You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
This is untrue as I know the guy. Don’t know why she didn’t have the balls to just admit it and move forwards.
Because that "moving forwards" would involve paying the fine for the offence that she just admitted to. I think you'll find other parents will do exactly the same thing - tell their kids to shut up and say it wasn't them.
There are vast areas of the UK that are completely out of bounds to the general public as they are privately owned, a lot of the time by extremely rich people who rarely set foot on said land.
So it's OK to help yourself to someone else's property so long as they're rich then? Guy down the road has half a dozen cars, he can't possibly use them all at once so it's OK if I take one of them?
My back yard is privately owned and I rarely set foot in it other than to cross it to put the bins out. Reckon it's fair game to kick my back gate down and build a skate park in there cos I'm not using it?
"They rarely set foot on it" - well tough shit, it's still theirs and not yours. Go buy some land yourself or negotiate renting it from the owner. Like many people, I live in a leasehold property and I have to pay a nominal fee per year for rental of the land upon which this house has stood for nearly 130 years. The property developer didn't just go "well **** it, they've got a lot of land they aren't using" and rock up with several barrowloads of bricks and a trowel.
You can argue the injustice and inequality of UK land ownership all you like and I'd absolutely agree with you, it's shit that we don't have access to this land and in many cases we surely should. But that doesn't give you carte blanche to steal it.
Who is actually threatening fines? A private security firm?
Private security firms cannot issue fines, this is why parking infractions are now 'charges'. The only people who can issue fines are councils (or companies acting at their direction) and courts.
In this case if someone is threatening a spot fine then it's either a) on behalf of the council, b) unlawful or c) a lie.
You can argue the injustice and inequality of UK land ownership all you like and I’d absolutely agree with you, it’s shit that we don’t have access to this land and in many cases we surely should. But that doesn’t give you carte blanche to steal it.
Its not stealing it to walk or cycle across it and remember the Kinder trespass. At some points civil disobedience is morally correct
However that only app;lies if yo are doing no damage not if you are digging trails
My back yard is privately owned and I rarely set foot in it other than to cross it to put the bins out. Reckon it’s fair game to kick my back gate down and build a skate park in there cos I’m not using it?
No, the example I used was following a 'conversation' with a gamekeeper who'd chased me about half a mile on a 4wd quad bike because I was riding a bike on a rarely used footpath across a grouse moor miles from civilisation (and caused far more damage and disturbance than I had in the process). Perfectly ok to walk down it but not ride a bike. I am well aware that riding on a footpath over a grouse moor and digging dirt jumps in South London are totally different circumstances and wasn't commenting on the op's ideas/plans/digging, more about kids being called selfish and greedy for trying to have fun
So it’s OK to help yourself to someone else’s property so long as they’re rich then? Guy down the road has half a dozen cars, he can’t possibly use them all at once so it’s OK if I take one of them?
You can argue the injustice and inequality of UK land ownership all you like and I’d absolutely agree with you, it’s shit that we don’t have access to this land and in many cases we surely should. But that doesn’t give you carte blanche to steal it.
The difference here, is that one example is actually stealing, theft as defined in law; the other isn't. Because you're not depriving the 'owner' of their property, or preventing them from accessing and enjoying, it. It is well worth looking at how private land was first obtained; invariably through force and extortion. So let's look at it like this:
Imagine your bike gets nicked. Many years later, you spot your bike again; it's changed hands many times, and the current owner had nothing to do with the original crime, and may well be oblivious to it, believing that they now 'own' the bike. The bike is still, technically, yours though. Translate this to much of the 'ownership' of land in the UK at least, and probably the world over, and we see that the land was originally obtained by means which we would now consider illegal. Definitely immoral. So whilst this is still little more than a philosophical argument, it does make a case for public access to 'private' land; in Norway, private landowners are in the minority, and most land is owned by the state, government institutions, and local authorities. 'Allmenningsrett' or 'Everyman's Right' dictates that people have the legal right to access all land which is not cultivated or has animals grazing, that isn't part of a military restricted area, or closed off for safety reasons etc. And obviously not that which is part of someone's private garden, although if you have a couple of unfenced acres out of the back of your house, you might see someone take a shortcut. An attitude to land 'ownership', that is enviable.
My back yard is privately owned and I rarely set foot in it other than to cross it to put the bins out. Reckon it’s fair game to kick my back gate down and build a skate park in there cos I’m not using it?
That's just silly, and you know it is. 😉
Private security firms cannot issue fines, this is why parking infractions are now ‘charges’. The only people who can issue fines are councils (or companies acting at their direction) and courts.
In this case if someone is threatening a spot fine then it’s either a) on behalf of the council, b) unlawful or c) a lie.
I'm generally of that mind when it comes to 'fines'. Again, I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think that a private security firm has any power really to impose a fine on someone; I thought only a court can really do that? IE; if you are issued a fine and don't pay it, it's down to the issuer to take you to court (and then prove loss, damage/disturbance caused etc). Which might be a tad difficult, seeing as how you have to actually obtain someone's details in order to be able to do so, and not even the police have the power to force you to give these up. So I'm really not sure what Rentacop can do, to be honest.
I’m really not sure what Rentacop can do, to be honest.
They won't be rentacop, councils have powers that let them fine people and can subcontract the activities to a company. It's the way that they fine people for littering for example. Or enforce no cycling areas in town centres
With kids who you can't fine they'll go down the criminal damage route and involve police and social services if they are minded to get tough.
Sounds like the area has a PSPO so powers are there to take action if the council feels the need.
I would suggest more effort is made in trying to find an adult to talk to the council and the kids rather than worrying about fines. One will stop the other.
'There are vast areas of the UK that are completely out of bounds to the general public as they are privately owned, a lot of the time by extremely rich people who rarely set foot on said land.'
That's very, very different to East Shene Common though, which has total access and potentially millions of peoploe who can go on it, so rambling on about that's only a useless distraction to the real discussion
trying to find an adult to talk to the council and the kids rather than worrying about fines.
Yep, that's the plan anyway. The author of the article is in contact with the council (she also happens to be an adult).
They won’t be rentacop, councils have powers that let them fine people and can subcontract the activities to a company. It’s the way that they fine people for littering for example. Or enforce no cycling areas in town centres
But in order to fine someone, you first have to ascertain their details. Which, as I've said, even the police can't force you to give. Contracted security personnel have no more powers to demand such details, as any other Tom, Dick or Harry. They also have no powers to detain you, other than via a citizen's arrest, which they can only legally justify if a person was committing an actual crime, or posing a threat of harm to themselves or others. So you can just tell them to **** off, and leave, and there isn't a damn thing they can do about it. That's the bottom line.
But in order to fine someone, you first have to ascertain their details. Which, as I’ve said, even the police can’t force you to give.
The relevant legislation gives them the powers to ask for legit ID and if you refuse or give false ID you are committing an offence under that legislation
Contracted security personnel have no more powers to demand such details, as any other Tom, Dick or Harry.
They do, you commit an offence if you don't tell them your details. It's not an admission of guilt, you don't need to pay the notice if you haven't committed the offence and can see them in court
They also have no powers to detain you, other than via a citizen’s arrest, which they can only legally justify if a person was committing an actual crime, or posing a threat of harm to themselves or others.
They'll be told to follow you, they'll take car regs or address of any property you enter. Obviously they'll not follow for miles. They may try and get the police to attend or pretend to.
So you can just tell them to **** off, and leave,
Why swear? You could leave or ignore.
and there isn’t a damn thing they can do about it. That’s the bottom line.
They could ask police to attend although it's unlikely they will if you walk away, however there maybe a coordinated antisocial behaviour push and the PC maybe around. You'll most likely not get a FPN but rather be charged for the original offence and for not providing ID by the council
The details are for a FPN which you pay to absolve of liability for the offence , it's not a fine as such. If you don't accept you have committed the offence you could simply not pay and see them in court for the offence they allege you committed. It's advisable to have witnesses as they tend to double up and so it's two against one.
If you are digging they could seek to ID you for a charge of criminal damage, English bluebells in the woods you are digging in? That's another offence with a significant fine.
Under 18, they'll be down the school boring everyone with don't do whatever messages.
Because you’re not depriving the ‘owner’ of their property, or preventing them from accessing and enjoying, it.
Of course you are, you're digging bloody great holes in it. You can still "access and enjoy" your front garden if I dig up your petunias and install a roller disco.
It is well worth looking at how private land was first obtained
No it isn't. It's not the middle ages any more.
Eat the rich
Eat the rich
Excellent idea. On a global scale, anyone who has 2K to spend on a toy is pretty high on the wealth list (we just don't realize it because all our friends are of similar wealth and we see even wealthier people quite often). So, let's start with anyone who has an expensive bike, they're much easier to catch than people who drive cars. Also, pet dogs and cats are a sign of excess wealth (working animals are an exception), so let's BBQ them too.
anyone who has 2K to spend on a toy is pretty high on the wealth list
Meh, I don't really agree with this. There are plenty of working class people who will spend that much on a project car or dirtbike or a nice trip somewhere. Just depends where your priorities are.
The property developer didn’t just go “well **** it, they’ve got a lot of land they aren’t using” and rock up with several barrowloads of bricks and a trowel.
Someone did at some point... 😆
2 month update on this:
Richmond Council won basically. Digging has all but stopped, only a few jumps are left and most of the trail have been blocked off by rather aggressive looking log barriers. We are allowed to ride there, but only on the stuff which is left, which is all a bit shit.
Bit of a sorry sight compared to its former glory really.
I've personally moved on to more promising projects elsewhere with a bit more elevation 😉
Hopefully in a few months time digging will restart and the cycle will go on again. By then though I will be well into uni so no time for localised silliness.