We (cpl) were in the gravel pit off the a46 last sat
with half a dozen doggers nothing happening when a long came the farmer closed the gate and snapped the lock lucky one of the doggers had a lump hammer and smashed the lock.
not sure what would have happened next.
I think if he had called the police he may have come off worst.
does anyone no if its false imprisonment
could we have had the ba???rd locked up
there are no signs to say keep out or clamp area
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
A46 warning
last reply
16 replies
2.3k views
3 watchers
0 likes
Sex God
I presume this gravel pit is on private land, so therefore you would not have right of access to it and the farmer would be within his rights to close the gate.
Suggesting if he had called the Police, he *would have come off worse* sound to me like a threat towards him and is completely un necessary
Perhaps you should visit the site during daylight hours and have a look around to see if there are any signs around suggesting it is private land, which you may have missed seeing in the dark?
Failing all else, find another place to have your fun
Tracy-Jayne
Suggesting if he had called the Police, he *would have come off worse* sound to me like a threat towards him and is completely un necessary
Perhaps you should visit the site during daylight hours and have a look around to see if there are any signs around suggesting it is private land, which you may have missed seeing in the dark?
Failing all else, find another place to have your fun
Tracy-Jayne
thanks for your comments
i dont think you can just lock someone in without notice
talking to others had the police arrived we may have been able
to have had him charged.
there are no signs its out of the way and to my knowlege there has never been
an sort of problem why a few of us meet there.
there is no such law as trespass
the whole area is littered with walks and paths
we were looking for comments of a legal note
i dont think you can just lock someone in without notice
talking to others had the police arrived we may have been able
to have had him charged.
there are no signs its out of the way and to my knowlege there has never been
an sort of problem why a few of us meet there.
there is no such law as trespass
the whole area is littered with walks and paths
we were looking for comments of a legal note
Sex God
Sorry Simon, the farmer has rights on his own land. There are indeed laws of trespass, though it is usually considered a civil matter, not a criminal one..
"Trespass is a civil liability. Trespass... is committed where a person intentionally, recklessly or negligently enters..... without either permission to do so, or legal right to enter" (Allen, 2001, p. 464).
The farmer has right to restrict entry to his land whenever he wishes, and provided he is not blocking a public right of way, he would be in the right here. Even if the gate was cutting off a right of way, as long as people can get through, e.g. via a stile, I doubt the fact that he trapped cars in there would be of any consequence.
I doubt the police would be interested really, but you're certainly wrong that the farmer would come of worse than you.
You wanted the law, there you go.
"Trespass is a civil liability. Trespass... is committed where a person intentionally, recklessly or negligently enters..... without either permission to do so, or legal right to enter" (Allen, 2001, p. 464).
The farmer has right to restrict entry to his land whenever he wishes, and provided he is not blocking a public right of way, he would be in the right here. Even if the gate was cutting off a right of way, as long as people can get through, e.g. via a stile, I doubt the fact that he trapped cars in there would be of any consequence.
I doubt the police would be interested really, but you're certainly wrong that the farmer would come of worse than you.
You wanted the law, there you go.
Section : 68
Act : Criminal Justice Act 1994
Subject : Aggravated Trespass
It is an offence for a person to trespass on land in the open air, and
do there anything which is intended to:
intimidate so as to deter,
obstruct, or
disrupt
persons engaged or about to engage in lawful activity on that or adjacent land in the open air.
Section 61 CJPOA <Stones 2001 8-24900> enables a police officer to direct trespassers on land to leave the land where the occupier has taken steps to ask them to do so, and either
they have damaged the land; or
they have used threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour to the occupier, her or his family, employees or agents; or
between them they have 6 or more vehicles on the land.
Failure to obey a direction to leave or returning to the land as a trespasser within 3 months is an offence.
Section 62 provides a power for the police to seize vehicles of persons failing to comply with a direction under Section 61.
The senior officer present at the scene has to believe that the conditions set out in Section 62(1) have been fulfilled. Evidence that they were fulfilled in fact will be relevant only in an inquiry into the questions of whether the senior officer held the belief and whether, if he or she did, the belief was reasonably held. A defendant charged with an offence under the section (or, for example, charged with assaulting a police office in the execution of her or his duty) will be entitled to raise these questions. Although a successful defence along these lines is likely to be rare, the senior police officer will need to provide evidence in all cases justifying his or her giving of a direction.
Act : Criminal Justice Act 1994
Subject : Aggravated Trespass
It is an offence for a person to trespass on land in the open air, and
do there anything which is intended to:
intimidate so as to deter,
obstruct, or
disrupt
persons engaged or about to engage in lawful activity on that or adjacent land in the open air.
Section 61 CJPOA <Stones 2001 8-24900> enables a police officer to direct trespassers on land to leave the land where the occupier has taken steps to ask them to do so, and either
they have damaged the land; or
they have used threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour to the occupier, her or his family, employees or agents; or
between them they have 6 or more vehicles on the land.
Failure to obey a direction to leave or returning to the land as a trespasser within 3 months is an offence.
Section 62 provides a power for the police to seize vehicles of persons failing to comply with a direction under Section 61.
The senior officer present at the scene has to believe that the conditions set out in Section 62(1) have been fulfilled. Evidence that they were fulfilled in fact will be relevant only in an inquiry into the questions of whether the senior officer held the belief and whether, if he or she did, the belief was reasonably held. A defendant charged with an offence under the section (or, for example, charged with assaulting a police office in the execution of her or his duty) will be entitled to raise these questions. Although a successful defence along these lines is likely to be rare, the senior police officer will need to provide evidence in all cases justifying his or her giving of a direction.
Casanova
Quote by jomu
Section : 68 Criminal Justice Act 1994
Subject : Aggravated Trespass
It is an offence for a person to trespass on land in the open air, and
do there anything which is intended to:
intimidate so as to deter,
obstruct, or
disrupt
persons engaged or about to engage in lawful activity on that or adjacent land in the open air.
Can't see anything constituting Intimidation, disruption etc going on that would stack up to an offence under this section
Quote by jomu
Section 61 CJPOA <Stones 2001 8-24900> enables a police officer to direct trespassers on land to leave the land where the occupier has taken steps to ask them to do so, and either
they have damaged the land; or
they have used threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour to the occupier, her or his family, employees or agents; or
between them they have 6 or more vehicles on the land.
Note the use of the word AND in the law. Being there alone isn't grounds enough for the Police to take action. The other condition, like Jomu says also has to be fulfilled. As it was, a couple and half a dozen doggers = 7 vehicles, therefore, you could have been told to go by the Police, in which case the area would have been out of bounds to you for 3 months too.
There is no case to be made for false imprisonment, as any of you could have been free to go (on foot), therefore your liberty was not being removed from you.
However, denying you the use of your property would have been somethig that you could have done something about. If there were no warning signs that cars parked without permission could be impounded and released for a fee (which he legally could have done) then denying an owner the full or partial use of his property is tantamount to theft.
Smashing the lock off thegate would definately have been actionable for criminal damage.
Basically there is a right legal hornets nest that you could stir up, if you were so minded to do so, but all that will happen is that you and the farmer will get nowhere fast and lawyers will earn a fortune out of it.
hi scot
not many cars down there compaired to other places
had the farmer come in and said please leave we would all have gone.
this site is very remote had we not have got out or he not called the police.
where would he stand if someone was taken ill there or walking away
we have several veteran doggers that we all keep an eye on they
would have been in real trouble.
not many cars down there compaired to other places
had the farmer come in and said please leave we would all have gone.
this site is very remote had we not have got out or he not called the police.
where would he stand if someone was taken ill there or walking away
we have several veteran doggers that we all keep an eye on they
would have been in real trouble.
Quote by simon.r
.
where would he stand if someone was taken ill there or walking away
we have several veteran doggers that we all keep an eye on they
would have been in real trouble.
I don't think this has any real relevance to the original issue unless someone was actually taken ill and the landowner refused to allow you to seek medical treatment for that person. "What if" doesn't come into it.
There's plenty of agricultural land around without keep out signs, I don't know that farmers are required to announce it as private property any more than you need to put up a sign at the end of your garden. Perhaps the farmer has asked people to move on previously and is fed up? Just chalk it up to experience and find somewhere else as you now know it's private property
Sex God
Quote by simon.r
had the farmer come in and said please leave we would all have gone.
There were several of you and one of him. He would have had to have been a very brave (or stupid) man to tell you all to do one to your faces. Yeah, you might have gone but there are plenty of troublemakers out there who would not have gone. In fact the farmer might have had cause to worry about his safety - as you say it is a very remote place.... him against a gang... come on....get real, of course he's not going to take you all on!
The safest thing for him to do would be to call the police. I suspect that is what his intention was. As I have already said, he can lock his own gate whenever he likes. You were in the wrong by being there, not him.
It really bugs me when people whine about being wronged on PRIVATE LAND..... I say again, you should not have been there...... think about it! What if a group of people decided to park their cars in your garden..... would you be pissed off? Yes, I bet you would.... think about what you would do.
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: on the subject of wineing
my original intention was to warn others of the problem with the site to avoid further conflick but as the therad developed there were some interesting comments that may aply to other sites
just to state the obvious
the farm closed the gate and left
if it was the farmer and not a malecious dogger now theres athought!!
there no signs
there is no line of sight as its high banked
its been used for years.
my original intention was to warn others of the problem with the site to avoid further conflick but as the therad developed there were some interesting comments that may aply to other sites
just to state the obvious
the farm closed the gate and left
if it was the farmer and not a malecious dogger now theres athought!!
there no signs
there is no line of sight as its high banked
its been used for years.
Sex God
Quote by simon.r
on the subject of wineing
my original intention was to warn others of the problem with the site to avoid further conflick but as the therad developed there were some interesting comments that may aply to other sites
just to state the obvious
the farm closed the gate and left
if it was the farmer and not a malecious dogger now theres athought!!
there no signs
there is no line of sight as its high banked
its been used for years.
FFS!! Give us a break mate will you :!:
It's private land. You don't have rights to be on there whether it's been used for years or not.
Get over yourself and while you're about it try and get a life
Sex God
Quote by simon.r
if it was the farmer and not a malecious dogger now theres athought!!
So you don't even know if it was the farmer! Ha ha ha, sooooo..... how are you ever going to get him charged with anything..... there's no bloody proof of anything at all!
You seriously need to drop this, get a life, or stop having a laugh at our expense.
Whichever of the above options you choose, I'm going to lock this thread. You have been told the law, if you need further help I suggest you see a solicitor. They will happily take your money then piss themselves laughing the second you are out of their office.
:roll:
