10 replies to this topic

[H2drogen]

There have been some recent discussions on the topic of trespass. I have briefly looked trespass up on the worldwide wisdom web. I did so having grown up in the quieter parts of Scotland. There the lords prayer asks forgiveness for debts rather than trespasses. Perhaps the lords (lairds) up there were more worried about the serfs drinking away the rent rather than walking on their land. Have I got the wrong type of Lord there or is it significant.
Do we English have an obsession with who it belongs to?

In Sweden (an empty country) there is everymans right which allows you to camp (not just roam) anywhere. I'm pretty sure there are situations where you could be moved on (e.g on someones front lawn).
In Ireland you struggle to find any track or path you could follow, let alone designate a right of way and as a result it feels, as a visitor, like a country of stick to the tarmac.
Here we have trespass law which seems to include the right to place signs on gates, fences, trees, bushes etc. but in reality allows an individual to go where they want until someone request them to leave.
Can anyone explain if there is any legal purpose to the beloved unsightly "Private" sign. If I don't read it does it mean I am guilty of ignoring a request to leave? Are they an eyesore and litter and should be removed?

[Sebastian-Smythe]

H2drogen, on 11 July 2010 - 11:12 PM, said:

There have been some recent discussions on the topic of trespass. I have briefly looked trespass up on the worldwide wisdom web. I did so having grown up in the quieter parts of Scotland. There the lords prayer asks forgiveness for debts rather than trespasses. Perhaps the lords (lairds) up there were more worried about the serfs drinking away the rent rather than walking on their land. Have I got the wrong type of Lord there or is it significant.
Do we English have an obsession with who it belongs to?

In Sweden (an empty country) there is everymans right which allows you to camp (not just roam) anywhere. I'm pretty sure there are situations where you could be moved on (e.g on someones front lawn).
In Ireland you struggle to find any track or path you could follow, let alone designate a right of way and as a result it feels, as a visitor, like a country of stick to the tarmac.
Here we have trespass law which seems to include the right to place signs on gates, fences, trees, bushes etc. but in reality allows an individual to go where they want until someone request them to leave.
Can anyone explain if there is any legal purpose to the beloved unsightly "Private" sign. If I don't read it does it mean I am guilty of ignoring a request to leave? Are they an eyesore and litter and should be removed?

When you've time have a look at this site - http://www.oss.org.uk/rights-of-way/ - they have enough knowledge about your question and more. Good luck.

[marygill]

H2drogen, on 11 July 2010 - 11:12 PM, said:

There have been some recent discussions on the topic of trespass. I have briefly looked trespass up on the worldwide wisdom web. I did so having grown up in the quieter parts of Scotland. There the lords prayer asks forgiveness for debts rather than trespasses. Perhaps the lords (lairds) up there were more worried about the serfs drinking away the rent rather than walking on their land. Have I got the wrong type of Lord there or is it significant.
Do we English have an obsession with who it belongs to?

In Sweden (an empty country) there is everymans right which allows you to camp (not just roam) anywhere. I'm pretty sure there are situations where you could be moved on (e.g on someones front lawn).
In Ireland you struggle to find any track or path you could follow, let alone designate a right of way and as a result it feels, as a visitor, like a country of stick to the tarmac.
Here we have trespass law which seems to include the right to place signs on gates, fences, trees, bushes etc. but in reality allows an individual to go where they want until someone request them to leave.
Can anyone explain if there is any legal purpose to the beloved unsightly "Private" sign. If I don't read it does it mean I am guilty of ignoring a request to leave? Are they an eyesore and litter and should be removed?

I really think it comes down to respect for other peoples land/property.
If there is a public footpath sign then OK, if not and lets be honest most of us know where we can & can't go then if it says private surely we should accept that.
As to it being litter or an eyesore there are far worse things that fulfill this criteria, try going to the river from any approach after a weekend of idiots.

[Sebastian-Smythe]

marygill, on 12 July 2010 - 10:56 AM, said:

I really think it comes down to respect for other peoples land/property.
If there is a public footpath sign then OK, if not and lets be honest most of us know where we can & can't go then if it says private surely we should accept that.
As to it being litter or an eyesore there are far worse things that fulfill this criteria, try going to the river from any approach after a weekend of idiots.

Ah but sometimes they, 'the litter', are not in the right place whatever folk say.
That's why I put that link up. The OSS have plenty of experiance on signage and like
an earlier poster they have the legal experts to back them up. It's just a shame they were at odds with one of my hobbies and as such I could no longer stay as a member.

[H2drogen]

It does come from mutual respect from all parties. The sign on a 10 foot post visible from the south side of the stepping stones is obscene to me. We know it is owned land and generally look after it well. Sometimes at high temperatures there are a few more people and a bit more impact.

The general discussion point is -are we English obsessed with belongings and posession? I feel it makes little difference who owns it if it comes down to common sense and offences that cannot be prosecuted anyway.

[Kingfisher]

H2drogen, on 12 July 2010 - 01:16 PM, said:

It does come from mutual respect from all parties. The sign on a 10 foot post visible from the south side of the stepping stones is obscene to me. We know it is owned land and generally look after it well. Sometimes at high temperatures there are a few more people and a bit more impact.

It would be much easier to discuss a specific "area of trespass" such as the river field, since you have referred to it, rather than the general case.

I agree that this type of private signage in a rural setting is offensive and from a prosecution for trespass perspective largely unnecessary. It is curious, though perhaps not, that there is no similar signage on the field boundary if you approach from Askwith, there is no general policy to "ask people to leave" and I am aware of no disrespectful use of that twenty odd acres of land by people who do approach from Askwith, these people do look after the land well and do appreciate it.

It is a sad and different tale when it comes to some, more than you would think, of the people who approach from the Burley side of the river, the police notices have helped control the organised mobbing but the police have no real powers to deal with what I would call nuisance trespass. For some reason the rural community on the north side have the respect that is so lacking in some of the people from the urban areas to the south.

Maybe its just a sign of the times.

[catbazza]

Kingfisher, on 12 July 2010 - 03:55 PM, said:

It would be much easier to discuss a specific "area of trespass" such as the river field, since you have referred to it, rather than the general case.

I agree that this type of private signage in a rural setting is offensive and from a prosecution for trespass perspective largely unnecessary. It is curious, though perhaps not, that there is no similar signage on the field boundary if you approach from Askwith, there is no general policy to "ask people to leave" and I am aware of no disrespectful use of that twenty odd acres of land by people who do approach from Askwith, these people do look after the land well and do appreciate it.

It is a sad and different tale when it comes to some, more than you would think, of the people who approach from the Burley side of the river, the police notices have helped control the organised mobbing but the police have no real powers to deal with what I would call nuisance trespass. For some reason the rural community on the north side have the respect that is so lacking in some of the people from the urban areas to the south.

Maybe its just a sign of the times.

I was fully under the impression that our lovely dearly departed Labour government? had opened the the whole of the country in the last couple of years to all walkers & at the same time the ports ect to walkinners.

[Kingfisher]

catbazza, on 12 July 2010 - 06:26 PM, said:

I was fully under the impression that our lovely dearly departed Labour government? had opened the the whole of the country in the last couple of years to all walkers & at the same time the ports ect to walkinners.

Then you are woefully misinformed, perhaps on both counts.

[H2drogen]

On the subject of the north side of the river. Could someone enlighten me as to what prompted the "less of this sort of thing" police notice.

[Kingfisher]

H2drogen, on 13 July 2010 - 10:33 PM, said:

On the subject of the north side of the river. Could someone enlighten me as to what prompted the "less of this sort of thing" police notice.

H2drogen, sorry I have been busy elsewhere, I am disappointed that nobody directed you to the posts that dealt with this issue, the search facility is not good. Look at the saveourstones thread posts #156 - #160. But you, perhaps, should have been aware of the general impact of these background issues at the time you posted?

Whatever, your original question remains unanswered and deserves some consideration.

[Sebastian-Smythe]

catbazza, on 12 July 2010 - 06:26 PM, said:

I was fully under the impression that our lovely dearly departed Labour government? had opened the the whole of the country in the last couple of years to all walkers & at the same time the ports ect to walkinners.

May I point you to http://feradura.blogspot.com and look for Beach Riding and it's associate links.
I realise you may not be a rider but there a things there which apply to walkers too.
As Kingfisher rightly pointed out this so-called Rights to Roam is another load of propaganda
from folk who haven't half a clue what they are on about. What we riders have to put up with you
the walkers will soon find it includes you too. BE WARNED!