wild camping to be made illegal in the UK

[bludger]

The title is not misleading. It is the government documents which are misleading. The newly majority-endowed Boris has not appointed Gallows Priti to 'protect the environment', this is the thin end of the wedge to go back to the bad old days of gamekeepers assaulting "trespassers" on our own countryside, and then banging the "trespassers" up in jail just like they did the Kinder Scout hikers. The guff in the document is a smokescreen to get that through into law.

IMPORTANT READING

https://off.road.cc/content/news/criminalising-wild-camping-new-government-proposals-to-make-trespass-a-criminal-offence

We contacted Cycling UK, who had this to say: "If we are to take the promise made in the Conservative Manifesto on face value, then Cycling UK is very concerned about the potential to criminalise many of the off-road community, given that from our Rides of Way report we know about a third of riders don’t know the status of the trail they’re on. That’s a lot of people who might become lawbreakers, due to an inadequate antiquated system and could do a lot to prevent people from even taking their first trips out onto the trails.

"Once we’ve looked into the consultation, Cycling UK intends to respond, and we will make the point trespass should not be criminalised more generally, and call for the guidance to be made clearer particularly in regards to rights of way.

"One area which will be of particular concern to wild camping and bikepacking community is the lack of clarity over Government’s definition of “reside”. There’s nothing to suggest this is for one or two nights or longer. We’ll also be looking to clarify this point."

[Polar Bear]

I find it slightly at odds that they want to criminalise hundreds of years of perfectly adequate civil trespass laws yet decriminalise tv licence fee evasion.

One might consider if one was so inclined that there might be a far right, fascist, intolerant, controlling agenda underpinning these actions.

[Goldcrank]

Where's the like button...

[mrcharly-YHT]

No, you wouldn't.
But if you grew up there, worked 7 days a week 365 days a year, see your product worth less and less each year so you have to industrialise production to make any money and still don't, are relying on subsidies and people who you think know nothing about what you do, think both that you're a sponger and that they have some god given right to access what you view as yours by birth right.
You wouldn't want bivviers in your hedgerows, either.
You don't live there, you're an unwelcome visitor.

I'm just saying that I can see why some land owners feel as they do. I don't want you camping in my garden, and I don't want you having any rights of access to my workplace, either.

Landed people are not nobility. They don't own exclusive rights to my own country. We fought hard for our rights to roam and ramble. We were beaten, branded, imprisoned and sometimes killed. I don't care what some paper deed says, if they want to stop me sleeping somewhere while I'm out on a bike ride they can get in the sea. If they can't make it work they can give it to the national trust or the woodlands trust or whoever. This isn't the middle ages. We aren't bonded serfs living under the thumb of landowning gentry, there's a lot more of us than there are them.

While I don't really agree with fboab, your words here are not proportionate.
Would you really accept someone setting up a tent in your garden (without asking you)? In your house? What about in front of your car, on the driveway?

The 'us' you are talking about is every person who owns a property. Any house with a patch of green, a yard outside.

The right to roam is a right to use footpaths, bridleways; it isn't a right to enter any property, anywhere and cause a nuisance. You are talking as if your wanting to enjoy a bike ride trumps someone else's need to make a living. 

[Regulator]

The title seems a little misleading. Trespass is a criminal offence in Scotland but rights to roam and wild camp are more generous than in the rest of the U.K. where trespass is mainly a civil matter.

Reducing the number of vehicles from 6 to 2 in the definition of an encampment will not affect my audaxing or other wild camping. In fact in Scotland where wild camping is allowed it is part of the rights to roam which excludes vehicles.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

In both England/Wales and Scotland, trespass is primarily a civil matter but can constitute a criminal matter.  In Scotland, it is harder to establish the civil offence given the 'right to roam'.

This isn't about outlawing trespass or wild camping.  This is about a right wing, racist government targeting  - at the behest of their financiers - a vulnerable ethnic minority.  Ramblers, cyclists and wild campers are just 'acceptable collateral damage' in the eyes of the Tory party and those pushing the anti-Gypsy and traveller agenda.

[bludger]

While I don't really agree with fboab, your words here are not proportionate.
Would you really accept someone setting up a tent in your garden (without asking you)? In your house? What about in front of your car, on the driveway?

This isn't about front gardens (which I don't own anyway), it's about hundreds of acres of land at a time. The idea that you should be made a criminal for wanting a sleep in your own country is just ludicrous. Especially from a government which's members are coke-snorting, restaurant-vandalising goons.

The 'us' you are talking about is every person who owns a property. Any house with a patch of green, a yard outside.

It really isn't. Don't buy the landed Range Rover driver's propaganda that 'they'll be camping in your garden next!!!', it's hokum.

The right to roam is a right to use footpaths, bridleways; it isn't a right to enter any property, anywhere and cause a nuisance. You are talking as if your wanting to enjoy a bike ride trumps someone else's need to make a living.

No. My right to enjoy cycling does trump someone else's dreams of being Landed Laird of the Grouse Moor though. Bivvying in the corner of a field is not 'entering property and causing a nuisance', people have been doing it for years and somehow there don't seem to have been mass devastation of rural England.

[Cudzoziemiec]

The title seems a little misleading. Trespass is a criminal offence in Scotland but rights to roam and wild camp are more generous than in the rest of the U.K. where trespass is mainly a civil matter.

Reducing the number of vehicles from 6 to 2 in the definition of an encampment will not affect my audaxing or other wild camping. In fact in Scotland where wild camping is allowed it is part of the rights to roam which excludes vehicles.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

In both England/Wales and Scotland, trespass is primarily a civil matter but can constitute a criminal matter.  In Scotland, it is harder to establish the civil offence given the 'right to roam'.

This isn't about outlawing trespass or wild camping.  This is about a right wing, racist government targeting  - at the behest of their financiers - a vulnerable ethnic minority.  Ramblers, cyclists and wild campers are just 'acceptable collateral damage' in the eyes of the Tory party and those pushing the anti-Gypsy and traveller agenda.

Or is it using Gypsies and Travellers as the publicly acceptable lever to criminalise protests such as XR and Occupy? They're probably more numerous and annoying to 'the establishment' than travellers. Or the tented and caravanned homeless, who must be more numerous than both travellers and protesters put together? Whatever the actual target, collateral damage also gets hit and hurt.

[bludger]

Any other Cycling UK members on YACF will note the concerns CUK express about how the 'reforms' are the thin end of the wedge to criminalise 'trespassing' MTBers.



https://www.cyclinguk.org/newsletter/cycle-campaign-news-january-2020

[Davef]

The title seems a little misleading. Trespass is a criminal offence in Scotland but rights to roam and wild camp are more generous than in the rest of the U.K. where trespass is mainly a civil matter.

Reducing the number of vehicles from 6 to 2 in the definition of an encampment will not affect my audaxing or other wild camping. In fact in Scotland where wild camping is allowed it is part of the rights to roam which excludes vehicles.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

In both England/Wales and Scotland, trespass is primarily a civil matter but can constitute a criminal matter.  In Scotland, it is harder to establish the civil offence given the 'right to roam'.

This isn't about outlawing trespass or wild camping.  This is about a right wing, racist government targeting  - at the behest of their financiers - a vulnerable ethnic minority.  Ramblers, cyclists and wild campers are just 'acceptable collateral damage' in the eyes of the Tory party and those pushing the anti-Gypsy and traveller agenda.

I disagree. Trespass is different in Scotland and has been primarily a criminal offence since Victoria was on the throne. The rights in the right to roam brought in 2003 are quite explicit exemptions from that 1865 law. If you put up a tent in someone’s back garden without their permission in Scotland you are committing a crime of trespass but not so in England and Wales, where it is a civil matter. Personally I think the Scottish set up is better for the modern world.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Regulator]

The title seems a little misleading. Trespass is a criminal offence in Scotland but rights to roam and wild camp are more generous than in the rest of the U.K. where trespass is mainly a civil matter.

Reducing the number of vehicles from 6 to 2 in the definition of an encampment will not affect my audaxing or other wild camping. In fact in Scotland where wild camping is allowed it is part of the rights to roam which excludes vehicles.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

In both England/Wales and Scotland, trespass is primarily a civil matter but can constitute a criminal matter.  In Scotland, it is harder to establish the civil offence given the 'right to roam'.

This isn't about outlawing trespass or wild camping.  This is about a right wing, racist government targeting  - at the behest of their financiers - a vulnerable ethnic minority.  Ramblers, cyclists and wild campers are just 'acceptable collateral damage' in the eyes of the Tory party and those pushing the anti-Gypsy and traveller agenda.

I disagree. Trespass is different in Scotland and has been primarily a criminal offence since Victoria was on the throne. The rights in the right to roam brought in 2003 are quite explicit exemptions from that 1865 law. If you put up a tent in someone’s back garden without their permission in Scotland you are committing a crime of trespass but not so in England and Wales, where it is a civil matter. Personally I think the Scottish set up is better for the modern world.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sorry - you're wrong.  Trespass is a primarily a civil act in Scotland (a delict).  The 1865 Act only applies when someone lodges in premises, occupies or encamps on private property.

If you put up a tent in someones back garden in England (and Wales) then you can be prosecuted under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

One thing local councillors learn very quickly is the law around trespass...

[Davef]

The title seems a little misleading. Trespass is a criminal offence in Scotland but rights to roam and wild camp are more generous than in the rest of the U.K. where trespass is mainly a civil matter.

Reducing the number of vehicles from 6 to 2 in the definition of an encampment will not affect my audaxing or other wild camping. In fact in Scotland where wild camping is allowed it is part of the rights to roam which excludes vehicles.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

In both England/Wales and Scotland, trespass is primarily a civil matter but can constitute a criminal matter.  In Scotland, it is harder to establish the civil offence given the 'right to roam'.

This isn't about outlawing trespass or wild camping.  This is about a right wing, racist government targeting  - at the behest of their financiers - a vulnerable ethnic minority.  Ramblers, cyclists and wild campers are just 'acceptable collateral damage' in the eyes of the Tory party and those pushing the anti-Gypsy and traveller agenda.

Or is it using Gypsies and Travellers as the publicly acceptable lever to criminalise protests such as XR and Occupy? They're probably more numerous and annoying to 'the establishment' than travellers. Or the tented and caravanned homeless, who must be more numerous than both travellers and protesters put together? Whatever the actual target, collateral damage also gets hit and hurt.

Rough sleepers is under 5000 per night and that includes those rough sleeping in tents. Gypsy and travellers estimates are up to 300,000. Don’t know about protesters numbers.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Davef]

The title seems a little misleading. Trespass is a criminal offence in Scotland but rights to roam and wild camp are more generous than in the rest of the U.K. where trespass is mainly a civil matter.

Reducing the number of vehicles from 6 to 2 in the definition of an encampment will not affect my audaxing or other wild camping. In fact in Scotland where wild camping is allowed it is part of the rights to roam which excludes vehicles.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

In both England/Wales and Scotland, trespass is primarily a civil matter but can constitute a criminal matter.  In Scotland, it is harder to establish the civil offence given the 'right to roam'.

This isn't about outlawing trespass or wild camping.  This is about a right wing, racist government targeting  - at the behest of their financiers - a vulnerable ethnic minority.  Ramblers, cyclists and wild campers are just 'acceptable collateral damage' in the eyes of the Tory party and those pushing the anti-Gypsy and traveller agenda.

I disagree. Trespass is different in Scotland and has been primarily a criminal offence since Victoria was on the throne. The rights in the right to roam brought in 2003 are quite explicit exemptions from that 1865 law. If you put up a tent in someone’s back garden without their permission in Scotland you are committing a crime of trespass but not so in England and Wales, where it is a civil matter. Personally I think the Scottish set up is better for the modern world.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sorry - you're wrong.  Trespass is a primarily a civil act in Scotland (a delict).  The 1865 Act only applies when someone lodges in premises, occupies or encamps on private property.

If you put up a tent in someones back garden in England (and Wales) then you can be prosecuted under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

One thing local councillors learn very quickly is the law around trespass...

“Encamps on private property” I would have thought covered the example I gave camping in a back garden as criminal trespass in scotland. With regard to CJPO 1994 does this really apply to my example of an individual in a tent without a motor vehicle ? (and of so why are they proposing to change it from 6 vehicles to 2 if none are needed?) but if sounds like you know more about it than me so perhaps I have overlooked something.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Cudzoziemiec]

The title seems a little misleading. Trespass is a criminal offence in Scotland but rights to roam and wild camp are more generous than in the rest of the U.K. where trespass is mainly a civil matter.

Reducing the number of vehicles from 6 to 2 in the definition of an encampment will not affect my audaxing or other wild camping. In fact in Scotland where wild camping is allowed it is part of the rights to roam which excludes vehicles.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

In both England/Wales and Scotland, trespass is primarily a civil matter but can constitute a criminal matter.  In Scotland, it is harder to establish the civil offence given the 'right to roam'.

This isn't about outlawing trespass or wild camping.  This is about a right wing, racist government targeting  - at the behest of their financiers - a vulnerable ethnic minority.  Ramblers, cyclists and wild campers are just 'acceptable collateral damage' in the eyes of the Tory party and those pushing the anti-Gypsy and traveller agenda.

Or is it using Gypsies and Travellers as the publicly acceptable lever to criminalise protests such as XR and Occupy? They're probably more numerous and annoying to 'the establishment' than travellers. Or the tented and caravanned homeless, who must be more numerous than both travellers and protesters put together? Whatever the actual target, collateral damage also gets hit and hurt.

Rough sleepers is under 5000 per night and that includes those rough sleeping in tents. Gypsy and travellers estimates are up to 300,000. Don’t know about protesters numbers.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Where did you find those figures? Not disputing them, just mildly surprised – but I'd imagine both vary in concentration from place to place and living in central Bristol, I probably see more than my fair share of rough sleepers. (And for some reason, there are certain places in Warwickshire where I seem to always see "old-fashioned gypsies" with horse-drawn caravans, but those are places I only ride through a couple of times a year.)

[Regulator]

The title seems a little misleading. Trespass is a criminal offence in Scotland but rights to roam and wild camp are more generous than in the rest of the U.K. where trespass is mainly a civil matter.

Reducing the number of vehicles from 6 to 2 in the definition of an encampment will not affect my audaxing or other wild camping. In fact in Scotland where wild camping is allowed it is part of the rights to roam which excludes vehicles.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

In both England/Wales and Scotland, trespass is primarily a civil matter but can constitute a criminal matter.  In Scotland, it is harder to establish the civil offence given the 'right to roam'.

This isn't about outlawing trespass or wild camping.  This is about a right wing, racist government targeting  - at the behest of their financiers - a vulnerable ethnic minority.  Ramblers, cyclists and wild campers are just 'acceptable collateral damage' in the eyes of the Tory party and those pushing the anti-Gypsy and traveller agenda.

Or is it using Gypsies and Travellers as the publicly acceptable lever to criminalise protests such as XR and Occupy? They're probably more numerous and annoying to 'the establishment' than travellers. Or the tented and caravanned homeless, who must be more numerous than both travellers and protesters put together? Whatever the actual target, collateral damage also gets hit and hurt.

Rough sleepers is under 5000 per night and that includes those rough sleeping in tents. Gypsy and travellers estimates are up to 300,000. Don’t know about protesters numbers.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Where did you find those figures? Not disputing them, just mildly surprised – but I'd imagine both vary in concentration from place to place and living in central Bristol, I probably see more than my fair share of rough sleepers. (And for some reason, there are certain places in Warwickshire where I seem to always see "old-fashioned gypsies" with horse-drawn caravans, but those are places I only ride through a couple of times a year.)

The rough sleeper figures appear to be from the official 'count'.  Which is a one off count one night each year - or in many cases, the councils don't even go out and count... they estimate.

The official figures are generally regarded as unreliable and as grossly undercounting/estimating the number of rough sleepers.  For example, the CHAIN figures suggest that there are around 5,000 rough sleepers in London alone.

As for the gypsy/traveller figures, figures vary.  The census had 63,000, but this is accepted as a gross undercount. I think it's generally accepted that there are 200,000 - 300,00 Gypsy/travellers in the UK and up to another 200,00 Roma.  The majority of these are settled.

[Davef]

Google !

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/781567/Rough_Sleeping_Statistics_2018_release.pdf
And....
The latest national census conducted in 2011 estimates that there are 57 680 Gypsy Travellers in England and Wales.24 However, estimates from health studies and other government reports suggest that between 90 000 and 120 000 Gypsy Travellers live a mobile lifestyle with a similar number now in permanent housing. The total Gypsy Traveller population of England is thus thought to range from 200 000 to 300 000.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Davef]

Or https://www.homeless.org.uk/facts/homelessness-in-numbers/rough-sleeping/rough-sleeping-our-analysis


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Cudzoziemiec]

Settled Gypsy/Roma/etc populations don't seem entirely relevant to this legislation.

[bludger]

I'm sorry but that would be to presume that the police actually enforce the law in a measured and neutral way - rather than using the law as a weapon to vilify and persecute whoever they don't like.

[Davef]

Settled Gypsy/Roma/etc populations don't seem entirely relevant to this legislation.

True. I had not read the detail. It is partly relevant however because settled generally means settled on a traveller site. councils provisions of pitches and plots also include provision for this. Travelling show people tend to be seasonal settled overwintering for several months. The provision nationally for pitches and plots has to far exceed the number occupied at any one time to allow travelling. I can’t find the national number of plots and pitches.

The number of people sleeping rough each night at 5000 is still a massive issue, but I don’t think that is the target of these legislative proposed changes. It does tend to be concentrated on bigger towns and cities and even if not, at 1 in 13000 Bristol would have over 40 tonight, but with the concentration on larger towns it is more likely to be 100. That is the number on particular night who couldn’t or wouldn’t go to a shelter. The number that regularly (say once a week) sleep rough will be much higher.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Cudzoziemiec]

An official site obviously isn't wild camping and showmen I'd think get permission to set up their temporary sites for the duration of the show. There are annual fairs and circuses on the Downs in Bristol (it's more like a large urban park than what you'd normally call Downs), the vans are pitched next to the show site and it's all clearly above board and authorised. A group of caravans without a show camping in the same place would definitely not be tolerated.

[Davef]

Currently trespass is normally a civil matter but is a criminal one if you have two or more persons and 6 or more vehicles and you encamp without permission and refuse to leave. The proposed change to the law is to reduce the 6 to 2. There is a worry that it will go much further and people wild camping that refuse to leave will be prosecuted.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bludger]

After seeing that Gallows Priti was back in the news I decided to check in on how this affair is carrying on. Your reminder that the consultation closes on March 4th.

I found this document by Friends, Families and Travellers, an NGO who represent travellers' and gypsies' interests. They queried the police forces of the land on the state of current law, and found the following:

We found that:
 20 police responses were submitted to the Government’s April 2018 consultation6
.
 75% of police responses felt current police powers were sufficient and/or proportionate.
 84% of police responses did not support the criminalisation of unauthorised encampments7
.
 65% of police responses said that lack of site provision was the real problem.

In analysing the findings, there were three key themes which emerged. Firstly, that police
respondents were overwhelmingly against the criminalisation of unauthorised encampments.
Secondly that the vast majority of police respondents felt that current powers available to them
were sufficient and allowed for a proportionate response. Finally, that a significant number of police
responses highlighted that the real problem was the lack of sites for Gypsies and Travellers to live
on.

In response to the 2018 consultation question, ‘Do you consider that the Government should
consider criminalising unauthorised encampments, in addition to the offence of aggravated
trespass?’ 84% of police responses said ‘no’. For example, the National Police Chiefs Council and the
Association of Police and Crime Commissioners said,
“We believe that criminalising unauthorised encampments is not acceptable. Complete
criminalisation of trespass would likely lead to legal action in terms of incompatibility with regard to
the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010, most
likely on the grounds of how could such an increase in powers be proportionate and reasonable when
there are insufficient pitches and stopping places?”
Further to this, Cambridgeshire Police Force said,

“Not if this included Gypsy Travellers – this would be criminalising a culture and lifestyle and contrary
to the Human Rights Act 1998 and would not facilitate the Gypsy way of life (Chapman v UK (2001)
33 EHRR 339.”

Garden Court Chambers, the barrister's chamber who have advocated on behalf of among others the Hillingdon families and other victims of The Man, have also written up this uncompromising condemnation of the proposals:

https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/news/ripping-the-heart-out-of-the-nomad-nation

Our views can be put shortly: these proposals are completely disproportionate and unjustifiable.

Conclusion
The Home Office’s proposals amount to criminalisation of the traditional way of life of Gypsies and Travellers. As George Monbiot has said in a recent article in the Guardian [10]:

A week before Patel launched her consultation, the Wiener Holocaust Library in London opened its exhibition on the Porajmos: the genocide of Roma and Sinti people carried out by the Nazis. It shows how ancient prejudices were mobilised to destroy entire peoples. I’m not saying that this is how the situation will unfold in this country, but the exhibition shows us the worst that can happen when the state sanctions the demonisation of an outgroup. First they came for the Travellers …

In our view, a decision to criminalise trespass or strengthen the enforcement powers would be susceptible to challenge in the Courts on grounds that:

Gypsies and Travellers without a lawful site would be subject to continual eviction and under the constant threat of prosecution if they chose to pursue their traditional way of life;
it would breach the rights of Gypsies and Travellers protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights to respect for their traditional way of life and the positive obligation on the government to facilitate that way of life [11];   
it would breach the government’s public sector equality duty under Equality Act 2010 s149 (given that the provisions would disproportionately impact Romani Gypsies and Irish Travellers who are recognised as ethnic groups).
We ask how could such a significant increase in enforcement powers be proportionate and reasonable when there are insufficient pitches and stopping places? When hundreds of Gypsies and Travellers have to resort to unauthorised encampments through no fault of their own, how can it be proportionate and reasonable to criminalise them overnight?

We call on the next government to withdraw these offensive proposals and to concentrate instead on ensuring that the shortage of permanent and transit site provision is addressed.

What the fuck is happening to this country.

[hatler]

Thos are fantastic responses. I'm well impressed with the majority police response too.

[bludger]

Open letter from the Ramblers to Gallows Priti, with a signature from Cycling UK

https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/files/document/2020/03/ramblers_joint_open_letter_on_trespass_consultation_28.02.20.pdf

[trekker12]

Photos like this are unlikely to help

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-52704317