Any Ideas how to get rid

[Hiddlebit]

The law in this matter is not "PC". Or if it is, PC goes back a very long way.

The current laws of trespass go back to the late 1600s/early 1700s. And the act of trespass is not a criminal offence, it is civil: the police can't touch them. In strict legal terms, the act of trespass as a civil offence is "unlawful" rather than "illegal." The police can only act where an action is "illegal".

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by Hiddlebit

The law in this matter is not "PC". Or if it is, PC goes back a very long way.

The current laws of trespass go back to the late 1600s/early 1700s. And the act of trespass is not a criminal offence, it is civil: the police can't touch them. In strict legal terms, the act of trespass as a civil offence is "unlawful" rather than "illegal." The police can only act where an action is "illegal".

I think I'd be peed of if a copper told me that there was nothing they can do if some cretin set up camp in my back yard, given the fact that I wouldn't be allowed to take the law into my own hands and move them myself. But isn't that the problem here the law protects the feckless and rides roughshod over law abiding citizens who only want whats right in society

[Hiddlebit]

Point is though it's nothing new and shouldn't be treated that way by the media or anyone else.

People complain that the law won't do anything when it has never been able to. If you want the law to change, don't moan that it's someone else's fault. Campaign to get it changed. It does work sometimes. Sarah's Law anyone?

[cashman]

Originally Posted by Hiddlebit

The law in this matter is not "PC". Or if it is, PC goes back a very long way.

The current laws of trespass go back to the late 1600s/early 1700s. And the act of trespass is not a criminal offence, it is civil: the police can't touch them. In strict legal terms, the act of trespass as a civil offence is "unlawful" rather than "illegal." The police can only act where an action is "illegal".

if thats the case, then how come the police shift travellers from various illegal sites, on the behest of councils? or are the police allowed to act, when its not law abiding citizens requesting.

[Ken Moss]

Originally Posted by Hiddlebit

Point is though it's nothing new and shouldn't be treated that way by the media or anyone else.

People complain that the law won't do anything when it has never been able to. If you want the law to change, don't moan that it's someone else's fault. Campaign to get it changed. It does work sometimes. Sarah's Law anyone?

You make a good point but people have been campaigning in various ways for years. There was the case of Tony Martin in 2000 when he shot at intruders which really brought it back into the public consciousness and laws have been 'reviewed' very recently but it still falls more on the side of the intruder than the homeowner.

Until there is another high-profile case where a burglar gets better treatment than the homeowner the laws will remain the same. Sad, but true.

[Tealeaf]

One cannot help but notice from the pictures in the Mail article, just how scruffy and overgrown some of these Cambridge gardens are. It would seem to me therefore, that a simple solution is at hand both to enhance these gardens and to rid them of their dubious trespassers.

Most reasonably sized garden centres will stock a variety of implements to assist in tidying up your garden. Foremost among these tools is the flame thrower (for the use of clearing weeds) and the machete for clearing more dense undergrowth. For those unfortunate residents who have this vermin in their gardens, the answer is to go down the local garden centre, purchase a number of the said items, and then (maybe with the assistance of the lads from the local pub after closing time,) have a midnight burn and chop party in their garden. I'm quite sure that should any unfortunate accident occur, the local cops would be powerless to act, because of course, it would have arisen from a perfectly legal activity occuring on private property.

[DaveinGermany]

I really can't understand how such as situation can be possible. It appears that in every aspect of UK life there is a plethora of rules, regulations & Bylaws, which local councils quite readily bandy about, often with Police backing, when it is something they desire or that they consider should be enforced under the all encompassing banner of PC.

Gatherings of youths being moved on, anti social behaviour orders, data gathering, spying on the populace, fines for dropping litter, rooting through peoples rubbish & on Ad nausea. Yet when someone comes along with the issues stated no one wants to know, not the council nor Police both parties washing their hands of the problem.

Now is this a genuine case of not being able to do anything ? (as they seem to manage quite well on a multitude of other matters without a problem) or are they just not willing to get involved & take action in case of legal consequences ? Or being seen as racist, bullies ? I know what I think, but the powers that be have already cast their Dice a long while back.

[garinda]

Ok, I'll take a leaf out of Less's book, and be a little more charitable.

They can stay at the bottom of the garden, but there is a price to pay.

[Hiddlebit]

Originally Posted by Ken Moss

You make a good point but people have been campaigning in various ways for years. There was the case of Tony Martin in 2000 when he shot at intruders which really brought it back into the public consciousness and laws have been 'reviewed' very recently but it still falls more on the side of the intruder than the homeowner.

Until there is another high-profile case where a burglar gets better treatment than the homeowner the laws will remain the same. Sad, but true.

Most campaigns fall by the wayside because people expect things to change without really working for it. Or worse still, think that they don't have to work out the answers to the questions that are bound to come their way. A friend of mine successfully lobbied to keep a charity funded by his local council because when asked by the council "why should we fund a charity to take us to court?", he answered "because you keep losing the cases: if you'd have listened to them in the first place and done what they suggested you'd have saved thousands - and a lot of embarrassment!"

Tony Martin was a different situation: it's difficult to argue "reasonable force" or "self-defence" when shooting someone in the back. Kind of put his supporters on the back foot there.

Burglars are nothing to do with trespass: trespass doesn't involve breaking and entering. Burglary does and is therefore a criminal offence. Totally different in law.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by Hiddlebit

Burglars are nothing to do with trespass: trespass doesn't involve breaking and entering. Burglary does and is therefore a criminal offence. Totally different in law.

so if someone camps out in a persons shed in that persons back yard/garden, that is not breaking n entering? cos it damn well is to me.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by Hiddlebit

Most campaigns fall by the wayside because people expect things to change without really working for it. Or worse still, think that they don't have to work out the answers to the questions that are bound to come their way. A friend of mine successfully lobbied to keep a charity funded by his local council because when asked by the council "why should we fund a charity to take us to court?", he answered "because you keep losing the cases: if you'd have listened to them in the first place and done what they suggested you'd have saved thousands - and a lot of embarrassment!"

Tony Martin was a different situation: it's difficult to argue "reasonable force" or "self-defence" when shooting someone in the back. Kind of put his supporters on the back foot there.

Burglars are nothing to do with trespass: trespass doesn't involve breaking and entering. Burglary does and is therefore a criminal offence. Totally different in law.

Tony Martin wouldn't have needed to do anything if the little thieving gypo hadn't been in his house uninvited in the first place

[accyman]

Originally Posted by jaysay

Tony Martin wouldn't have needed to do anything if the little thieving gypo hadn't been in his house uninvited in the first place

it also wasnt the first time the gypo and his cronies had robbed the poor guy, how many times should a person have to tolerate been burgled by the same person with nothing been done about it before they defend their property.
Yes the gypo was shot in the back but he was running away after burgularing the bloke and deserved every pellet that got its target.A decent man went to prison for commiting the crime of ridding the planet of a theiving scumbag.Farmers have guns and if you are stupid enough to eneter a farmers property to rob them then more fool you lol

[mattylad]

Its just like if you ark your car in a neighbours drive, legally there is not a lot they can easily do about it without resorting to unlawful methods.

But they would soon be shifted from a lot of peoples back yards IMO.

[acertun]

If they are living on your land maybe they could pay half your land taxes or rates to the local government

[Hiddlebit]

Originally Posted by cashman

so if someone camps out in a persons shed in that persons back yard/garden, that is not breaking n entering? cos it damn well is to me.

The key words are "breaking" and "entering" - forcible entry. If the shed isn't locked, it's fair game provided nothing is stolen. And has been for centuries. And it's not about immigration, either.

I'm not defending these people, they shouldn't be there, but what they are doing is not illegal, it's unlawful and that is a different ballgame. I'm saying that the law needs to be changed, but the situation is nothing new and not the creation of this or any recent government.