Legal advice wanted - Vixen Tor

J

Jemmie

Well-Known Member
Joined
4 Sep 2005
Messages
431
Location
h Ewe
Visit site
Interested to know what the legal eagles make of the following CPS decision.

Facts appear to be

The two climbers were climbing when told politely to leave by the female landowner. They queried her saying they were causing no damage and had no intent to sue in the event of an accident. At any rate the packed up and pretended to leave. Once she had gone they began climbing again.
She then returned with a male who became very agressive and insisted they come down immediately. The leader tried to explain that he had to finish the route for safety reasons. The male the proceeded to try and cut the rope only hindered by the belayer.
Another man then appeared and began to throttle the belayer whilst he was belaying.

CPS decision reported below


http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/displayN...e=sidebarsearch
 
On the face of it, it sounds like the farmer chappies committed assault, and also criminal damage to the rope. The article mentions "actual bodily harm", so presumably he bruised one of the climbers too.

It's not clear why the CPS dropped the case, but it could be that they decided that public money on the prosecution could be better spent in other ways. Or maybe the victims lost their enthusiasm for supporting the prosecution etc.

On the face of it, the climbers were committing trespass. But from my vague memories of the subject, there are two kinds, civil and criminal trespass. Trespass is only a crime if you commit some kind of damage at the same time (which can be relatively minor, like wading throught crops). In this incident, it sounds like civil trespass, which is rather less serious.
 
A different take!

We once had an amorous (pissed) couple in our front garden. She was alternately administering a blow job or being taken "Roman" fashion against the fence post.

A shocked SWMBO called the police and he was still at it when they arrived and they literally had to pull him off!

Police said that no crime had been commited as it had all taken place on private land...my private land.

Magic
 
Re: A different take!

What's known as being caught "in flagrante delicto"!
 
Re: A different take!

Wasn't very flagrantly delicious for SWMBO who is now on an intensive therapy course for post traumatic stress syndrome. She says she keep getting flash backs!

She has also asked my why I can't keep going that long - pressure - pressure!

Magic
 
Yes.

This I think is a very interesting case, where the landowner has flagrantly flouted law and has got away with it.

Raises two questions in my mind 1) Whats the point of CROW and 2) Eastablishment bias when in a landowner situation.
 
You can use necessary force to remove a trespasser although I agree throttling and cutting a climbing rope seem to exceed this but, without witnesses this might prove difficult to satisfy the criminal burden of proof of beyond reasonable doubt. I have to say that the climbers were mainly to blame for the incident by deliberatley flouting civil law. I regularly trespass on rivers in my kayak but if I am asked to leave I do so. I would not trespass on land because I broadly agree with the law on land ownership unlike river access law.Guess its down to personal choice where you draw the line.
 
[ QUOTE ]
You can use necessary force to remove a trespasser

[/ QUOTE ]
Where do you get this from?! Landlords would absolutely love it if you were right, would save having to get all those messy eviction court orders for tenants etc.
 
I see you have labelled this as NB so I am confused as to why it is here. According to the description of Scuttlebutt in the Main Index it is to "chat about cruising and discuss this month's hot topic" (presumably a cruising topic).
Still, now you are here this subject has been going on for a couple of years or more when the Alfords first acquired the land. It is an ongoing problem and aggravating them by illegally committing trespass only serves to exacerbate it. Those climbers must have known that, but still went ahead. I have no sympathy for the landowners, but they are apparently acting on the advice of their insurers.
 
There is definitely no bias in favour of landowners here in East Sussex. I have a large garden and about 5 acres of adjoining mixed wood and brambles, which has always been private land with no legal public right of access. When my fences were cut (several times) by trespassers I could identify, the police were not interested, and ended up warning me because I used barbed wire to repair the gaps in the fence.

Re. the other part of this thread, did the writer mean Greek fashion?
 
Re: A different take!

seem to be a few loopholes in english law.
this one might have been suitably filled by the application of a couple of buckets of cold water /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Re: A different take!

guess the police could have prosecuted for obscenity, corrupting public morals, something like that, but were probably enjoying themselves too much!
 
Why is here?

I placed it here because I believe that the implications could affect access by many here when they are cruising and wish to leave the boat and go for a walk!

The problem with the Alfords has being going through the legal process for some time, and with due respect it is the Alsfords who have shown blatant disregard for the law.
 
Probably the answer is 'mass trespass', as in the celebrated civil action on Kinder-Scout in 1932. ( Kinder Scout Mass Trespass )

Then, if the landowner and friends try violence again, the aggrieved walkers/climbers could physically defend themselves by dumping 'em in their own rotting seaweed.

I would think that there are still thousands of Old Labourites more than willing to do an 'action replay' of one of English socialism's successes. And maybe it's overdue.

Does anyone know a handy Trust Port where thousands of forumites could protest their right to anchor where they please....? And argue with whom they please....?
 
[ QUOTE ]
I would think that there are still thousands of Old Labourites more than willing to do an 'action replay' of one of English socialism's successes.

[/ QUOTE ]I'm only quarter English - can I come along too? Just fix the date.
 
Yon Jemmie is an argumentative, contentious Jockinese git. But it takes one to know one......

It seems clear to me that, while there is some progress towards reasonable Rights of Access for the innocent public, a range of interests are hell-bent on frustrating those rights. This seems to me to apply both on the land, and on the water, these days. And these are *my* rights.

It's up to people like us to say "No. I *will* exercise my right to be here." That can certainly be done without damaging legitimate commercial property rights. It's the illegitimate ones that are of concern. Consider this.....

In Norway, two factors are especially important in shaping the cultural and institutional contexts in which these activities take place. The first is the rule of "open access to nature," or allemannsrett , which can be traced to the Viking period. It gives the public broad rights to roam freely in the open countryside using non-motorized transportation, to pick berries and mushrooms, and, with some qualifications, to pass through and stay on private property. The second is "participation in outdoor recreation," or the notion of friluftsliv, which is a tradition in Norway. Allemannsrett, which is now codified in law, and friluftsliv, which is a core Norwegian value and ideal, set the rules by which locals understand their rights of access to nature and the boundaries within which decision-makers can address environmental problems.

Does that sound like a good cultural legacy to hand on to our children?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top