You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
No thanks. Means 90% of where I ride suddenly becomes illegal and far more likely land owners will shut off their land because there is law to back them up, rather than just tolerating people on their land.
Currently doing the rounds on social media with a petition also, at 22k signatures so far - https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/220663%20
Though this pops up every now and again and hopefully just gets kicked out as it usually does. Usually when the ramblers remind them just how public rights of way and rights to roam were achieved in this country.
Sledge hammer to crack a nut....
As with many of our laws we are stuck with modifications and such to Acts from a previous time.
To be fair I says “Make entering and occupying land without consent a criminal offence”
So if enacted as proposed cheeky trails would still be a civil matter, but could pose an issue for rough camping.
As the op says the ramblists will likely kick this into the long grass, but as we know never, underestimate the daily heil readers dislike of all things not middle England.
It used to be but was changed to a civil offence as it was a daft law.
So if enacted as proposed cheeky trails would still be a civil matter, but could pose an issue for rough camping.
I'm no expert (but then neither are MP's) ... but the problems I foresee are the way our laws are all strung together and natures "law of unintended consequences"
(In the same way a bike is legally a cart or sledge etc. unless specifically noted not to be)
A couple of years ago there was a bill the House of Lords kicked out (twice I think) which due to a convoluted set of other laws meant a PSCO could hand out on the spot fines to a 10yr old... or parent with a 2yr old toddler.
This was buried.. went through the commons until some fogey in the Lords understood some of the consequences of the law. I'm not a Lords supporter btw.... but this really highlighted to me they are in fact useful and our MP's vote without bothering to understand consequences.
I honestly can't imagine an MP justifying to their constituents why they voted for this (if they understood) ... but from my PoV terms like "occupying land" can be manipulated
I’m not a Lords supporter btw…. but this really highlighted to me they are in fact useful and our MP’s vote without bothering to understand consequences.
Because they don't have a political career to worry about, so can't be bullied into voting for something because otherwise they won't be promoted within the party etc. Means they can vote with their conscience rather than with the party. IMO it works very well.
Occupation of land also sounds like a way of getting rid of any protects.