Will This Affect Us

GeoffL

Full Member
Posts
633
Likes
807
I hope you are right but is it not more likely that now its a criminal offence and a police matter they are much more likely to take an interest or action if prompted by a busy body NIMBY? Presumably if you tell them to get lost then you are in trouble whereas right now there isnt much they can do. Not that I would tell a copper to get lost of course.
It will be a criminal offence whereas it used to be a civil matter that (unfairly IMO) obliged landowners to spend time and money on eviction proceedings while the 'unwelcome visitors' laughed in their faces and trashed the land. However, being able to move travellers on is not the raison d'être for the new legislation AFAICT. Protesters have become more and more intent on disrupting normal life and undemocratically stopping by nefarious means whatever it is to which they object. This seems something to give the police powers needed to deal with such anarchy. It is unfortunate that, as with any such hastily written legislation, it will almost certainly be stretched to use in scenarios for which it was never intended.

Personally, the part of the new bill that is most wrong IMO is the imprecise definition of "disruptive" and that it gives a single person unilateral powers to expand this. So, for example, a group of motorhomers could have what appears to be a perfectly legal gathering. They've paid the landowner for the use of the land, etc. But some NIMBY neighbour decides to take exception and opines that gathering is disruptive. The police could then require all assembled to move on -- even though the landowner is content and common sense should dictate that at most all that should be required is an order to keep the noise down. Hopefully, "when reasonably practicable" will allow enough time for those who've partaken of grape, grain or hops to become fit to drive...
 

Fisherman

Full Member
Posts
3,700
Likes
8,854
The fact that this is newsworthy reflects how rare an event this is.
Geoffs post even states that this was the first time it had happened since a new law had came in.
I just think we are getting overly concerned about this new law.
There are many laws out there that are rarely executed, and I would be surprised if this poorly worded law was directed at us.
I hope I am right.
 

Jon

Full Member
Posts
44
Likes
28
The way I've had my door banged seemed like they where breaking in and if I didn't answer they'd have been coming in anyway
It's not legal and they would have to justify (with a search warrant) a forced entry
 

izwozral

Full Member
Posts
11,064
Likes
18,901
Why would they try to remove a legally parked vehicle? And on what grounds?
Many a vehicle, many a home and many a person have been removed, entered or arrested illegally. As for grounds? Usually very shaky ground!
 

Fisherman

Full Member
Posts
3,700
Likes
8,854
Things are heating up in the parking debate I see. :(
We are getting just a weee bit carried away here.
Without this law I got a knock on the door.
Here we were with our grandson on a February night all alone in an enormous carpark, bothering no one.
Me thinks this place does not deserve me, they won’t ever get another penny from us. ( we had spent £110 that day in St. Andrews) and they won’t ever see us again (and I mean that).
So we simply got our things together and drove a few miles west to a nice wee lay-bye. After calming down, we had a wee drink, watched a bit of telly, and slept like a babies.
If someone official comes to your door knocking, move off (if you can), and if they tell you in years to come you are welcome back, ignore them.
Well Thats what I would do.
 

witzend

Full Member
Posts
4,669
Likes
3,414
We are getting just a weee bit carried away here.
Thats what were talking about getting carried away in the middle of the night every one might not feel the need to move on when asked by a nimby. Then end up getting arrested for refusing to move and reading thru the bill its any van if more are expected so being one van parked on its own won't help us. I'm sure its directed at us as the police still won't move on a travellers camp
 

Fisherman

Full Member
Posts
3,700
Likes
8,854
Thats what were talking about getting carried away in the middle of the night every one might not feel the need to move on when asked by a nimby. Then end up getting arrested for refusing to move and reading thru the bill its any van if more are expected so being one van parked on its own won't help us. I'm sure its directed at us as the police still won't move on a travellers camp
Well it looks like our over worked police will be very busy then, why not take a look at other laws that are rarely enforced due to lack of resources. Also this law is so poorly worded as to be almost ineffective. I live in a village with 4,000 people with no police presence at night. The surrounding areas have around 25,000 people, with two police officers covering at night. I would have thought the police have more important things to deal with, than a Motorhome parked up for the night.

This law will only be used as a last resort, and I reckon it is directed at travellers.
 

REC

Full Member
Posts
2,665
Likes
4,877
Thats what were talking about getting carried away in the middle of the night every one might not feel the need to move on when asked by a nimby. Then end up getting arrested for refusing to move and reading thru the bill its any van if more are expected so being one van parked on its own won't help us. I'm sure its directed at us as the police still won't move on a travellers camp
Chill...think you are getting a complex. It hasn't happened yet.:whistle::coffee:
 

GeoffL

Full Member
Posts
633
Likes
807
Well it looks like our over worked police will be very busy then, why not take a look at other laws that are rarely enforced due to lack of resources. Also this law is so poorly worded as to be almost ineffective. I live in a village with 4,000 people with no police presence at night. The surrounding areas have around 25,000 people, with two police officers covering at night. I would have thought the police have more important things to deal with, than a Motorhome parked up for the night.

This law will only be used as a last resort, and I reckon it is directed at travellers.
The law is very poorly worded IMO -- but the issue isn't that it might be almost ineffective but that it's so ambiguous that authorities can (mis)interpret it in any way they choose.

That said, Government information about this bill suggests that it is not explicitly directed at us. The intent seems to be to give authorities the power to disperse any protest (or other gathering) they deem to be 'disruptive' and clauses 61 to 63 to give landowners and the police the power to disperse protest camps (such as the "Occupy" camp on Exeter Cathedral Green, "Peace camps" blockading MOD establishments, etc.) A secondary purpose seems to be to be able to summarily evict travellers likely to cause damage or disturbance.

For those interested, the bill in its current draft can be downloaded at https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-01/0268/200268.pdf (.) I draw your attention to Part 4 (starting on page 55), which is the part dealing with "unauthorised encampments". Notice that at least one of four conditions must be met before you can even be told to move on under the proposed legislation. These are:
  1. in a case where P is residing on the land, significant damage or significant disruption has been caused or is likely to be caused as a result of P’s residence;
  2. in a case where P is not yet residing on the land, it is likely that significant damage or significant disruption would be caused as a result of P’s residence if P were to reside on the land;
  3. that significant damage or significant disruption has been caused or is likely to be caused as a result of conduct carried on, or likely to be carried on, by P while P is on the land;
  4. that significant distress has been caused or is likely to be caused as a result of offensive conduct carried on, or likely to be carried on, by P while P is on the land.
I suspect that most of us would, if requested, move on from a wild camping spot and would, in any case, take nothing and leave nothing save tyre tracks and hence would not meet any of the conditions unless they were perversely (mis)interpreted! JMHO, Geoff
 

Fisherman

Full Member
Posts
3,700
Likes
8,854
Geoff I have only ever been asked to move once in a car park with no signage stating I was not welcome. I was able to drive so I just moved elsewhere. My wife would not sleep in such a situation, and if I am not welcome then I would move on. I hardly think that we are the targets here, your post pretty well sums up my feelings. Although ambiguity is a double edged sword and can work both ways. I really don't think this law will be used a lot, and rarely if ever on you and I.
 

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:253)

mariesnowgoose, Moonraker 2, Snapster, TeamRienza, jeffmossy, mark61, Edina, tadpole58, AdriaTwin, iampatman, Bigshug, Tookey, harrow, 2cv, saxonborg, MartinFife, Nidge, caledonia, bmc, Goggles, Makzine, Debroos, GreggBear, Biggarmac, Budgie, Johnsais, bartman, maingate, Haaamster, korky, trevskoda, HurricaneSmith, Neckender, brian c, peejay, r4dent, DorsetDrifter, Matchlock, oppy, myvanwy, barryd, wildebus, izwozral, Moped, Allen, Scotia, ironman, jeanette, jacquigem, Compo, alcam, Nesting Zombie, DTDOG, linkshouse, tidewatcher, jagmanx, Silver sprinter, regent, yorkslass, Victor, Heppy, smg, Wully, ian1950, yorkieowl, fiona68, Canalsman, Alberto, dunfillin, Boris7, Bouydog, Tonybvi, UFO, Sharon the Cat, Sky, campergramps, campervanannie, n brown, kingfisher1, justRoamin, VandA, mrdon, colinm, Gerry Attrick, RichardHelen262, 1807truckman, Glass man, st3v3, s4x4c, ramblefrog, Monkeybrand, JVG, kernewek, mistericeman, kevlakes, Livotlout, vwalan, GeoffL, rustydog, SouthernTribby, pj650, GinaRon, tripper, sussexscot, richardstubbs, Cass, ricc, ChrisInNotts, I&MK, The laird, Andysm, Tezza33, tobym, Forresbroons, watchthis, Mobilvetta, vanmandan, Chip, davep10000, Farman, Penny13, Kalleiviken, Colin n Linda, number14, mjvw, Jon, SCRUMPY BOY, Derekoak, DTF, shaunr68, AllanD, Hbrook, Robmac, Nabsim, Petes, denmar, Tapfitter, RoadTrek Boy, Minisorella, rugbyken, V1nny, MollsPhot, Fisherman, gypo, Buckby, winks, Clunegapyears, Polar Bear, Janus, scampa, Poacher, brugge, Jandb4, Tim120, Martin P, maureenandtom, Alanturner2, 5andy, molly 2, peter palance, Catchic, Rivertowy, mikewroe, yorkshireCPLE, silverweed, RichardB, Luckheart, vindiboy, belbri, Rod, Jus, 955itriple, tugboat, AvalonAdventurers, Zujobo, TissyD, doglover1, groyne, keith49, Ted, REC, Pedalman, Moogii, Drover, clarkpeacock, Chipper, Doddy6, Wanderlust, Codie, Babybirddog, mid4did, Peter Hislop, terrywolf, vtwinner, Cazzy, Larnie, skippy 66, iqofafish, mikejay, Iomramh, T25babble, phase3begins, Moc, walpeter, DocMartin, ajb70, wrp, siamesesal, CliveW, Pauljenny, Handel10, vintageb3, toasty, Northumborman, keithlewis56, Jo001, TonyandJo, knowledgeseeker, Mickrick, Weels, brigstow, suneye, ATwin, kangooroo, kensowerby, History Van, Obanboy666, CJN, Helen Robinson, johnjjl, cronkle, SimonM, Debdancer1, grrgerry, Patnlore, Tomtip, Lynn Moughan, ARDAS, Topmod, RobD, Hughendon, helmit, Roy Laura, BigDave, Geeky Philip, Lanky66, Father Jack, The Wanderers, Rutaria, ciderboy, twink, Mulberry1969, Costers,
Top