Just seen it on the news

[Bielzibubz]

A group of revellers were forcibly moved off a private piece of land in North Essex by the police for holding a rave.

The party goers fully appreciated they were trespassing on private land but after refusing to move off the land a (quote) 'few hard core revellers' decided to take the opportunity to have a pop at the police.
After all had quietened down a number of the party goers, some of the police and two members of the public were treated for cuts from thrown broken bottles.
They are now complaining that they were treated harshly and the police went over the top and some are even considering suing the police for using undue force!!

Just what in God's name do these people expect. They were breaking the fekin law for Christ sake. They were given ample time to move but refused.
Do these scruffy, grungy oiks think they are above the law. Do they think because they were only "having fun" the rules don't apply to them?

Jeez, why do small things like this pi$$ me off so much.

Is it me? have I lost the plot slightly or are we really going to hell in a hand cart?

 

[shrimperman]

Just society these days sadly. Not everyone of course, just some people believing they have devine right to do what they like.

 

[Bluesmanager]

As far as I can tell, they were standing in a field. Admittedly it was private property, but they weren't doing anything else wrong. The only reason they attacked the police was in self defence. What would you do if you had 100+ riot police coming at you? (Other than run).

 

[Sebastian Weetabix]

Await the fall out the next day on this site if it was football related. But as it isn't then the police are obviously at fault.

 

[Bielzibubz]

Quote[/b] (Bluesmanager @ Aug. 27 2006,22:16)]As far as I can tell, they were standing in a field. Admittedly it was private property, but they weren't doing anything else wrong. The only reason they attacked the police was in self defence. What would you do if you had 100+ riot police coming at you? (Other than run).

Actually there was upwards of 1500 there, holding an unofficial rave without permission. The police ordered them off the site for 2 hours with the use of a helicopter loud haler without one policeman on the ground trying to eject anyone. The vast majority left without a problem but a few remained. When the police went in on the ground to clear up the remainder that's when it turned ugly. To the point where riot police had to be called.

Fact is it wasn't their land. They didn't have permission and were trespassing and therefore the police were perfectly within the law to use force to eject those persons. Whether you think it was just a few harmless young people singing, dancing and having fun or not they were breaking the law.....end of.

What galls me is not the bottle throwing etc etc. That's expected nowadays. It's the fact that these idiots think they could stay on someone else's land as if the law doesn't apply to them. And then some of them think there may be a few quid in it for them to by suing the authorities.

That's what hacks me off.

Oh, and the person that owns the land has been left with the clean up bill for all the rubbish the ones that did leave peacefully left behind.

Yeah, all harmless fun isn't it

 

[Xàbia Shrimper]

Just seen the news item on BBC News Online. What do these people think they are doing?! Look at the state of the place! "I was only dancing." Yeah, and also turning a rural area into a bloody rubbish dump!

 

[Sebastian Weetabix]

Quote[/b] (D62SUBOY @ Aug. 28 2006,00:39)].



It's the fact that these idiots think they could stay on someone else's land as if the law doesn't apply to them. And then some of them think there may be a few quid in it for them to by suing the authorities.

That's what hacks me off.

Oh, and the person that owns the land has been left with the clean up bill for all the rubbish the ones that did leave peacefully left behind.

I refer the honourable gentleman to the comments I made about travellers recently.

 

[RobM.]

But isn't trespass a civil offence? Not that I condone it though.

 

[OneDreweBroughton]

Quote[/b] (RobM. @ Aug. 30 2006,22:01)]But isn't trespass a civil offence? Not that I condone it though.

Didn't the Criminal Justice Act make 3 people meeting in public a criminal offence or something? I'm sure one of our learned friends can tell us.

The revellers may have been breaking the law, but if the police used unreasonable force so would they have been. This country wasn't last time I checked (admittedly this was before the terror alerts) a police state, so the police aren't above the law either.

 

[The Artful Shrimper]

illegal raves are not taxed, they pay no copyrights for the music they play in public performance, they have no policy regarding use of drugs etc.

however.
In pre-communist Russia one of the major points of conflicts were the cossacks who would regularly ride into town and break up any dances/gatherings.
Seems strange that in this day and age we actually have accepted the state of affairs that kids/people are not allowed to go into a field in the middle of nowhere and enjoy themselves.
No let them all come back into town, bored and kick a few bus shelters in eh?
And why can't we have the freedom to do what we like? Had my grandfather et al realised what this country would do in the way of crap welfare state (giving handouts to spongers and letting genuine people suffer), opening the door to all and sundry regardless of wether they are criminals and anti-British, telling all the soldiers they are fighting for freedom and then being told their great grandkids won't be allowed to have a dance/laugh in the future.
Whose country is it! its ours !!!
Jeez.


.... and relax

 

[SARF]

There are thousands of clubs around the country where people can go to dance, booze and take drugs.. Of course the downside is they have to pay to get in and pay bar prices.. Of course this covers the licensing, the cost of buying the club and running it, the cost of insurance, the cost of disposing of gallons of ****.. Why bother with all this when you can wreck some field for next to nothing and claim some hippy right to do it.. Bring on the police horses I say..

 

[The Artful Shrimper]

Quote[/b] (SARF @ Aug. 31 2006,08:47)]Why bother with all this when you can wreck some field for next to nothing and claim some hippy right to do it..  Bring on the police horses I say..

I remember on scooter rallys and one day we confronted the Yorkshire police. they told us that we had no camp site and therefore had to go home. We informed them that we was instructed to camp in any public place as this was a civil offence and they'd require a court order to move us.
They asked us who wa stold this. It was the organizing committee telling up to 8000 scooterists that if the council didn't give us a place that had been pre arranged but subsequently blocked then we should camp in the amenitie parks.
They soon found us a campsite when tents started getting pitched in hotel gardens !!!

I do believe the law has changed now, be intersting to know if tresspass is now a criminal rather than a civil offence.

 

[Bielzibubz]

Quote[/b] (The Artful Shrimper @ Aug. 31 2006,08:58)]be intersting to know if tresspass is now a criminal rather than a civil offence.

As the law stands at the moment.

Trespass

As applied to a piece of land open to the public which is not common land or a public right of way. This is also one area where the laws of England and Scotland are significantly different.

If you enter land against the wishes of the landowner, or if you stray outside an area to which you are allowed access, or if you use land in a way which you are not authorised to do, you become a trespasser. Ignorance of that fact is no defence under this law.

Any person can enter a public park, because the landowners permit it. However, this does not make a permanent right of access, and therefore it is within the power of the landowner to ask any person to leave. The landowner does not have to give a reason. If the person does not go, as quickly as possible, by the shortest obvious route, then they are trespassing. Despite the well known sign "Trespassers will be Prosecuted" trespass is not a criminal offence, and trespassers cannot usually be prosecuted. They can, however, be sued. There is little chance of such a matter ever being so serious as to be worth suing over, and so this rarely happens.

People in a park will often protest (if asked to leave) that it is public land. This does not mean that they have a right to be on it at all times - they do not. If the place closes at a certain time and someone is present after that time, they can then be considered to be trespassing. If a visitor misbehaves at any time and refuses to leave when asked to do so by someone with a right to do so (usually the landowner or a representative) then the visitor becomes a trespasser because they no longer have the landowner's permission to be there, even if they entered legally.

This law is of little practical use but might be employed when arguing with more reasonable people. It does not apply to people on a public footpath or other right of way.

Note: this also gives landowners the absolute right to close off paths (other than rights of way), and areas without notice or explanation.

It is against the law to trespass on any land (and that includes land covered by water such as rivers or lakes) or in any building. The word trespass covers much more than people usually realise. All land in this country belongs to someone. If you go on to land without the owner's permission, you are trespassing unless there is some right of access for the public, or for you specifically (for example if you have a right to pass over the land to reach some land of your own).

Sometimes, people go onto private property such as heathland which is not apparently fenced off and where the owners do not seem to mind. The fact that there is no fence or no sign saying that the land is private does not mean that people can go there. Wandering on to farmers' fields or other places which are obviously private is clearly trespassing, but so is wandering over land which may not be so clearly private, if the public has no right of access.

It is not normally possible to be a trespasser whilst legitimately on a right of way. However, if the user is not using the right of way as a route to get from one place to another, but using it for some other reason, such as to interfere with the landowner, they can be considered to be a trespasser. A real example of this concerned a hunt saboteur who was deemed by a court to be a trespasser for shouting and waving flags, whilst on a footpath, on a grouse moor. This important distinction was the purpose for which the person was there. This does not mean that it is always wrong to shout and wave flags on a footpath.

See also the legislation on the so-called 'right to roam'. Note that this applies only to specific areas of land and has many limitations. There is still no such thing as a general 'right to roam'.



Yes, I have way to much time on my hands

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Quote[/b] (D62SUBOY @ Aug. 27 2006,19:53)]are we really going to hell in a hand cart?

Sun reader then... or at least Richard Littlejohn