Is the process of evicting travellers and gypsies too difficult and complicated? Watch

Poll: Is the process of evicting travellers and gypsies too difficult and complicated?
Eviction is too complicated and difficult (eviction needs to be made easier) (5)
35.71%
Eviction is too easy (eviction needs to be made more difficult) (0)
0%
Eviction is fine the way it is (1)
7.14%
Take a harsher attitude criminalizing their activities an immediately moving them on (6)
42.86%
Provide more traveller site to stop them from using public land or private land they don't own. (2)
14.29%
This Is Matt
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
Following eviction which take many months or even years, should a tougher stance be taken against gypsies and travellers? Should the process be shortened and simplified?

Ultimately it comes down to: "Should setting up camp on private land not owned by you or public land a criminal offence?"

If it's a criminal offence, the police could instantly move the travellers on without going to the courts.
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
Personally I believe we should reintroduce the right to protect one's property with lethal force. It would severely reduce travellers parking on people's land, reduce burglary and all in all make life a lot easier for those land owners affected.

But police should be able to move travellers without going through to courts. I know a few farmers who have had issue with travellers in the past whether it be theft or illegal encampments. The ways in which it has been dealt with outside of the courts has worked, anything from shooting at travellers to ploughing up their caravans while they are left unattended.
0
reply
MostUncivilised
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
(Original post by This Is Matt)
Following eviction which take many months or even years, should a tougher stance be taken against gypsies and travellers? Should the process be shortened and simplified?
I support doing what is necessary, consistent with the rule of law.

Whether it takes days or years, whether it is cheap or expensive, we should follow the process to is conclusion. There is a broader issue here of the rule of law; these nomadic law-breakers should not be permitted to undermine our legal system and societal norms.
0
reply
MostUncivilised
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
(Original post by DiddyDec)
Personally I believe we should reintroduce the right to protect one's property with lethal force. It would severely reduce travellers parking on people's land, reduce burglary and all in all make life a lot easier for those land owners affected.
What do you mean "reintroduce"? I think you're under a misapprehension about what the law is and was.

The law has always been that you can exercise reasonable force in defence of your person and property (including deadly force if that is reasonable... that is still the law today); that position is inherently reasonable. I don't see how anyone can be opposed to a test that is based on reasonableness in the circumstances.

Otherwise, you are simply licencing murder. In such a situation, you would support a situation where a man beckoned a young boy onto his property, telling him to come in for some sweets, and then shot him one he was in the door. Your law would make that lawful, and there would be no-one to testify that the man had lured the boy. And as the reasonableness test would have been abolished by you, there would be no general assesment of the situation overall
1
reply
Limpopo
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
Is there any common land in the UK or does everyone have a claim to every square inch of this island? I only ask as having been born on this rock, surely by birthright i have a stake in this land mass and should be able to pitch my mobile home somewhere without having to take part in the capitalist system in order to do so.
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
(Original post by MostUncivilised)
What do you mean "reintroduce"? I think you're under a misapprehension about what the law is and was.

The law has always been that you can exercise reasonable force in defence of your person and property (including deadly force if that is reasonable... that is still the law today); that position is inherently reasonable. I don't see how anyone can be opposed to a test that is based on reasonableness in the circumstances.

Otherwise, you are simply licencing murder. In such a situation, you would support a situation where a man beckoned a young boy onto his property, telling him to come in for some sweets, and then shot him one he was in the door. Your law would make that lawful, and there would be no-one to testify that the man had lured the boy. And as the reasonableness test would have been abolished by you, there would be no general assesment of the situation overall
I fully understand the current law, if you were to shoot a burglar in your property your property whether it be fatal or not. You would be arrested and jailed. Even if you thought your life was in danger the law would come down on you like a ton of bricks. If you were to put up razor wire around your property it would be removed in case it injured someone. We have got to a point in our legal system where you cannot protect yourself using "reasonable force".

Lets say to were to phone the police about travellers on your land, they would take hours to comes and see you about the problem if it was non life threatening, however if you were to phone them and say that you are going to remove the trespasses by use of a firearm they would come straight down to arrest you and not those who are on private property illegally.

It is a legal battle just to sheep bloody dogs on your land let alone people. We should use the same laws as some of the American states (not "stand your ground") but the right to be able to protect your property if you feel threatened. Or the South African law that if you are to shoot an intruder it must not be in the back because that would mean they are running away.
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
(Original post by Limpopo)
Is there any common land in the UK or does everyone have a claim to every square inch of this island? I only ask as having been born on this rock, surely by birthright i have a stake in this land mass and should be able to pitch my mobile home somewhere without having to take part in the capitalist system in order to do so.
There is a hell of a lot of Common Land, however if you saw it you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between that and private land.
0
reply
MostUncivilised
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
(Original post by DiddyDec)
I fully understand the current law, if you were to shoot a burglar in your property your property whether it be fatal or not. You would be arrested and jailed.
Nope. You clear don't understand what the law is. The only consideration would be whether what you did was reasonable in the circumstances. If it was reasonable, then you would be acquitted (if you were even charged in the first place).

We have got to a point in our legal system where you cannot protect yourself using "reasonable force".
Right; you're so knowledgeable about the law, why don't you tell us what the ratio decidendi was in R v Owino, how the mens rea intersects with reasonableness and the distinction between an objective and subjective test, and how this would affect your ability to protect yourself in the scenario you have described. Go, lay it on us Rumpole
0
reply
MostUncivilised
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by Limpopo)
Is there any common land in the UK or does everyone have a claim to every square inch of this island? I only ask as having been born on this rock, surely by birthright i have a stake in this land mass and should be able to pitch my mobile home somewhere without having to take part in the capitalist system in order to do so.
There isn't really any common land in the sense that it existed before the enclosure of the commons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure

There are common lands that are owned by local authorities, and these local authorities permit various peoples to use it for the purpose of pitching camp and so on. One should enquire with the local authority to confirm. Obviously a local authority like Southwark is probably less ikely to have any in such use compared to an authority like Margate
0
reply
Limpopo
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
(Original post by MostUncivilised)
There isn't really any common land in the sense that it existed before the enclosure of the commons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure

There are common lands that are owned by local authorities, and these local authorities permit various peoples to use it for the purpose of pitching camp and so on. One should enquire with the local authority to confirm. Obviously a local authority like Southwark is probably less ikely to have any in such use compared to an authority like Margate
Thanks,,that confirms what i thought. So as someone born in this country i have to buy a plot of land or at least lease it in fee simple, by the good will and charity of the crown, before i can rest my bones somewhere?
0
reply
MostUncivilised
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
(Original post by Limpopo)
Thanks,,that confirms what i thought. So as someone born in this country i have to buy a plot of land or at least lease it in fee simple, by the good will and charity of the crown, before i can rest my bones somewhere?
Fee simple is a form of freehold ownership. And you're right to say that you are holding it in right of the crown, but we haven't seen land appropriations by the crown of small-holders for more than 500 years so if you purchase some land you can be reasonably sure that its purchase is safe.

If you bury yourself on the little estate you create, turn yourself into a kind of baron, I don't think your bones will be disturbed, particularly if you create a trust to protect the land
0
reply
Limpopo
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
(Original post by MostUncivilised)
Fee simple is a form of freehold ownership. And you're right to say that you are holding it in right of the crown, but we haven't seen land appropriations by the crown of small-holders for more than 500 years so if you purchase some land you can be reasonably sure that its purchase is safe.

If you bury yourself on the little estate you create, turn yourself into a kind of baron, I don't think your bones will be disturbed, particularly if you create a trust to protect the land

So the mere fact that i was born in this country does not give me a right to simply occupy some space on it (not claim ownership of it)? What if i have no money for a house or i do not wish to live in one and pay the resultant taxes? I just want to park a caravan,build a shack or pitch a tent and live peaceably and be no trouble to anyone.
0
reply
MostUncivilised
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
(Original post by Limpopo)
So the mere fact that i was born in this country does not give me a right to simply occupy some space on it (not claim ownership of it)? What if i have no money for a house or i do not wish to live in one and pay the resultant taxes? I just want to park a caravan,build a shack or pitch a tent and live peaceably and be no trouble to anyone.
That's an adorable sentiment, and if I had my way, the government would have a reserve of lands with basic amenities (water, an electricity main and internet connection and a caravan, but little else) for people to set up caravans in remote areas if the want to be away from the bustle of civilisation and, as you say, live peaceably and cause no trouble.

Ironically enough, that's probably why socialism would be the better system to adhere to (despite the libertarian sensibility of your desire to live in peace with your fellow man); at present, only people with a stock of ready capital can live the kind of life you have identified
0
reply
Limpopo
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
(Original post by MostUncivilised)
That's an adorable sentiment, and if I had my way, the government would have a reserve of lands with basic amenities (water, an electricity main and internet connection and a caravan, but little else) for people to set up caravans in remote areas if the want to be away from the bustle of civilisation and, as you say, live peaceably and cause no trouble.

Ironically enough, that's probably why socialism would be the better system to adhere to (despite the libertarian sensibility of your desire to live in peace with your fellow man); at present, only people with a stock of ready capital can live the kind of life you have identified
I've never looked into it but perhaps it can happen in far less populous countries such as the vast plains of Africa and Asia for example? Perhaps the locals would take me to heart or indeed, maybe they would murder me for being an interloper? Maybe somewhere like the vast country of Spain would be able to accommodate me? Its such a big place with seemingly lots of open space but then so is France.
0
reply
MostUncivilised
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
(Original post by Limpopo)
I've never looked into it but perhaps it can happen in far less populous countries such as the vast plains of Africa and Asia for example? Perhaps the locals would take me to heart or indeed, maybe they would murder me for being an interloper?
Indeed they might I take your point though, hopefully the African villagers would almost adopt you as a kind of mascot, and teach you bush skills? You could learn how to keep yourself safe from lions and elephants, to live off the land, and so on.

Maybe somewhere like the vast country of Spain would be able to accommodate me? Its such a big place with seemingly lots of open space but then so is France.
It depends if you're willing to work for the right to inhabit your own space; if so, becoming a Jackeroo / farm manager in Australia might suit you well. You would make a deal with the farm owner, and they would basically give you a house on the farm, and an area that would be your responsibility to drive the cattle or grow the crops in that area.
0
reply
pjm600
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
(Original post by DiddyDec)
Personally I believe we should reintroduce the right to protect one's property with lethal force. It would severely reduce travellers parking on people's land, reduce burglary and all in all make life a lot easier for those land owners affected.

But police should be able to move travellers without going through to courts. I know a few farmers who have had issue with travellers in the past whether it be theft or illegal encampments. The ways in which it has been dealt with outside of the courts has worked, anything from shooting at travellers to ploughing up their caravans while they are left unattended.
You serious? You'd like to live in a society where it's acceptable to shoot travellers because they parked on your land? No thanks.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

How has the start of this academic year been for you?

Loving it - gonna be a great year (130)
18.21%
It's just nice to be back! (194)
27.17%
Not great so far... (256)
35.85%
I want to drop out! (134)
18.77%

Watched Threads

View All