely to cause significant damage etc' this is a cause for concern as interpretation is left wide open to the judgement of an individual law enforcer which I personally am uncomfortable with and in my example what stops the police from using the Bill, moving me on stating that I'm a potential fire risk

Thoughts appreciated as presently I am unsure whether to sign, we recently visited Blue Planet Aquarium and part of the car park was under occupation of a van dwelling community and it really wasnt pleasant to be honest. I feel this Bill could also be the first step in opening a can of worms for our hobby if authorities try to use the Bill and more concerningly request additional clauses for other non desirables (us)

Friends of Quantock - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[st3v3]

but would this Bill remove my actual right to stay,

I don't know anything about the place, what do you think means you have the right to stay?

 

[mistericeman]

Real world;

Recently I stayed in Quantock Hills, in a car park that was maintained by the 'Friends of Quantock' which is a charity. There was a 'no overnight parking' sign but after googling I came to the conclusion that they had no right to dictate that.

So my concern after reading the proposed Bill is if 'Friends of Quantock' officially requested the police to enforce their 'no over night parking' wishes then are the police then under obligation.

I am not concerned about my van been seized or anything like that but would this Bill remove my actual right to stay, the wording seems to imply it could but I'm really not sure. With regards to the wording 'are likely to cause significant damage etc' this is a cause for concern as interpretation is left wide open to the judgement of an individual law enforcer which I personally am uncomfortable with and in my example what stops the police from moving me stating that I'm a potential fire risk

Thoughts appreciated as presently I am unsure whether to sign, we recently visited Blue Planet Aquarium and part of the car park was under occupation of a van dwelling community and it really wasnt pleasant to be honest but I feel this Bill could also be the first step in opening a can of worms for our hobby if authorities try to use the Bill and more concerningly request additional clauses for all non desirables (us)

Friends of Quantock - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"I am not concerned about my van been seized or anything like that but would this Bill remove my actual right to stay,"

Interesting use of phrase.....

 

[Tookey]

I don't know anything about the place, what do you think means you have the right to stay?

"I am not concerned about my van been seized or anything like that but would this Bill remove my actual right to stay,"

Interesting use of phrase.....

'Right to stay' as it is not private property nor was I causing an obstruction

 

[Tookey]

Following taken from link above;

In 2012 Somerset County Council declared their land holdings on the Quantocks to be 'Surplus' and announced their intention to sell them.[8] Friends of Quantock opposed in principle the transfer of Quantock land out of public ownership but was successful in negotiating the acquisition of 400 acres (160 ha) of heathland and forest under a Community Asset Transfer Scheme for the sum of £2. Over Stowey Customs Common and Thorncombe Hill are therefore owned and held by Friends of Quantock for the benefit of the public.[9] As a result of this purchase the Charity was dissolved and reincorporated as a Charitable Incorporated Organisation to protect its trustees from the liabilities of property ownership

So no liability of ownership so 'no parking overnight' seems unfounded (only in my opinion)

 

[mistericeman]

'Right to stay' as it is not private property nor was I causing an obstruction

Funny....

I never think of it as a 'Right' to stay....

I usually consider it a priveledge

 

[Alec]

Issued a couple of weeks ago....

 

[maureenandtom]

owned and held by Friends of Quantock for the benefit of the public.

It’s beneficial to the public to be able to park overnight.

I suppose that could well be interpreted as a right. And in the absence of a legally enacted ruling to the contrary then Entick versus Carrington would apply; the right given here is that the individual may do anything which is not prohibited. Courts see this as a fundamental right.

So what of the No Parking Overnighting sign? In the absence of a legally enacted ruling to the contrary then the notice “No Parking Overnghting” is fraudulent. I’m relying on the Fraud Act 2006 Section 2

But all that isn't really relevant except to those who like nitpicking. What I think Tookey and others have conveyed is a worry that individuals are being given too much discretionary power. Opinions might vary as to whether an assembly is like to cause distress etc. And authority is not averse to using untruths to get its own way. The case about a year ago where a van was instructed to move to comply with a Lade District Byelaw. The Byelaw proved not to exist. https://wildcamping.co.uk/threads/1970s-bylaw-used-to-ban-camping-in-lake-district.81887/


Safest not to give individuals in authority too much discretionary power.

 

[Tookey]

Funny....

I never think of it as a 'Right' to stay....

I usually consider it a priveledge

This is the context I am using the expression;

'Article 5 protects your right not to be deprived of your liberty or freedom unless it’s in accordance with the law'

This refers to detainment but I'm just trying to explain my use of the term

Taken from;

Your right to personal liberty

Explains how the right to personal liberty is protected by article 5 of the Human Rights Act 1998 meaning you cannot be detained for reasons other than criminal activity or mental health issues.

www.citizensadvice.org.uk

 

[Tookey]

Funny....

I never think of it as a 'Right' to stay....

I usually consider it a priveledge

I dont understand, 'right' and 'privilege' have exactly the same mesning in the context of 'being permitted'

What do you mean?

 

[mistericeman]

I dont understand, 'right' and 'privilege' have exactly the same mesning in the context of 'being permitted'

What do you mean?

I consider it a priveledge to park up somewhere....

NOT my right to do so....

 

[GeoffL]

I dont understand, 'right' and 'privilege' have exactly the same mesning in the context of 'being permitted'

What do you mean?

FWIW, I've always understood a "right" to be absolute, something that nobody can lawfully take away; while a "privilege" is something that is granted or permitted and can be taken away by the person or entity who grants that privilege.

 

[Tookey]

I consider it a priveledge to park up somewhere....

NOT my right to do so....

FWIW, I've always understood a "right" to be absolute, something that nobody can lawfully take away; while a "privilege" is something that is granted or permitted and can be taken away by the person or entity who grants that privilege.

Privilege (noun)

'a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.'

Mistericeman, why do you consider your parking a 'special' right available to a particular person/group, that doesn't make sense, why is you parking a 'privilege', a parking space for 'Directors Only' in a workplace is a privilege, why do you have a 'lord of the manor' attitude towards parking in a public carpark rather than simply your right?

What is the issue with my use of the word, would you not use the 'right to roam' expression with regards to Scotland?

Geoff, I am saying that the Quantock Hills carpark I used is not privately owned so presently 'nobody can lawfully take away' my right to park, it is not a privilege as no organisation can legally remove it. In my reply to Mistericeman I simply meant that he was stating that he considers it as a right (privilege) and not a right (lawful), reads like a contradiction and not accurate.

 

[GeoffL]

Geoff, I am saying that the Quantock Hills carpark I used is not privately owned so presently 'nobody can lawfully take away' my right to park, it is not a privilege as no organisation can legally remove it. In my reply to Mistericeman I simply meant that he was stating that he considers it as a right (privilege) and not a right (lawful), reads like a contradiction and not accurate.

I don't know enough about the nuances to give a definitive answer. However, it would appear to me that the car park in question is owned by the Friends, who thus have the right to confer the privilege to park to persons of their choosing and at times of their choosing.

 

[TR5]

Perhaps you should write to ‘Friends Of Quantock’ and ask them on what grounds or ‘rights’ do they have to introduce a parking restriction on this specific public land.

 

[Val54]

As I understand it, the "FoQ" are a registered charity, they have a constitution aimed at protecting and furthering the objectives of the organisation. As such they are under the scrutiny of the Charity Commission. The "FoQ" are like a National Trust in miniature and if they decide that no overnight parking is the correct decision for the benefit of the wider public in protecting conservation interests, then they are entitled to take that management action, provided that it was properly discussed and minuted as per their constitution. They don't need a TRO or other Order. I'm not saying that in this case it is the right decision, just that they are entitled to make it.

 

[Tookey]

Their website seems to indicate that any legal actions are instigated or acted upon by the CIO in their case

Charitable incorporated organisation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Tookey]

Perhaps you should write to ‘Friends Of Quantock’ and ask them on what grounds or ‘rights’ do they have to introduce a parking restriction on this specific public land.

Will do, shame I didn't take a photo of the sign