PDA

View Full Version : New threat to wildcampers?



Seannachie
28-11-2013, 08:29
If the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill 2013-2014 receives the Royal Assent in its present form, local authorities will have a new weapon with which to attack motor-homers who wild-camp.

As it stands, Clause 1, Part 1 of the Bill allows local authorities amongst others to apply to the court for an injunction against any person aged 10 or over (the respondent). If the court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities (my underlining), that the respondent has engaged or threatens to engage in conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person (my underlining, but that phrase is subsequently defined as 'anti-social behaviour by Clause 19(1) ibid.,) and the court considers it just and convenient to grant the injunction for the purpose of preventing the respondent from engaging in anti-social behaviour, such an injunction may be granted prohibiting the respondent from engaging in anti-social behaviour, as defined. Perhaps more disturbing is the fact that Clause 5(1) of the Bill enables an application for an injunction to be made without notifying the respondent.

It is an unfortunate reality that wild-camping does cause annoyance to some people, though not always for a good reason - note, however, that the Bill does not impose any requirement that there is a good reason for the annoyance to be felt by 'any person' - and, in which case it could fully be caught by the provisions of this Bill. However, it is not necessary that wild-camping does actually cause annoyance to any person, for good reason or no, only that it is 'conduct capable of causing nuisance', which is surely something impossible to refute.

Whilst it is true to say that even if the Bill is enacted as it currently stands that the draconian powers it confers will not be used against wild-campers, although there is no reason why it couldn't be, it could easily be used to deny many other aspects which many of us consider to be our fundamental and inalienable rights. So much so that Lord Macdonald, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, is one of many who are opposed to the Bill.

Whilst the Government has siad that the powers conferred will not be used 'frivolously', there is nothing in the Bill, as it stands, to stop it from being used that way against wild-campers and anyone else that authorities take a dislike to.

The current text of the Bill and its stages in the parliamentary process can be viewed here: Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill 2013-14 — UK Parliament (http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/antisocialbehaviourcrimeandpolicingbill.html)

Touringtheworld
28-11-2013, 09:10
.......... and travellers

Seannachie
28-11-2013, 11:04
police have better things to do than disturb a couple of people in a van in a remote location. This is aimed at teenage campers who get drunk and cause a disturbance tearing trees to burn and generally leave all teir rubbish about.

Obviously you haven't read the Bill; it can be applied to anyone for just about anything. Whether anyone in authority actually uses these powers is a separate issue.

witzend
28-11-2013, 11:56
police have better things to do than disturb a couple of people in a van in a remote location.

That would depend on who wanted them shifted and the police, A couple in a van wouldn't count for much

invalid
28-11-2013, 12:13
These powers are always a threat to everyone, not only wild campers but anybody deemed to possibly be causing a nuisance.
From the bonfire lighter to the rambles making life supposedly difficult for land owners, to objectorsí all shapes and sizes, and letís not forget the councils using it to justify blocking changes they donít like.
Sad that as soon as we see rules like this we feel they will be used not for the good of the common man, maybe itís an age thing or has life made us cynical?

Kryten
28-11-2013, 12:43
Surely a one night stopover wouldn't be worth chasing because by the time the council had the correct authority to act you would have moved on. The bill does however seem to give local authorities the legal power to target anyone, not just wild campers, just because someone as made a complaint, no matter how trivial. The UK is turning into a country that resembles the former East Germany and Romania under Ceaușescu

Tbear
28-11-2013, 12:44
Might just help get rid of folk who camp in large groups for extended periods of time. If you park up in the evening and are gone before the court opens in the morning I cannot see it being a problem.

Richard

Frances
28-11-2013, 13:23
I can't see how this is going to worry me. I'll be gone in the morning.

At my age though don't you think an ASBO would give me some real street cred! Do you think they'll really start handing them out to OAPs?

ivecotrucker
28-11-2013, 17:42
Assuming that I have read this correctly (perhaps I have misunderstood part) this appears to be a [B]personal [B] injunction rather than applying to a specific wilding spot, therefore the argument "I'll be gone in the morning, they won't bother me" might not work. If a person was made the subject of a wildcamping injunction this would likely apply to everywhere that person chose to wild i.e. a long term ban on that specific person(s) freedom to wild camp anywhere. Please tell me I've got this wrong.

Seannachie
28-11-2013, 18:30
In all likelihood the powers in the Bill, if enacted in its present form, will be unlikely to be used against any responsible wild-campers who overnight somewhere but the powers it confers are so widely drafted that they could catch all sorts of otherwise harmless activities which, at the moment, are allowable.

Remember it is a fundamental principle of English law that unless something is legislated against, it is allowable.

In addition, the court only has to be satisfied 'on the balance of probabilities' - which is a far lesser proof than applies normally in criminal matters, where the onus of proof is on the prosecution to prove its case 'beyond reasonable doubt' - that the respondent has behaved in a specific way (or threatened to do so) and that the conduct is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person - as if there really is no conduct which cannot be held capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to someone else, regardless of whether that someone else's reactions are unreasonable or not - and that it is not necessary to prove whether this conduct actually does cause any nuisance or annoyance. Furthermore, the party seeking the injunction may do so without notifying the respondent that they are doing so, which can make it difficult to protect oneself from overbearing authority.

If anyone cannot see that such a woolly piece of legislation is bad per se and that it could be misused against forms of behaviour which are generally considered to be acceptable but which for good reason are not currently prohibited or restrained by legislation, then I despair.

Oh, and please don't respond with that hackneyed phrase much beloved by Michael Howard: 'Innocent people have nothing to fear'. I am quite sure that the former DPP has nothing to fear, yet he is against this Bill as it stands, and for good reasons.

ecobob
28-11-2013, 18:33
It won't bother me. I will continue to park where I see fit and will not outstay my welcome. I will also not aim to cause a nuisance to anyone
and above all I will spend my money locally, weather it be a local take away or pub or whatever. Therefore I don't see any problem with staying on the odd sea front or car. park.

antiquesam
28-11-2013, 18:40
I believe the big fear is that it could be used to stifle someone's legitimate right to demonstrate or protest.

Siimplyloco
28-11-2013, 18:50
I read his autobiography some years ago: a fascinating read. I can't remember much detail, but he certain stood up for the Common Law, and we all benefited from that stance. He also mentioned that in 1937 he was earning about £30,000 a year!
John

chrisinbrighton
28-11-2013, 19:02
I may be wrong but I think there are 2 types us wild campers who enjoy living in a van & a lot of people I know who have ended up in a van/car or boat because they have defaulted on mortgauge/rent ect these seem to be the ones that are causing the trouble gangs of them turning up on carparks the seafront playing load music day & night letting there kids run amok leaving litter. giving us genuine law abiding wildcampers a bad name.
more & more of this is going to happen which will aggrivate the authorities more.
Been watching youtube vids living in a van based in the USA where people living in Walmart carparks going out to work & being left to get on with life ,Walmart is not bothered because they know that you will shop in there store so your paying your way in a roundabout way

sorry for he spelling spell check packed up

Tbear
28-11-2013, 19:05
I agree that we are over regulated but that does not mean that all laws are bad ones. When you have seen the damage caused by some travellers, its not difficult to see why laws like this may be very popular. Then if you look at the time and cost of using the existing laws, you very quickly see that they need to be improved. This act may not be the perfect answer but its the best we have at present.

Councils such as Scarborough are doing all they can to get rid of us so unless we clean up our act, others may follow suit.

Richard

sparrks
28-11-2013, 19:06
If the court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities (my underlining), that the respondent has engaged or threatens to engage in conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person (my underlining, but that phrase is subsequently defined as 'anti-social behaviour by Clause 19(1) ibid.,) and the court considers it just and convenient to grant the injunction for the purpose of preventing the respondent from engaging in anti-social behaviour, such an injunction may be granted prohibiting the respondent from engaging in anti-social behaviour, as defined. Perhaps more disturbing is the fact that Clause 5(1) of the Bill enables an application for an injunction to be made without notifying the respondent.



Surely this can be turned around:

"If the court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent has engaged or threatens to engage in conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person, but that phrase is subsequently defined as 'anti-social behaviour by Clause 19(1) ibid.,) and the court considers it just and convenient to grant the injunction for the purpose of preventing the respondent from engaging in anti-social behaviour, such an injunction may be granted prohibiting the respondent from engaging in anti-social behaviour, as defined."

After all the complainent would be causing the exact same thing to the wildcamper. Simples :)

Seannachie
28-11-2013, 19:09
Basically I do agree with you, David, and almost completely too. But whilst Denning was undoubtedly a notable judge and did much to advance the law ( for which I applaud him), he sometimes allowed his prejudices to overrule his legal training, with the result that he ignored precedent and what had been held to be 'settled law' and, consequently, often one didn't know what the outcome of a case before him was likely to be. Actually he made good business for lawyers as they also earned additional fees for the frequent appeals against his judgments. Incidentally, he even went against his own judgments, particularly when he didn't like one of the parties to the case. Had he not been elevated to the Bench under the old rules, he undoubtedly would have been forced out long before his increasing illiberality and open racism became quite intolerable to the rest of the judiciary. Despite all the public eulogies when he decided to retire, behind the scenes there was much relief when he did so. Notwithstanding his foibles, he did make some good law, but he also made some bad law too. Nevertheless, it was his increasing prejudices, illiberality and racism which finally brought his judicial career to an end. Sad really.

Mastodon
28-11-2013, 19:10
Beat me to it... Being asked to move on causes me severe nuisance...

Pauljenny
28-11-2013, 19:10
When I look in the mirror , I see a short, fat , hairy old troll . I speak as any Yorkshireman will ... often and loudly . I'm a walking potential antisocialist , ( and proud of it ) I also play an African Djembe drum .

If this act becomes law , I'll not be allowed outside . There will be a trail of official bill servers queuing up to slap an injunction on me .

Mind you : I could then accuse them of being a nuisance and slap an injunction on them !

Bring it on

Seannachie
28-11-2013, 19:13
Surely this can be turned around:

"If the court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent has engaged or threatens to engage in conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person, but that phrase is subsequently defined as 'anti-social behaviour by Clause 19(1) ibid.,) and the court considers it just and convenient to grant the injunction for the purpose of preventing the respondent from engaging in anti-social behaviour, such an injunction may be granted prohibiting the respondent from engaging in anti-social behaviour, as defined."

After all the complainent would be causing the exact same thing to the wildcamper. Simples :)

If only that were the case but, as it stands, I do not see any provision in the Bill to allow wild-campers to apply for an injunction against local authorities trying to stop our freedom. Perhaps we should all lobby our respective MPs and insist that this provision is read into the Bill immediately.

;)

iveco4x4
29-11-2013, 19:52
What we have to remember is the difference between the intent of the ligislation and how its used

Much legislation is badly worded , missing sections and open to interpretation. This is bad legislation because it allows those who believe they speak for the majority to use this legislation. You only have to look at the police use of stop and search powers (any Mark Thomas fans here - he was searched for being 'confident' while his mate was search for being 'diffident' , both won legal actions against the met for these illegal searches)

We have seen anti terrorism powers used against political protestors and journalists, people being held by the police for refusing to give their name & address when the poice did not have the authority to ask for it , the powers that be will use the full range of these powers for what they want, not what we want or expect from these laws

Your email and text metadata is already being analysed before a snoopers charter has even hit the commons.

Be afraid, be very afraid

Rich

Tbear
29-11-2013, 20:09
What we have to remember is the difference between the intent of the ligislation and how its used

Much legislation is badly worded , missing sections and open to interpretation. This is bad legislation because it allows those who believe they speak for the majority to use this legislation. You only have to look at the police use of stop and search powers (any Mark Thomas fans here - he was searched for being 'confident' while his mate was search for being 'diffident' , both won legal actions against the met for these illegal searches)

We have seen anti terrorism powers used against political protestors and journalists, people being held by the police for refusing to give their name & address when the poice did not have the authority to ask for it , the powers that be will use the full range of these powers for what they want, not what we want or expect from these laws

Your email and text metadata is already being analysed before a snoopers charter has even hit the commons.

Be afraid, be very afraid

Rich


Be careful the SAS hit squad may already be hiding under your bed.

How often are you stopped and searched. Even if you are? So what! Unless you have a pocket full of Smack.

Richard

Firefox
29-11-2013, 20:29
So on whose land are you wild camping?

If it is on local authority land or highways land then the authority already has the power to apply for a court injunction.

If it is on private land, then the land owner can apply for a court order, or you can be removed by police if in a gathering of more than 5 vans and served with a notice not to return (1994 criminal justice act)

If it is on your own land (for an extended period) then you can be subject to a court enforceable planning injunction.

There's already provisions that can be applied, so they don't need other acts for vehicles overstaying unauthorised. Yes they might be able to apply it, but as there are already existing provisions, so why worry about the new act any more than you do at the moment?

In any case, the fact that they say "over 10" means it is clearly aimed at teenage delinquents :p

iveco4x4
01-12-2013, 18:07
Be careful the SAS hit squad may already be hiding under your bed.

How often are you stopped and searched. Even if you are? So what! Unless you have a pocket full of Smack.

Richard

Oh the old if you don't do anything bad then what have you to fear. Who defines what is bad, can it change ?

Those in power and yes

The way legislation is bought in is bit by bit so one piece of ligislation looks inncouous and so does the next bit, but when they are combined then the full effect is seen oops too late by then.

It sound like you have no idea of your rights. A copper has no right to randomly search me unless a particular decision has been made by a senior officer or its in an area that is deemed to be under particular legislation or they can make up an excuse. So why should I let them. Searches are done differenlty under different ligislation , some searches are to make sure you are not carrying anything to commit a public order offence but if you have a folded piece of paper in your pocket they are not allowed to read it, they must tell you why they have stopped you and under what rules, and if they choose to search what they are searching for. You do not have to give a name and address always , they can fill the form in with a description.

Have you ever noticed that the police routinely now film participants of political demonstrations, why ? they are carrying out a perfectly legal activity in a democracy. Then try filming the police and see what happens, even though it is legal to do so

Don't get me wrong I am not Anti police, they do good work but the way they are used can be very wrong and many don't understand the rules. We are policed by consent. I give my consent as long as its done properly.

OK heres another one, how far are we from getting rid of cash ? pretty close now, could be done within 10 years.

Every monetary transaction you make recorded by your bank from your proximity read card. No paying cash for anything. Everything can be taxed and checked, then the data is mined to by your bank and the govermnent (facebook has nothing on those 2). Would it reduce crime, probably not as other currencies would be used (bitcoin ?) We must look our liberties

You will probably say this is too much information to be mapped and tracked. What about moores law of computer power, means we have massive more computer power every 18 months

I'll leave it with pastor neimoller

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.


Or christie moore's version Yellow Triangle - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqWuqvT0TvE)

Rich


CLICK HERE TO REMOVE THESE ADVERTS