|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Silbury Hill » Trespass on SSSI sites |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
bladup 1986 posts |
Sep 02, 2012, 20:38
|
||
|
tjj wrote: scubi63 wrote: A nice barbed fence hidden within a good deep ring of natural thick prickly brambles and nettles will keep almost everybody off the hill. Oh yes, and maybe a sniper hidden on Waden Hill to catch the rest ;o). I know your post is tongue in cheek Scubi - barbed wire is nasty though. I had to negotiate electric fencing and barbed wire while out trespassing the other day - tricky. I went past Silbury today and had a good look from the top deck of the 49 bus; there is a clear and very defined path going up on the side visible from the Beckhampton Road. So, lots of people must go up there, and think its ok to do so if they stick to the trodden path. VBB's suggestion that the information boards explaining clearly why people shouldn't go up there seems to be the only realistic short term solution (in more than one language). It would be good if the information included details of why Silbury is a SSSI too. It's a good answer to what do you do? I visit sites by negotiating electric and barbed wire fencing while having a sideline of picking up idiots litter while doing it, we sound like mad[wo]men, do we not?
|
|||
thesweetcheat 6210 posts |
Sep 03, 2012, 18:21
|
||
|
It's funny coming back after a couple of days to a locked thread. Usually that signifies major fallings-out, shouting, flouncing and handbags (and that's just from me). This time we have a thread locked when there seems to have been general agreement and consensus on a lot of points, and not even a cross word. Ha. Anyway, very interesting post about criminal trespass. It might be worth mentioning that trespass to land (unless other offences are involved) wasn't a crime until 1994, when the much-loved Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 came into force and is still quite limited. But there is a much longer standing civil law relating to trespass (a "tort"). Here's a bit from wiki: "Trespass to land involves the "unjustifiable interference with land which is in the immediate and exclusive possession of another". It is not necessary to prove that harm was suffered to bring a claim, and is instead actionable per se. ..... The main element of the tort is "interference". This must be both direct and physical, with indirect interference instead being covered by negligence or nuisance. "Interference" covers any physical entry to land, as well as the abuse of a right of entry, when a person who has the right to enter the land does something not covered by the permission. If the person has the right to enter the land but remains after this right expires, this is also trespass. It is also a trespass to throw anything on the land." So a landowner can bring a civil action for trespass, even where there isn't criminal trespass.
|
|||
tjj 3606 posts |
Edited Sep 03, 2012, 20:44
Sep 03, 2012, 20:43
|
||
|
thesweetcheat wrote: It's funny coming back after a couple of days to a locked thread. Usually that signifies major fallings-out, shouting, flouncing and handbags (and that's just from me). This time we have a thread locked when there seems to have been general agreement and consensus on a lot of points, and not even a cross word. Ha. Anyway, very interesting post about criminal trespass. It might be worth mentioning that trespass to land (unless other offences are involved) wasn't a crime until 1994, when the much-loved Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 came into force and is still quite limited. But there is a much longer standing civil law relating to trespass (a "tort"). Here's a bit from wiki: "Trespass to land involves the "unjustifiable interference with land which is in the immediate and exclusive possession of another". It is not necessary to prove that harm was suffered to bring a claim, and is instead actionable per se. ..... The main element of the tort is "interference". This must be both direct and physical, with indirect interference instead being covered by negligence or nuisance. "Interference" covers any physical entry to land, as well as the abuse of a right of entry, when a person who has the right to enter the land does something not covered by the permission. If the person has the right to enter the land but remains after this right expires, this is also trespass. It is also a trespass to throw anything on the land." So a landowner can bring a civil action for trespass, even where there isn't criminal trespass. This is helpful ... I wonder if the people who consider it their 'right' to go up there see what they are doing as 'interference' - or rather 'their heritage'. And then there are those that go up because they can - there is no one there to stop them. I admit I've never actually seen anyone up there so I guess people do it early morning or late evening. How do you stop people? I'm against electric fences and barbed wire - there is so much of that around. Silbury has a natural moat usually in the winter or after a sustained period of rain ... I think that works. I've never been up there myself so don't know if its risky under foot but if someone were to sustain injury EH may be liable if it could be proved they hadn't taken proper measures to prevent trespass. I posted something on the other thread about this just before it was locked. (I've no idea why it was locked as for once there seemed to be a consensus of opinion - think its safer for me not to comment).
|
|||
|
thesweetcheat 6210 posts |
Sep 03, 2012, 21:23
|
||
|
tjj wrote: This is helpful ... I wonder if the people who consider it their 'right' to go up there see what they are doing as 'interference' - or rather 'their heritage'. Needless to say, most of us on TMA are guilty of the act of trespass (in its civil definition) the minute we step off a footpath and onto someone's land unless we have their permission to do so. This is one of the reasons I much prefer days out in access areas to English farmland. Ultimately, unless we have permission we could all be sued in a civil court. However, although a landowner could bring an action for trespass, unless they can show (on the balance of probabilities) that damage was caused as a result of the trespass, it would appear to be a pretty pointless action to bring, as it would be difficult to see what compensation could be sought, other than a nominal amount. I don't think a court (civil or criminal) is likely to recognise a defence that we were just visiting our heritage. :o)
|
|||
|
thesweetcheat 6210 posts |
Sep 03, 2012, 21:24
|
||
I should add that none of the above applies to Scotland, this is England and Wales law.
|
|||
|
bladup 1986 posts |
Edited Sep 03, 2012, 21:31
Sep 03, 2012, 21:28
|
||
|
tjj wrote: thesweetcheat wrote: It's funny coming back after a couple of days to a locked thread. Usually that signifies major fallings-out, shouting, flouncing and handbags (and that's just from me). This time we have a thread locked when there seems to have been general agreement and consensus on a lot of points, and not even a cross word. Ha. Anyway, very interesting post about criminal trespass. It might be worth mentioning that trespass to land (unless other offences are involved) wasn't a crime until 1994, when the much-loved Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 came into force and is still quite limited. But there is a much longer standing civil law relating to trespass (a "tort"). Here's a bit from wiki: "Trespass to land involves the "unjustifiable interference with land which is in the immediate and exclusive possession of another". It is not necessary to prove that harm was suffered to bring a claim, and is instead actionable per se. ..... The main element of the tort is "interference". This must be both direct and physical, with indirect interference instead being covered by negligence or nuisance. "Interference" covers any physical entry to land, as well as the abuse of a right of entry, when a person who has the right to enter the land does something not covered by the permission. If the person has the right to enter the land but remains after this right expires, this is also trespass. It is also a trespass to throw anything on the land." So a landowner can bring a civil action for trespass, even where there isn't criminal trespass. This is helpful ... I wonder if the people who consider it their 'right' to go up there see what they are doing as 'interference' - or rather 'their heritage'. And then there are those that go up because they can - there is no one there to stop them. I admit I've never actually seen anyone up there so I guess people do it early morning or late evening. How do you stop people? I'm against electric fences and barbed wire - there is so much of that around. Silbury has a natural moat usually in the winter or after a sustained period of rain ... I think that works. I've never been up there myself so don't know if its risky under foot but if someone were to sustain injury EH may be liable if it could be proved they hadn't taken proper measures to prevent trespass. I posted something on the other thread about this just before it was locked. (I've no idea why it was locked as for once there seemed to be a consensus of opinion - think its safer for me not to comment). At one of the hoar stones in the cotswolds some toffs pointed there guns at us and told us we couldn't visit the stone, we told them to fuck off and carried on anyway, as i was walking i didn't know if they were going to shoot us, when we went back past them we told them to fuck off again, but his dad was freaking out on him for threatening us with the guns, my misses then tried running him over and we were gone, a visit that sticks in the mind, they won't stop me from getting where i need to go, as in if that didn't stop us, nothing would!
|
|||
|
thesweetcheat 6210 posts |
Sep 03, 2012, 21:31
|
||
|
I've never climbed Silbury, nor do I have a burning desire to do so. But I have climbed onto the top of The Gop in North Wales, the largest artificial mound in Wales (I think). The Gop is a huge cairn, very badly damaged by antiquarian excavations into its top. But it's still huge. I imagine some people will view climbing this as being no different to Silbury, but I mention it by way of contrast (note the fieldnotes, etc). http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/136/gop.html
|
|||
|
bladup 1986 posts |
Sep 03, 2012, 21:50
|
||
|
thesweetcheat wrote: I've never climbed Silbury, nor do I have a burning desire to do so. But I have climbed onto the top of The Gop in North Wales, the largest artificial mound in Wales (I think). The Gop is a huge cairn, very badly damaged by antiquarian excavations into its top. But it's still huge. I imagine some people will view climbing this as being no different to Silbury, but I mention it by way of contrast (note the fieldnotes, etc). http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/136/gop.html Silbury often has people sunbathing on it!!! nevermind all the other coming and goings, the path going from the north is so well worn that it shows the amount of people who go up, it's clearly too strong a pull for anything to really stop them, so just cut your losses and make a way up like sanctuary said, just like it had been for years [ before they stopped people ], maybe have someone there to make sure that no one damages anything, it's the same with stonehenge let the people in and let the people employed there watch for damage and litter [ because we know that in all the people who come, there would be idiots ], same with newgrange and maes howe, these places should be protected, but they should also be free to visit, thoughout the year.
|
|||
Howburn Digger 986 posts |
Sep 03, 2012, 22:00
|
||
|
thesweetcheat wrote: Needless to say, most of us on TMA are guilty of the act of trespass (in its civil definition) the minute we step off a footpath and onto someone's land unless we have their permission to do so. This is one of the reasons I much prefer days out in access areas to English farmland. Ultimately, unless we have permission we could all be sued in a civil court. However, although a landowner could bring an action for trespass, unless they can show (on the balance of probabilities) that damage was caused as a result of the trespass, it would appear to be a pretty pointless action to bring, as it would be difficult to see what compensation could be sought, other than a nominal amount. I don't think a court (civil or criminal) is likely to recognise a defence that we were just visiting our heritage. :o) Visiting your Heritage or whatever... don't let such thought deter you from wandering in seasrch of stones... and before you think of ever get to having to defend yourself in a court... Unless you had damaged property I dont think any kind of action would be raised for merely visiting a site. Too costly and pretty much guaranteed to fail. For a number of reasons. If someone asks you to leave their land, there is no law in England or Wales which says you have to run at top speed off it. Take your time and go via whatever stone you want to look at. If some pompous Captain Manwaring wanted to try to raise an action against you for trespass... let them. By the time it ever came to court you wouldn't be on their land any more. Burden of proof would be on them to prove an offence had taken place. Photos of you wouldn't count as you could insist they were photos of you leaving... Anyway, first of all the landowner would have to get your name, rank and serial number in order to raise some kind of action against you. So when he asks for your name and address to send the summons to... "Just don't tell him Pike!" Here in Scotland we have no such truck with Captain Manwarings, but careful during the shooting season on some moorland sites and have care and courtesy at lambing time. And sites on farms up here... If I'm able to I always stop and pass the time with whoever is on the farm, in the tractor or bringing in the coos and let them know what I'm doing! It is only courtesy.
|
|||
|
bladup 1986 posts |
Sep 03, 2012, 22:02
|
||
|
thesweetcheat wrote: I've never climbed Silbury, nor do I have a burning desire to do so. But I have climbed onto the top of The Gop in North Wales, the largest artificial mound in Wales (I think). The Gop is a huge cairn, very badly damaged by antiquarian excavations into its top. But it's still huge. I imagine some people will view climbing this as being no different to Silbury, but I mention it by way of contrast (note the fieldnotes, etc). http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/136/gop.html I've climbed them both and the main difference is Silbury is a lot higher but the gop has better views, what is the difference in your mind [ there's none in mine ] and would you climb silbury if there wasn't any signs telling you not to? i think climbing any barrow/tumuli/cairn or mound is pretty much the same! to me it's none of them at all or all of them, i don't get that people would some but not others! it's all quite interesting isn't it?
|
| Pages: 38 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
