# Protesters at St Paul's



## HeatherChloe (Oct 18, 2009)

I drove past tonight.... what would be lovely pavement in a lovely spot is covered not only in mini tents, but also in gazebos and marquis.

So here are my questions -

(i) we all seem to worry terribly about parking legally and yet sleeping in our van - under what law can people actually move us on, when all over the UK people who are protesting or who are travellers seem to be much more bullish than us?

(ii) how can people park their tents on other people's land and require court orders to move? if I had a front garden, and someone parked their tent on it, why should I have to go to court to get them to move?

(iii) if one just parks a tent on the pavement (not private land) how do they get you to move?

I'm just confused as to how people can park tents for years either on the pavement or on land at Parliament Square, Leicester Square or St Paul's Cathedral, and make out that if someone phyiscally tries to implement the law when they shouldn't be there, that it is someone else's fault that "violence" erupts.

If I park my van nicely for 1-2 nights somewhere, and as we have seen from our discussions, that we all worry that the police with try to get us, don't we just need to say we've stayed there because of the nasty bankers, or human rights records in [insert country name] and they'll leave us alone?

Am I missing something?


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

HeatherChloe said:


> (i) we all seem to worry terribly about parking legally and yet sleeping in our van - under what law can people actually move us on


Local bylaws, which vary from area to area.



HeatherChloe said:


> (ii) how can people park their tents on other people's land and require court orders to move?


Because legislation requires the landowner to take his recourse to the Courts.



HeatherChloe said:


> if I had a front garden, and someone parked their tent on it, why should I have to go to court to get them to move?


Because the law says so.



HeatherChloe said:


> (iii) if one just parks a tent on the pavement (not private land) how do they get you to move?


Local bylaws, obstruction, likely to cause a breach of peace. And so on.



HeatherChloe said:


> I'm just confused as to how people can park tents for years either on the pavement or on land at Parliament Square, Leicester Square or St Paul's Cathedral, and make out that if someone phyiscally tries to implement the law when they shouldn't be there, that it is someone else's fault that "violence" erupts.


Because the law says so.



HeatherChloe said:


> If I park my van nicely for 1-2 nights somewhere, and as we have seen from our discussions, that we all worry that the police with try to get us, don't we just need to say we've stayed there because of the nasty bankers, or human rights records in [insert country name] and they'll leave us alone?


No, because the Road Traffic Act will most likely kick in, plus perhaps local bylaws. Motor vehicles are subject to different legislation than people most of the time. Do you really believe that people are worried that the Police are "out to get them"? That's a pretty unfortunate misconception.



HeatherChloe said:


> Am I missing something?


Yes - the rules! If after my reply, you think the law is an ass, and if you ask "Is the law an ass?", I'll give you a Yes or No answer, same as anyone else.  The facts however are the facts.

Dougie.


----------



## rowley (May 14, 2005)

And if I stayed more than 28 days on a CL or CS camp site I would be moved on! :? :?


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

rowley said:


> And if I stayed more than 28 days on a CL or CS camp site I would be moved on! :? :?


No - you'd be subject to the legislation governing short-stays, trespass and whatever else applied. Being "moved on" might ultimately be the outcome, but - as I've said above - legislation exists in every case for whatever reasons it was created for, whatever we might think about it. That involves a due process, usually through the Courts.

Our elected representatives ratify legislation, so it's to them that we must go if we want legislation created, changed or removed. Laws get changed because they are being applied in ways they were never intended, or because of unforeseen events. As a general comment, perhaps a productive discussion whereby unhappy citizens made their views clear to their elected representatives, would be of more use than just complaining about what they see as ridiculous "world-gone-mad" laws.

As I say, a general comment. 

Dougie.


----------



## HeatherChloe (Oct 18, 2009)

asprn said:


> Do you really believe that people are worried that the Police are "out to get them"? That's a pretty unfortunate misconception.
> 
> Yes - the rules! If after my reply, you think the law is an ass, and if you ask "Is the law an ass?", I'll give you a Yes or No answer, same as anyone else.  The facts however are the facts.


Well thanks Dougie.

1. I don't think the Police are out to get me. I never said that.

However, there are lots of people on this website who think that the police will move them on if they are parked legally in their van and happen to be in it.

If your van is parked legally on a street, the police cannot move you on.

And if your van is parked on private land, all I'm saying is why is this any different from all these people parked on private land - doesn't the landowner need to go to court to move the van on - by which point, one would presumably have already left?

2. I know you mention "the rules" but which legislation are you looking at which says that if I have private land and someone comes onto it, that I need to go to court to get them off it?

Why can't the police be called to take them off it?

If I come home from work one day, and find someone with their feet up watching my TV, why would I need to go to court to get them out of my flat and why can't I call the police and say I have a burglar / intruder?


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

I think the protesters are outside St. Pauls because the police put em there. They initially wanted to protest outside the Stock Exchange but we can't have the bankers and financial institutions inconvenienced can we now??? :roll: :roll: 

So the police in their wisdom put them in a less obstructive place.

As I see it Ray.


----------



## SpeedyDux (Jul 13, 2007)

HeatherChloe said:


> asprn said:
> 
> 
> > However, there are lots of people on this website who think that the police will move them on if they are parked legally in their van and happen to be in it.
> ...


----------



## tulsehillboys (Jul 22, 2010)

On the way home from Goring this weekend we saw two traveller vans parked on the verge by a roundabout. I am sure it is not legal but equally it may take some time for the courts to formally move them by which time they will be off. To wit there is a tacit acceptance that it is possible to park almost anywhere but there may be consequences.
For instance if I park in a metered bay and over run the time I may be given a ticket however I may escape notice by the attendants and leave with no penalty.
It surely depends on how much of a nuisance you make of yourself. If you park across a supermarket entrance/exit be assured you wont be there for long. Quietly at the side of a street with no parking restrictions and disappearing the following day you are likely to cause no complaint from anyone and no unwanted interest from either the police or the law.

Live and let live???


----------



## thieawin (Jun 7, 2006)

Heather Chloe trespass is not a criminal offence but a civil wrong. That means trespassers cannot be prosecuted nor can the police move them on. It also means that to get rid of someone who is just present on your land you have to give them a notice to go and then sue.

St Paul's is a strange case, the area occupied belongs, as I understand it, to the Crown, the church, the Corporation of the City of London, and maybe some is even common land, it is a jigsaw, so who to do the actual suing is the first difficulty, and for which area, they all have to agree to act together to be effective or the protesters just move around. I gather that has been problematic for the church who are, or were not sure, if they should sue and even if they did, enforce any court order

Ask yourself what Jesus might have said and done about people peacefully protesting about usurers, moneylenders and the like (read bankers, financiers, etc) in a temple precinct?

I am actually enjoying the discomfort of the church and authorities.

The area the protesters are on is not highway, unlike parliament green.

As for speedydux and the judgment quoted, it does not cover wild camping, just the highway, and an overnight stop whilst travelling is not excluded by that judgement, one overnight stop may not be camping, but you should probably move on the next day and the Jones case has been interpreted by the courts since 1999, in relation to Parliament square and the conclusion was that whilst in D.P.P. v. Jones a majority of the House of Lords accepted the right of the public to use the highway, not just for passage and repassage, but for all manner of *reasonable*, peaceable user not interfering with the right to pass and repass, nor constituting a public or private nuisance and so the principle has now been applied to allow peaceable protest against government policy to take place in Parliament Square, even where the protest continued day and night *[camping?], *for more than a year, and physically obstructed a section of the highway.

So from a criminal law view point, even if the area is ahighway they are in the clear for now, which is why the owners are taking, or talking about taking civil action


----------



## rayrecrok (Nov 21, 2008)

Hi.

There are some things you have to protest about..

We had Ban the Bomb in our youth..

The Americans had Anti Vietnam.

The middle east now are going through the Arab Spring, or lets kick out all the dictators..

The Youth protesting about bankers screwing their future up, making it impossible for them to get jobs and the start in life their parents had, where you could finish a job one day and start another the next day..
And we are being screwed as well, money saved is going down the pan faster than any interest can earn. Your private pension you have saved all your life for ruined..

I think we should be getting a tent and joining them, or at least the van.

The church who should be 100% behind them and feed and water them, are going into meltdown, as the big banner that keeps getting shown on the news "What would Jesus have done".. Me thinks he would be tipping over the tables of the traders again..

All the big hitters in the church are so consumed with the politics of it all they are missing the bigger picture looking after their arses.. The message coming from the Church is far louder than anything the protesters are saying.. For the Police to go in and remove them is a political ploy to discredit them as of course rent a mob will jump on the bandwagon, they don't care what point anybody is raising, they just get off on the aggro.

ray.


----------



## Spacerunner (Mar 18, 2006)

We could park in places where we are not wanted, but do we want to alienate the general public as regards motorhomes.

We get bad enough press as it is, but travellers, squatters and protest camps get an even worse press. Do we want to end up being lumped together with these groups?


----------



## rayrecrok (Nov 21, 2008)

Spacerunner said:


> We could park in places where we are not wanted, but do we want to alienate the general public as regards motorhomes.
> 
> We get bad enough press as it is, but travellers, squatters and protest camps get an even worse press. Do we want to end up being lumped together with these groups?


Hi.

There are two possible scenarios in life.. Somebody should do something about it/this/that.. And those that get off their arses and actually do something they feel strongly about, instead of muttering under their breath..

That is why I became a Samaritan... I don't do muttering. If I feel strongly about something I say "What can I do to make a difference..

Try it, It's good to rebel!..

Oh come to think of it there is a third, so it would be Activist, Pacifist, and cough! Realist. Oh to be young again and fall into the first part :wink: .

ray.


----------



## Pusser (May 9, 2005)

So as I understand it reading through all posts, the police have not moved on the demonstrators because they chose not to even though there are laws they could use to move them on.

I think the police need to review their procedures because the way things are shaping up, they will be very busy sorting out civil unrest giving criminals free reign to further their ambitions.

The law is there so let's use it and use it everytime and not cherry pick the reasons. If the BNP camped there how long would the police let them stay even though they are an elected and recognised political organisation.

I'm not blaming the police for these events, just the people who direct the police to do the job that obviously needs doing.


----------



## tulsehillboys (Jul 22, 2010)

Spacerunner said:


> We could park in places where we are not wanted, but do we want to alienate the general public as regards motorhomes.
> 
> We get bad enough press as it is, but travellers, squatters and protest camps get an even worse press. Do we want to end up being lumped together with these groups?


Too late we already are!
Last week I went down to our local Ikea to collect a sofa in our motorhome and the security refused (initially) to let us in to collect it!

Gave us a good giggle though!


----------



## solly (May 1, 2005)

*Protestors at St Pauls*

Well said Rayrecrok. I'm one of those that benefited from 4 years of Education Grant at age 28, for which I am very grateful. Hopefully I was able to put that investment back into society throughout my subsequent career. I worry about my grandchildren who are now coming to University age faced with large debts and little opportunity. I had many opportunities, (not always well taken) as did most of my peers that my grandchildren are unlikely to get. Thank God that there are at least 2 people in the Church of England that have shown integrity and are not easily led by other pressures.
Solly


----------



## thieawin (Jun 7, 2006)

Pusser said:


> So as I understand it reading through all posts, the police have not moved on the demonstrators because they chose not to even though there are laws they could use to move them on.
> 
> I think the police need to review their procedures because the way things are shaping up, they will be very busy sorting out civil unrest giving criminals free reign to further their ambitions.
> 
> ...


No, first it is private land and not a highway, the police have no power, that is made clear above. This is a civil matter, not a criminal one.

Of course they may be able to move on the BNP for other criminal reasons, depending on the words they shout/the banners they fly and the offence they cause (incitement to racial hatred being an offence, protesting against bankers is not, as far as i am aware criminal, yet, but no doubt the poor dears need equality of treatment and protection))


----------



## Spacerunner (Mar 18, 2006)

rayrecrok said:


> Hi.
> 
> There are two possible scenarios in life.. Somebody should do something about it/this/that.. And those that get off their arses and actually do something they feel strongly about, instead of muttering under their breath..
> 
> ...


 * ?*​


----------



## seamusog (May 10, 2005)

Whew!!! Dodged a bullit there, I read the thread title as
"PROTESTANTS at St pauls" was just about to head down there and slap a few ears :lol: 
Fair play to them anyway, the revolution cannot be too far away now.
seamus.


----------



## JockandRita (Jun 1, 2005)

seamusog said:


> Whew!!! Dodged a bullit there, I read the thread title as
> "PROTESTANTS at St pauls" was just about to head down there and slap a few ears :lol:


 :lol: :lol:

Jock.


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

HeatherChloe said:


> I don't think the Police are out to get me. I never said that


_If I park my van nicely for 1-2 nights somewhere, and as we have seen from our discussions, that we all worry that the police with try to get us_. I know you said "police _with_ try to get us, but I read that as "police _will_ try to get us". So "We all worry that the police will try to get us" means to me just that. If I've misunderstood though, please explain.



HeatherChloe said:


> However, there are lots of people on this website who think that the police will move them on if they are parked legally in their van and happen to be in it


There are some people who have raised the question, certainly. If you read my reply on this point, motor vehicles are subject to different legislation to people. You correctly make the point by saying that if a motorhome is parked legally, the police cannot move you on, although that's beside the point (I think) of your thread which is about protestors on a pavement.



HeatherChloe said:


> And if your van is parked on private land, all I'm saying is why is this any different from all these people parked on private land - doesn't the landowner need to go to court to move the van on - by which point, one would presumably have already left?


People can't "park". :roll: I've answered this point already. You can't make a comparison between vehicles and people. See also *thieawn's* reply.



HeatherChloe said:


> 2. I know you mention "the rules" but which legislation are you looking at which says that if I have private land and someone comes onto it, that I need to go to court to get them off it?


I'm not providing legal advice here.  Google is your friend. *theawin* has also make some proper responses here too.



HeatherChloe said:


> Why can't the police be called to take them off it?


See above.



HeatherChloe said:


> If I come home from work one day, and find someone with their feet up watching my TV, why would I need to go to court to get them out of my flat and why can't I call the police and say I have a burglar / intruder?


You can, but even then, you might have some difficulty if the person showed he/she had no intention of stealing, or committing criminal damage, or raping anyone, and had actually done none of these things. Look up the definition of burglary and read it without blowing a gasket.  The other important words to look for are "enters a dwelling". It's unlikely that the Police would leave an intruder in your house, as the likelihood of a breach of the peace occurring (for example) is very high, and he/she would be removed for that reason if no other. There are two examples of exactly that scenario which I've dealt with which come to mind - there was no burglary but I did eject the person.

I suspected before I answered your first set of questions, that you might object to some of my answers (it's happened before  but all I've done here is taken a little time to mention some facts, not in any way to endorse them or express opinions about them. If you want to now have a rant about the law is an ass etc., knock yourself out. :lol: I'll probably join in with some examples. Please don't shoot the messenger though, or I'll take my toys away.

thieawin is correct in his reply to Pusser. It might seem an extraordinary thing to read, but if there is no Police power to take action in a given situation, then the Police would be acting illegally despite people thinking that they should. Law enforcement has to be legal, and that can sometimes be a pain in the ass. 

Dougie.


----------



## Pusser (May 9, 2005)

thieawin said:


> No, first it is private land and not a highway, the police have no power, that is made clear above. This is a civil matter, not a criminal one.


What is the definition of private. I assume if the land is owned by someone but surely all land in London is owned by someone. Even St. Pauls is jointly owned by the church and the Corporation of London. So who for example, own the pavement in Oxford Street or the grass in St. James Park.

So I am not trying to be a clever sod but can anyone tell me what piece of land in the City of London is available for the police to move demonstrators off.

I was also under the impression the police directed the protesters there so they presumably are implicit in this encampment.

And finally why were the protestors moved on from the banking area by the police as presumably they too were on private land.


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

Pusser said:


> What is the definition of private


Turning it on its head, "public" usually means maintained at the public's expense, which is usually owned by the Government. All land everywhere is indeed owned by someone, but if it's not public, it's private. Privately-owned land can of course be used by by the public with the landowner's consent - and there are various rights which apply after periods of time if the public have accessed it without consent and the landowner hasn't objected, but that's another matter.



Pusser said:


> I was also under the impression the police directed the protesters there so they presumably are implicit in this encampment.


That's a pretty illogical piece of logic, Puss. Even guessing would surely come up with a better answer? 8O If by implicit you mean complicit as I think you do, then I'm pretty staggered. Do you really believe that there is a political Police agenda which supports the protestors? That may not be what you're saying though.

Dougie.


----------



## MeFeinMcCabe (Mar 28, 2009)

I attended the 1pm protestors forum meeting today which was quite interesting. Different work details present what they have been up to and points of order discussed. All done in the open for everyone to hear, protestors, public, police. True democracy they call it.

Having visited the site nearly everyday since the protest began there is very little inconvenience or impact to the majority of people going about there daily business.

I think the church recognised this and thats why they stopped legal proceedings.

There are actually more visitors/tourists to the area to see the camp rather than St Pauls which is a rip off at £14 a head to visit.


----------



## Pusser (May 9, 2005)

[quote="asprn
Dougie.[/quote]

You are correct about the wrong word and I didn't mean quite what you implied. The Corporation o London is owned by tax payers\rate payers so therefore the protestors are on joint ownership with presumably the Queen who is the head of the Church of England. So I think an arguable point whether private or public.

I certainly did not mean the police had some ulterior motive but simply they chose the ground for the protesters to demonstrate. I have only read this is what happened so i accept this may not be true.

So the fly in the ointment for me is... Is the area really private or really public or public and private and how does one work that out.

And thank you for lengthy and very neat replies which makes my posts look like a dogs dinner.


----------



## coppo (May 27, 2009)

I,m still attempting to work out why people, canons etc positions have been made untenable and they are having to resign. I could maybe understand it more had they gone through with the legal action which subsequently resulted in violence.

Paul.


----------



## thieawin (Jun 7, 2006)

Pusser said:


> thieawin said:
> 
> 
> > No, first it is private land and not a highway, the police have no power, that is made clear above. This is a civil matter, not a criminal one.
> ...


You are looking at the wrong distinction, there is no such thing as public land (OK commons may be public but generally there are rules about who can use and for what purpose, which makes them de facto private or private land with public access allowed or a right of way over it), even land owned by the state is private and the public can be excluded, the distinction here is between highways and other land. The rules for highways are very different.

As I say above I understand that St Paul's Churchyard (clue there as to what it is, not a pavement or a highway, historically) belongs to the Church, City of London Corporation (not the ratepayers) the crown and also has a bit of common land and you can identify which bit is owned by each owner, so a claim to gain possession by one owner only affects their bit.

As for why churchmen should resign/feel conflicetd, Jesus and the moneylenders might remind you of the philosophical, ethical and religious dilemma they are in


----------



## coppo (May 27, 2009)

So they have resigned after been reminded of that then. :? 

Does it take reminders for them to realise what so called mess we are in.

If there were no protesters outside St Pauls then they wouldn,t have resigned but the mess would still be there.


----------



## Glandwr (Jun 12, 2006)

I visited Sunday night. Apart from lound music there was a very peaceable atmosphere. Neither visitors to the cathedral or passersby seemed to be inconvenienced. 

Interesting aside by a senior CofE cleric on Newsnight last Friday suggesting that if it was a was a major Catholic Church in Rome the water cannons would have been there and used in less than half an hour.

Dick


----------



## seamusog (May 10, 2005)

Glandwr said:


> I visited Sunday night. Apart from lound music there was a very peaceable atmosphere. Neither visitors to the cathedral or passersby seemed to be inconvenienced.
> 
> Interesting aside by a senior CofE cleric on Newsnight last Friday suggesting that if it was a was a major Catholic Church in Rome the water cannons would have been there and used in less than half an hour.
> 
> Dick


Yeh, well, he would say that wouldn't he? After all he's an 'oul forelock tugger is he not, and as such must pay homage to 'the german woman' as she is head of his church. Neither of them like the Catholics, be they in Rome or anywhere else for the matter of that.

You can bet London to a blood orange that the water cannons would be out at St Pauls too, if Cameroon thought he would get away with it!
seamus.


----------



## Glandwr (Jun 12, 2006)

seamusog said:


> Yeh, well, he would say that wouldn't he? After all he's an 'oul forelock tugger is he not, and as such must pay homage to 'the german woman' as she is head of his church. Neither of them like the Catholics, be they in Rome or anywhere else for the matter of that.
> 
> You can bet London to a blood orange that the water cannons would be out at St Pauls too, if Cameroon thought he would get away with it!
> seamus.


Seamus, Seamus  he was not taking a pop, the opposite in fact.

From memory he was a hawk regretting that such action had not been taken here and spoke of his admiration for the symbiotic relationship between church and state in Italy.

You are aware to of the one-way traffic of priests between Canterbury and Rome aren't you? He could have been flirting with El Papa!

Sometimes slights are only there in imagination :wink:, What do you think would happen in Rome?


----------



## HeatherChloe (Oct 18, 2009)

@Dougie

Okay so my point is two fold:

FOR US AS MOTORHOME USERS

1) for us, as motorhome users - it often appears from discussions on this site that people are worried that if they park their vans legally in accordance with parking laws on public roads, that somehow if you sleep in your van, that somehow you might be move on. 

(i) My view is that all people with cars (except those who park them overnight on their own driveway or property) parking a car overnight on the road is legal. If you are sitting or sleeping in your car, that is also therefore legal. Therefore, for those of us on this site whose car is a motorhome, staying in it overnight when legally parked is also legal. 

(ii) If you park your van overnight on some private land, without permission (which surely no one on this site would do, but stil...) then to get someone off private land would require the same court orders as all the squatting or encampment situations as anyone else. And if someone were silly enough to sleep unagreeably on private land, then by the time the court order came through, one would be gone. 

Then 

FOR US WITH PEOPLE AS A VIEW OF THOSE WHO ENCAMP

(i) setting aside whatever one might think of the cause..... if people set up camp on a public street or road, one might think that this would be illegal?? 

(ii) if one were to camp on a private (ie non government) owned piece of land (eg my front garden) then it seems to be a bit bad that one needs a protacted and expensive court situation to get them to move on, and

(iii) if I were stupid enough to leave my keys in the front door whilst walking the dog (and plenty of people have left keys in their front door) if an intruder were to walk in, sit down, and say "I'm staying here till you take me to court, and whether before or even after you get a court order to move me on, I will physically resist, and then claim that it was YOU who turned this physical and violent" well I am not convinced. And yes, then my view is that the law is an ass. 

If I were silly enough to leave my keys in my front door so that someone walked in, I find it abhorrent that I need months of court order to remove someone. And if they park their tent in my front garden, then ditto.


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

HeatherChloe said:


> FOR US AS MOTORHOME USERS


I won't go down this route as it's way off-topic, and we'd both probably get shouted at.  Please however accept the existence of bylaws which can prevent you doing what you think is or should be legal. The fact that you are apparently unaware of such things (bylaws) doesn't mean you would be entitled to be righteously angry if you were asked to move on in the middle of the night. 



HeatherChloe said:


> (i) setting aside whatever one might think of the cause..... if people set up camp on a public street or road, one might think that this would be illegal??


One might, if one was not aware of what is or is not legal. Researching stuff like this is beneficial, and I recommend it.



HeatherChloe said:


> (ii) if one were to camp on a private (ie non government) owned piece of land (eg my front garden) then it seems to be a bit bad that one needs a protacted and expensive court situation to get them to move on


Please re-read my previous replies. That scenario MAY be dealt with by Police immediately if there were reasonable grounds to suspect that a breach of the peace would occur.



HeatherChloe said:


> (iii) if I were stupid enough to leave my keys in the front door whilst walking the dog (and plenty of people have left keys in their front door) if an intruder were to walk in, sit down, and say "I'm staying here till you take me to court, and whether before or even after you get a court order to move me on, I will physically resist, and then claim that it was YOU who turned this physical and violent" well I am not convinced


I can't help you with your unbelief.  I've already suggested previously that you research the definition of burglary.



HeatherChloe said:


> If I were silly enough to leave my keys in my front door so that someone walked in, I find it abhorrent that I need months of court order to remove someone. And if they park their tent in my front garden, then ditto.


Different legal solutions to most situations are often possible, and things are rarely black & white. Did you read any of my replies? I did refer you to a possible Police solution to this scenario to, e.g. prevent a breach of the peace - even in your house. What you think ought to be the law, is a matter for you. You may share a majority view, or you may not. There's no need though to live with doubt - research yourself what you find difficult to believe. Then you will increase your knowledge, and knowledge is power.

Dougie.


----------



## SpeedyDux (Jul 13, 2007)

HeatherChloe,

In reply to your first point, the central issue is whether staying in your motorhome overnight when parked on a public road (or lay-by) is actually legal and not a trespass even if there are no signs indicating that parking is prohibited (either by local by-laws or parking TROs).

You can see from this thread that there is a slight difference of opinion on this between myself and thieawin. We both agree that the Courts have recognised the public has the right to use the public highway for such reasonable and usual activities, including peaceful assembly on the highway*, as are consistent with and do not obstruct the general public's primary right of passage along the highway.

Where we differ is the extent of reasonable and usual activities. I have researched this in relation to a persistent overflow parking nuisance in the estate where I live. Solicitors on the other side have argued that reasonable and usual activity includes an implied right to park a car on the highway, but they failed to cite any legal authority in point in English caselaw or statute to support that assertion. It may be that at some future time the Courts will agree with that assertion, but that is not where the law currently stands, at least in my view. Nowhere can I find a case in which the Courts have actually said that parking on the highway for any prolonged duration would amount to reasonable and usual activity. A brief stop to have a picnic, look at the view, have a short rest, or change a wheel, is about as far as the Courts will go at present in accepting "reasonable" activity. Parking for any duration is not accepted as "reasonable" activity.

In fact, if you look at the examples of activities which the Judges have said are unreasonable, in my view overnight parking of a motorhome or caravan with occupants asleep (whether or not this amounts to "camping" as such) would probably fall on the "unreasonable" side of the reasonable / unreasonable activity divide. I expect thieawin to disagree with me and take the view that it is reasonable. I think it is reasonable in the wider sense, but not from the Court's point of view (yet) so it remains an unlawful trespass on the highway until there is a test case that says otherwise.

For example, in my opinion the reasonableness of such activity also must take into account the conflicting or competing requirements of motorhomers and other (arguably more commercially important) road users such as HGVs for limited parking spaces for overnight stops. It can depend on the local circumstances. For example, in Kent (according to a 2005 Report by Faber Maunsell you can find on the Internet#) there is an estimated demand for 1000 HGV overnight parking spaces and 640 available official and unofficial spaces, so many HGVs on journeys to and from Channel crossings are parked in unsuitable or illegal spaces.

The reason is often that the HGV drivers are out of hours so must stop for a rest otherwise they are liable to be prosecuted. Motorhomers do not have this legal restriction and are free to choose when to drive and for how long. Overnight stops on the highway are a matter of choice for them. It may be unreasonable for motorhomers to take up parking spaces (especially in lay-bys) that would force HGVs to park in unsuitable or illegal spaces elsewhere. The conflict of user requirements is just one potential argument that in some cases parking a motorhome overnight on the road is unreasonable. There may be other arguments on both sides, but it is far from clear-cut in favour of motorhomers.

As far as being asked to move on by Police, just accept what asprn says. All I am trying to do is explain why the belief that what you are doing is legal is a probably a fallacy.

[* This is relevant to the St Paul's protest tent encampment because I understand that part of it is on "highway" owned by the Corporation of the City of London, although the latest news is that legal action has been suspended.]

SD

# see: http://democracy.kent.gov.uk/Data/Kent%20Transport%20Board/20050921/Agenda/$Item%203%20-%20Overnight%20Lorry%20Parking%20Study%20-%20Update.doc.pdf


----------



## HeatherChloe (Oct 18, 2009)

asprn said:


> What you think ought to be the law, is a matter for you. You may share a majority view, or you may not. There's no need though to live with doubt - research yourself what you find difficult to believe. Then you will increase your knowledge, and knowledge is power.


Oh sorry, I thought this was a discussion board. i.e. a place to have discussions.

I was inviting a discussion as to whether or not people think it is right or not that if someone comes onto my land and parks a tent on it and stays there, or comes into my house when I am out and changes the locks and refuses to leave, that it should really be so difficult to get rid of them.

Whatever the actual law is was not what I was interesting in debating, but what people think the law should be.

I don't need to research what the law is when I want to talk about what I would like it to be and how it is so difficult, expensive and time consuming to get people off your land or out of your house, under current laws.


----------



## GEMMY (Jun 19, 2006)

YAWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

tony


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

GEMMY said:


> YAWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


How rude. :lol:

Dougie.


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

HeatherChloe said:


> I don't need to research what the law is when I want to talk about what I would like it to be and how it is so difficult, expensive and time consuming to get people off your land or out of your house, under current laws.


I can't help myself - I have to answer this.

That's called Ignorance (i.e. lack of understanding). It's also kinda funny.  If you're not interested in what the law is, how can you talk about what you want it to be? Maybe it is already what you want....

Dougie.


----------



## thieawin (Jun 7, 2006)

_"it is so difficult, expensive and time consuming to get people off your land or out of your house, under current laws."_
is it?

Well, HeatherChloe, you seem to know the current law, or assume that you do, problem is I'm not sure you do, and to debate what it should be requires you to know what it is.

I'm with asprn

Sorry scruffy protesters upset your sensibilities and all that but with out protesters we wouldn't have the democracy we have today, all parliamentary reform and the extension of the franchise came from extra parliamentary action, from Magna Carta to votes for women and most points inbetween and since


----------



## DTPCHEMICALS (Jul 24, 2006)

The clergy are missing a trick here
They have a congregation that outnumbers many a church in rural areas.
Strike up the organ and start with a few hyms at six in the morning.
Hand out some prayer books and have a couple of sermons a day.

Then show the capitalist side of the business and go round with a collection plate.

Soon get rid of the non working unwashed scroungers.

Dave p


----------



## olley (May 1, 2005)

Japanese proverb.

The law may upset reason, but reason may never upset the law.

In other words just because something is reasonable doesn't make it legal, and just because something is unreasonable, doesn't make it illegal.

Ian


----------



## HeatherChloe (Oct 18, 2009)

thieawin said:


> _"it is so difficult, expensive and time consuming to get people off your land or out of your house, under current laws."_
> is it?
> 
> Well, HeatherChloe, you seem to know the current law, or assume that you do, problem is I'm not sure you do, and to debate what it should be requires you to know what it is.


Yes it is.

If there is someone in your house, you need to get a court order to remove them. They can appeal. It will take you at least a month or maybe more.

If there is someone on your land, you need to get a court order to remove them.

Apart from being able to read legislation, one can also read more helpful guides as to how to evict squatters from your home. I notice, however, that there are more websites advising squatters on how to avoid being evicted.

http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/squat...1?ot=archant.PrintFriendlyPageLayout.ot[\url]


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

thieawin said:


> it is so difficult, expensive and time consuming to get people off your land or out of your house, under current laws?





HeatherChloe said:


> Yes it is


So there you have it then. The barrister put right. :lol:

Dougie.

Note to self:- "people" must always mean "tenants".


----------



## PAT4NEIL (Jul 21, 2007)

Asprn

Maybe you need to re visit the definition of burglary.

It's not Dwelling, Its Building and It does not include Rape.

Neil


----------



## thieawin (Jun 7, 2006)

In the correct circumstances you could get interim relief, against a cross undertaking to pay damages if you had infringed their rights, within 24 hours, and it isn't expensive.

The correct circumstances would be that you had gone out, or were away, for a short period, and came back to find someone in occupation of your home.

Once you had the interim order you get them out using bailiffs and the police will also need tio be in atatendance, and that would probably end it, they would have no right to go back in so would not defend, appeal, etc.

This would not apply to someone just camping on your garden or driveway, you could still use your home


----------



## HeatherChloe (Oct 18, 2009)

thieawin said:


> In the correct circumstances you could get interim relief, against a cross undertaking to pay damages if you had infringed their rights, within 24 hours, and it isn't expensive.
> 
> The correct circumstances would be that you had gone out, or were away, for a short period, and came back to find someone in occupation of your home.
> 
> ...


Thanks for that. It's nice to have someone state what they think the position is, instead of just chastising me.

I must say, it still sounds like a lot of work - to get lawyers, to get a court order, to hire bailiffs and arrange their attendance whilst the police are there.

Back to what I think the law should say - I think that if I come home and find strangers in my house, the law should allow the police to remove them, without me going to all that expense and trouble. In my view. But I may be missing something.


----------



## rowley (May 14, 2005)

Quote from Heather, 
Back to what I think the law should say - I think that if I come home and find strangers in my house, the law should allow the police to remove them, without me going to all that expense and trouble.


I agree entirely with that Heather.


----------



## Pusser (May 9, 2005)

In my view which seems to have been recently consistently wrong if a government wants people off any ground or place they will and they can contrive this, or use terrorism laws, health and safety laws or vagrancy laws. There are loads they could choose from.

But the reason while they are there is that the powers that be think there is too much public supports and don't want to enrage the public further.

Personally, this demo is a demo without end as no one in the demo has an end game and if they did have one, it would take another election and they could well get Nigel Farage in number 10 with the probs we have in Euroland.

I may as well apologise for being wrong now rather than have to come back with a red faced emoticon.


----------



## JockandRita (Jun 1, 2005)

rowley said:


> I agree entirely with that Heather.


I think most of us do.

Regards,

Jock.


----------



## ChrisandJohn (Feb 3, 2008)

HeatherChloe said:


> snipped... I think that if I come home and find strangers in my house, the law should allow the police to remove them, without me going to all that expense and trouble. In my view. But I may be missing something.


I thought it had been stated earlier (possibly by asprn) that in these sort of circumstances the law might allow the police to remove the intruder to avoid a breach of the peace.

Chris


----------



## thieawin (Jun 7, 2006)

someone who has got in legally, without forcing entry, and who is sitting there quietly, locking you out, is not causing a breach of the peace, nor are they behaving in such a way that one might be caused, the owner getting increasingly frustrated outside is more likely to be at risk vis a vis that.

Actually it makes not much difference how they got in at that stage.

Ever heard that possession is 9/10ths of the law? It's surprisingly true just about then. It's why it is said.


----------



## thieawin (Jun 7, 2006)

someone who has got in legally, without forcing entry, and who is sitting there quietly, locking you out, is not causing a breach of the peace, nor are they behaving in such a way that one might be caused, the owner getting increasingly frustrated outside is more likely to be at risk vis a vis that.

Actually it makes not much difference how they got in at that stage.

Ever heard that possession is 9/10ths of the law? It's surprisingly true just about then. It's why it is said.


----------



## seamusog (May 10, 2005)

thieawin said:


> someone who has got in legally, without forcing entry, and who is sitting there quietly, locking you out, is not causing a breach of the peace, nor are they behaving in such a way that one might be caused, the owner getting increasingly frustrated outside is more likely to be at risk vis a vis that.
> 
> Actually it makes not much difference how they got in at that stage.
> 
> Ever heard that possession is 9/10ths of the law? It's surprisingly true just about then. It's why it is said.


Thieawin, I get angry just thinking about that scenario. I have had a quick look back through the threads and, as far as I can see, no one has considered taking the law into their own hands.
If I came home to find my house occupied I would not go tonto, I would have a word with those concerned, I would tell them where I keep my whiskey, then I would return in the early hours, "suitably attired",with friends to balance up the odds if nessessary. then I would go tonto.
If the law cannot help me then I have no recourse other than to take matters into my own hands.
Having said that I do not think it could happen here in Scotland. Opening lockfast premises is a crime, so if I lock up my home and return to find low life scum in situ I would say that there is enough evidence to have them arrested.
The laws of trespass are different too.( Is it any wonder we want shut of you) :lol: 
seamus.


----------



## thieawin (Jun 7, 2006)

Morning Seamus

my analysis of English law is correct, and of Scots or Manx Law, re Breach. It was suggested that a way round the problem is to call the police to remove the squatters for breach. I was just pointing out that the person more likley to be activley behaving in a manner that might provoke a breach was not the squatters/trespassers, but the unfortunate owner.

Your diy plan has a fatal flaw to you as owner, it is against the criminal law to use force to evict/eject someone from a dwelling without a civil court order, in England & Wales, in Scotland and Northern Ireland, also in IOM.

That is why the police cannot just eject squatters.

Not sure what you refer to by "getting rid", me personally, lawyers or the English. I'm not English, I'm Manx. We have criminal trespass in IOM, imported from, or shared with, Scotland, or maybe you borrowed it from us, Remember we have had a parliament of our own continuously since 979. After all our "king" from 1609 to 1765 and lord of the manor/Viceroy/Governor from 1765 to 1828 was the Duke of Atholl and their administrators were no doubt Scots

Remind me when was the first Scots parliament (early 1200's) and when was the Scots parliament dissolved (1707) and when did Scots first get universal adult suffrage in Scots national elections to a Scots parliament (only very recently) and when did Scots women get the vote (1918 at age 30 and 1930 at 21 (equalising the age with men) as opposed to voting equality from 1881(50 years earlier) in IOM) and what is the lower age to qualify for the Scots franchise (18 as opposed to 16 in IOM)? Maybe we Manx have a thing or two to teach the Scots (and the English)


----------



## SpeedyDux (Jul 13, 2007)

Heather, thieawain, seamus

It looks like Parliament may soon change the law to make squatting in residential premises a criminal offence. See clause 130 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. This Bill is awaiting its Second Reading in the House of Lords. 

A typical situation (as reported in the popular press from time to time) this proposed new criminal offence is intended to deal with is when a residential occupier goes out shopping and comes home to find a family squatting in their home, having changed the locks. The squatters produce a bogus "Tenancy Agreement" document to make the Police treat this as a purely civil matter and go away. As things stand the only legal recourse is for the family who were locked out to go to Court to obtain a possession order. In practice they are unlikely to recover any legal costs. These displaced families may find that their home will have been trashed, and many of their treasured possessions are missing, when they finally get back in. The squatters will have moved into another residence and another displaced occupier has to endure a similar trauma. Dreadful. Organised criminal gangs from Eastern Europe are thought to be responsible.

I'm not sure if the proposed offence is really aimed at squatters who move into unoccupied, often derelict, premises and make it habitable. That is mainly a problem for developers and Councils.

Hopefully this gap in the criminal law will be filled sometime in 2012 so the Police can arrest the trespassers and get them out quickly. 

SD


----------



## thieawin (Jun 7, 2006)

The bogus tenancy agreement will probably still mean the police have to treat it as a civil mattter in that scenario, otherwise landlords who want to get tenants out might start making fraudulent allegations.

I suspect that there mighht be more of them than squatters/trespassers who get in whlst you are out shopping.

Of course if the building is publicly owned and habitable why isn't it let, action on that might be a better way of solving the problem


----------



## seamusog (May 10, 2005)

Hi thieawain,
I had forgotten you were from the IOM, my remarks re "getting shut of" were directed at "the Sassenach!" Every once in a while I yank their chain, they get all hot and bothered and reach for the button. Bad seamus :twisted:  
In the scenario I envisaged I would not be anticipating getting caught, hence the "suitably attired" remark. No, it would be an illegal eviction, a certain amount of pain would be involved, blood would be shed, fight fire with fire mate. I would do this under section 5, paragraph 3A, amendment 21 b of the rickets act. :wink
seamus.


----------

