Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Until the issue of rights of way is resolved, i'm disinclined to comment, but i'm not sure i see the neccessity of this bill. I can't think of situations where the act of trespass itself is likely to equate to a large enough crime that imprisonment is neccessary; it is the acts committed whilst trespassing which are the problem, and as far as i'm aware, existing legislation sufficiently covers them (though if i'm wrong on that, feel free to provide examples).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I actually really like this. Bravo, UKIP-ers.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Excuse me for the delay. I have got too much work to do.

    (Original post by Student2806)
    Can I ask how this bill ties in with the Countryside and Rights of Way Act?
    If I understand the Right of Way Act correctly, it does not allow access to private land while B340 is intended to apply only to private land.

    However, if it does, we could limit the definition of land by a condition that it must be enclosed for example by a fence.

    The primary intention of the bill is however the protection of inhabited dwellings.

    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    This bill would be an ideal opportunity to cover it.
    Probably. As I see, there will probably be a second reading with changes.

    (Original post by Mann18)
    A part of me would like to simply say "Because " as I think you've been a little rude, and although you've said there was no harsh undertone, clearly, there was, I'm very upset. Once I manage to stop myself sobbing uncontrollably, I'll give you the explanation you deserve.

    I will give a brief explanation of why I said what I said now:

    Cars.
    If I park my car on someone else's land, (say in a car park belonging to a company) and leave it there, I have commited the offence of trespassing. Making this a criminal offence would lead to a large number of prosecutions, inundating our already full magistrates courts. There are of course more practical problems than this. This is what I'll call my "Practical Reasoning."

    Trespassing usually gives a benefit to the trespasser. If such a benefit is taken, the owner of the land should have the ability to reclaim any benefits that were taken from them without their permission. If no such benefit is taken, I don't see the point in even calling it trespassing. And as such, I don't see the point in making trespass a criminal offence.

    In short, I don't see the point, and if it were introduced, it would be difficult to enforce.
    Man up, I did not mean to offend you. I was merely pointing out that a reason for your decision would be appreciated because that is the point of this whole MHoC, after all.

    Your example concerning parking is wrong. The company would have the car park opened to the public hence giving an unwritten permission to use their land. If a person pays for the car park, the company accepts an agreement and again gives a permission to use the land. Even if none of this would happen and a person breaks into a private car park, there is still the need to refuse to leave the land after a request by the occupant in order to commit a criminal offence.

    If you have got any reasonable examples, please post them.

    I have got an example for you concerning benefits as you see them. Imagine a private land enclosed by a fence and a car parked in front of the gate to the area preventing the occupant from using it. There is no concrete benefit resulting from this – instead, the owner of the car gains an abstract benefit. Should the occupant of the private land be allowed to park on the car owner's property to take the benefit back?

    (Original post by simontinsley)
    I don't really care, in all honesty.

    However, I'm inclined to go towards No, the reason being that I'm not a huge fan of prisons in the first place, and as Mann says, "If no such benefit is taken, I don't see the point in even calling it trespassing. And as such, I don't see the point in making trespass a criminal offence." That would sum up my ideal for a new system of justice, compensatory to the victim, reforming of the criminal. It would have a role for prison, a much reduced one, and this is a step away from my ideal, not towards it, so no.
    See my comments above. Good luck with the new system of justice.

    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    I completely disagree with this Bill. :noway: It is archaic, reactionary and unjust. This Bill deprives the majority of the population access to most of the land around them, confining it to a narrow elite of disproportionately powerful landowners. What are the implications for public rights of way? It is deeply unfair that people are criminalised for potentially walking in fields etc which although they don't legally own, they should have a legitimate right to enjoy. Furthermore, surely if a residence has been long-term unoccupied, it harms neither the owner nor society for certain individuals to take advantage of it on a short-term basis? Particularly when property is prohibitively expensive in central London, and yet the number of properties that remain unused in the capital is very high.
    This Bill protects private property and wealthy individuals at the expense of wider society, and so it's a definite no from me.
    Explain why is it unjust and archaic, please.

    Most of the land with a reason to access for the public is anyway owned by the state. Criminalised only if they refuse to leave. The ownership of unused properties shall be then resolved and possibly managed by the town.

    Are you a socialist, if I may ask? Saying that protecting private property and wealthy individuals at the expense of wider society (which is in fact only not allowing them to use it) is wrong otherwise needs a justification.

    (Original post by sandys1000)
    I'm inclined not to support this, since I'm very much in favour of the Right of Way. I also think that this bill leaves many crucial parts badly defined.
    Which parts? What exactly?

    The right of way does not collide with this bill. It does not even apply to bordered land.

    (Original post by Eru Iluvatar)
    Until the issue of rights of way is resolved, i'm disinclined to comment, but i'm not sure i see the neccessity of this bill. I can't think of situations where the act of trespass itself is likely to equate to a large enough crime that imprisonment is neccessary; it is the acts committed whilst trespassing which are the problem, and as far as i'm aware, existing legislation sufficiently covers them (though if i'm wrong on that, feel free to provide examples).
    I propose a change in definition of land as mentioned hereinbefore for the second reading.

    (Original post by Don John)
    I actually really like this. Bravo, UKIP-ers.
    Thank you, sir.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Excuse me for the delay. I have got too much work to do.



    If I understand the Right of Way Act correctly, it does not allow access to private land while B340 is intended to apply only to private land.

    However, if it does, we could limit the definition of land by a condition that it must be enclosed for example by a fence.

    The primary intention of the bill is however the protection of inhabited dwellings.



    Probably. As I see, there will probably be a second reading with changes.



    Man up, I did not mean to offend you. I was merely pointing out that a reason for your decision would be appreciated because that is the point of this whole MHoC, after all.

    Your example concerning parking is wrong. The company would have the car park opened to the public hence giving an unwritten permission to use their land. If a person pays for the car park, the company accepts an agreement and again gives a permission to use the land. Even if none of this would happen and a person breaks into a private car park, there is still the need to refuse to leave the land after a request by the occupant in order to commit a criminal offence.

    If you have got any reasonable examples, please post them.

    I have got an example for you concerning benefits as you see them. Imagine a private land enclosed by a fence and a car parked in front of the gate to the area preventing the occupant from using it. There is no concrete benefit resulting from this – instead, the owner of the car gains an abstract benefit. Should the occupant of the private land be allowed to park on the car owner's property to take the benefit back?



    See my comments above. Good luck with the new system of justice.



    Explain why is it unjust and archaic, please.

    Most of the land with a reason to access for the public is anyway owned by the state. Criminalised only if they refuse to leave. The ownership of unused properties shall be then resolved and possibly managed by the town.

    Are you a socialist, if I may ask? Saying that protecting private property and wealthy individuals at the expense of wider society (which is in fact only not allowing them to use it) is wrong otherwise needs a justification.



    Which parts? What exactly?

    The right of way does not collide with this bill. It does not even apply to bordered land.



    I propose a change in definition of land as mentioned hereinbefore for the second reading.



    Thank you, sir.
    You're welcome.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)

    Which parts? What exactly?

    The right of way does not collide with this bill. It does not even apply to bordered land.
    As I understand it, the 'right to roam' applies to vast tracts of privately-owned land in England and Wales, and all land in Scotland. I think that removing this, as this bill would do, is a major step in the wrong direction.

    How do you define 'unjustifiable'?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Man up, I did not mean to offend you. I was merely pointing out that a reason for your decision would be appreciated because that is the point of this whole MHoC, after all.

    Your example concerning parking is wrong. The company would have the car park opened to the public hence giving an unwritten permission to use their land. If a person pays for the car park, the company accepts an agreement and again gives a permission to use the land. Even if none of this would happen and a person breaks into a private car park, there is still the need to refuse to leave the land after a request by the occupant in order to commit a criminal offence.

    If you have got any reasonable examples, please post them.
    Have you not seen places where it is forbidden to park? Private car parks for example. In that circumstance it certainly would be trespassing. Whenever someone gets their car "booted" they have commited trespass, and have to pay to get their car back (usually.) The system as it is currently works.

    Disregarding that in it's entireity however, I just don't agree with the priniciple. If the person trespassing doesn't acquire a benefit, I don't think it should even be called trespassing. And on the occassions a benefit is exacted, the occupant can sue for the benefit to be paid for.

    The system does not, in my eyes, need reform.
    Sorry.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aaran-j)
    QFA
    Didn't want to derail PMQs so moved my response here. Have you even bothered to read the explanatory notes etc on this? You criticised this in the coalition and still criticise it now even after it has been explained to you.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    Didn't want to derail PMQs so moved my response here. Have you even bothered to read the explanatory notes etc on this? You criticised this in the coalition and still criticise it now even after it has been explained to you.
    Of course I've read the explanatory notes. However, the explanatory notes claim this bill should have a "special exception" from the presumption of innocence, because without it, it wouldn't be as easy to prosecute suspected offenders. My problem with that, is that it is not how our justice system works. The onus should NEVER be on the defendant to prove his/her innocence, and ALWAYS be on the prosecutors to prove guilt.

    Yes, I did criticise this in the coalition (as did nearly every other government MP), and if you think your very weak explanatory notes will change my opinion on this bill now, you will find yourself to be very much mistaken.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sandys1000)
    As I understand it, the 'right to roam' applies to vast tracts of privately-owned land in England and Wales, and all land in Scotland. I think that removing this, as this bill would do, is a major step in the wrong direction.

    How do you define 'unjustifiable'?
    I quote: 'In England and Wales public access rights apply to certain categories of mainly uncultivated land—specifically "mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land." Developed land, gardens and certain other areas are specifically excluded from the right of access.'

    Would you agree if the definition of land for the purposes of this bill excluded uncultivated land as mention above?

    Unjustifiable – not able to be shown to be right or reasonable.

    (Original post by Mann18)
    Have you not seen places where it is forbidden to park? Private car parks for example. In that circumstance it certainly would be trespassing. Whenever someone gets their car "booted" they have commited trespass, and have to pay to get their car back (usually.) The system as it is currently works.

    Disregarding that in it's entireity however, I just don't agree with the priniciple. If the person trespassing doesn't acquire a benefit, I don't think it should even be called trespassing. And on the occassions a benefit is exacted, the occupant can sue for the benefit to be paid for.

    The system does not, in my eyes, need reform.
    Sorry.
    I would not be trespassing, because the person would still have to refuse to leave.

    The person does get a benefit, but this is only abstract such as an advantage. People pay billions for intellectual property damage and most of us agree, obviously.

    All right, you are free to vote as you wish, I just wanted to see your reasons.

    (Original post by aaran-j)
    Of course I've read the explanatory notes. However, the explanatory notes claim this bill should have a "special exception" from the presumption of innocence, because without it, it wouldn't be as easy to prosecute suspected offenders. My problem with that, is that it is not how our justice system works. The onus should NEVER be on the defendant to prove his/her innocence, and ALWAYS be on the prosecutors to prove guilt.

    Yes, I did criticise this in the coalition (as did nearly every other government MP), and if you think your very weak explanatory notes will change my opinion on this bill now, you will find yourself to be very much mistaken.
    Seriously, if we were in the real HoC, I would throw some tea at you. Keep your vote. :rolleyes:

    EDIT: As to that negative reputation, I know, I should not waste delicious tea like that and I am sorry.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GreenIsTheNewRed)
    No
    Care to explain why? I am seriously tired of this...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Care to explain why? I am seriously tired of this...
    I don't consider tresspassing on land to be that big a deal, certainly not worthy of arresting someone over, if they vandalise it or something, fair do's, but if someone cuts through a field or garden to get somewhere, I don't see why I should care at all, let alone to the point of arresting them for it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GreenIsTheNewRed)
    I don't consider tresspassing on land to be that big a deal, certainly not worthy of arresting someone over, if they vandalise it or something, fair do's, but if someone cuts through a field or garden to get somewhere, I don't see why I should care at all, let alone to the point of arresting them for it.
    So if there remains only the part concerning inhabited dwellings in the second reading, would you favour this bill?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    So if there remains only the part concerning inhabited dwellings in the second reading, would you favour this bill?
    inhabited by whom?

    and what constitutes such a dwelling?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GreenIsTheNewRed)
    inhabited by whom?

    and what constitutes such a dwelling?
    By the occupant in terms of this bill. The term is defined well enough, I think.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A no from me, and I can't even begin to consider it unless the Right of Way is addressed.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GreenIsTheNewRed)
    I don't consider tresspassing on land to be that big a deal, certainly not worthy of arresting someone over, if they vandalise it or something, fair do's, but if someone cuts through a field or garden to get somewhere, I don't see why I should care at all, let alone to the point of arresting them for it.
    You try saying that to people who are terrified by the local youths, for example, entering gardens and refusing to leave, which happens a lot in many communities including my own. Currently, the police enforce the law by saying that anyone has the right to be on any piece of land and there is nothing they can do. Could you explain then why it is fair that a home owner can't prevent someone being on their property, which is effectively what you're saying by refusing to pass this Bill?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This is in cessation.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This has gone to Second Reading, here.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 14, 2010
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.