h a l f b a k e r yNot so much a thought experiment as a single neuron misfire.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
There are many official Public Footpaths in rural areas.
There are also may unofficial routes across private land that are none the less used by people "just taking a short cut" - but those using such routes are on doubtful legal ground.
The proposal is for a scheme to register those who wish
to legitimately cross land which does not belong to them, and where no public right of way exists.
The would-be walker registers with their local authority, pays a fee, and is given a registration number linked to some sort of acceptably secure ID. A driving license may be suitable. They undertake to respect the rights, privacy and property of landowners, behave in a responsible manner. and to observe and promptly report any damage, untoward circumstances, unauthorized activity, or perhaps sick or injured animals to the landowner.
A landowner joining the scheme is issued with durable signs bearing a reference number to display on the property. Information may be passed by those crossing the land by calling a toll free number or via the internet, quoting the reference number.
The landowner retains the right to challenge trespassers and ask them to leave; but if the challengee can show their credentials as a "registered trespasser", the landowner may be assured that their intentions are honorable rather than mischievous. A landowner may report transgressions, which may result in registrations being withdrawn.
(There doesn't seem to be a category for Public: Land access)
There's GOLD in them there yards, wheeee doggie!
http://docs.google....b85Xkj2L2OEPlRO-pTw
Pphhhht! <ting> [2 fries shy of a happy meal, Nov 06 2009]
[link]
|
| |
I sort of like the idea, but I think it's not going to catch on.
Most farmers (if they're the main landowners in question)
would probably just prefer to have nobody on their land,
regardless of their intention. I'm not sure that an offer to
report unauthorized activity etc would be enough incentive. |
|
| |
But [+] for the ingenuity. |
|
| |
So the government, or whatever the issuing authority is, gets to
decide who can come on my land? Oh I think not! If I want
hikers or whatever to feel welcome to cross my land in peace, I
will post signs to that effect. I will decide who I think is safe to
trust on my property, not the government. [-] |
|
| |
Edit: I suspect I may have orverlooked something vital: if the
landowner asks someone to leave, and they show him their
credentials, and he still wants them to leave, do they have to
honor the landowner's wishes, or do do they get to tell him
"Fuck off, I'm registered!" and ignore him? |
|
| |
// do they have to honor the landowner's wishes? // |
|
| |
Yes. The scheme is to provide some measure of reassurance that the "trespasser" has no malicious intent. |
|
| |
gotta [-] it: insurance, random shot pellets, sunbathers, stills, dogs... I mean this is a society where burglars can sue if they come to harm while pilfering a house. |
|
| |
//using such routes are on doubtful legal ground// what's doubtful about it ? |
|
| |
<random public mischief> putting up a "Danger Piranha" sign at a swimming hole. </rpm> |
|
| |
Rights against the landowner are waived those registered take out their own insurance if they wish. |
|
| |
// random shot pellets, sunbathers, // |
|
| |
"At your own risk", "privacy". |
|
| |
"Blind eye" patches will be provided. |
|
| |
Dogs must be on a lead... |
|
| |
// I mean this is a society where burglars can sue if they come to harm while pilfering a house. // |
|
| |
seems pointless, overall. |
|
| |
Provided there's an extensive background check that's run
through Interpol, and fingerprints *and* DNA samples must be
provided by the applicant and stored indefinitely with Interpol,
and the landowner can post legally-accepted signs to keep out
even licensed trespassers if he wishes, this might not be too bad
an idea. I also think that card-holders should only be allowed to
trespass on properties with clearly posted signs at all access
points that state that licensed trespassers are welcome. I'm
removing my fishbone and going neutral on this. |
|
| |
// I'm removing my fishbone // |
|
| |
"May Angels and Cherubim sing you to your rest ......" |
|
| |
By the by, it appears that *someone* has failed to deliver on his
promise to bun. |
|
| |
[21Quest], one problem with that is the possibility of legal culpability for injury that happens to people crossing your land, and as I understand, current US law does make you culpable if you have invited people onto your property. A sign probably counts. I would assume that registration under this scheme would include freedom from culpability, "cross at your own risk" being a specific condition of becoming a registered trespasser. |
|
| |
For that reason alone, I support that scheme. [+] |
|
| |
Well... the culpability is certainly an issue, but that's a tricky
subject. A sociopath could put up the welcome sign (complete
with the "at your own risk" warning) then set traps to kill the
licensed trespassers. He could shoot them, and claim he was
hunting and they were struck by a stray bullet and be free from
culpability. So you can't completely absolve the landowners of
responsibility. It would be open season on trespassers. For that
reason, I can't condone it, hence my neutrality. |
|
| |
I don't like these wishy-washy measures. Either we believe in private land or we don't. When we have decided what we believe in, then we need to stick to it and enshrine rights to support it in law. |
|
| |
If we don't believe in private land, then perhaps start a slow (say 100 year) process of nationalising the land, and granting rights rather than land. Grazing rights, building rights, cultivation rights, picnic rights, access rights, mining rights... |
|
| |
If we do believe in private land, then put a stop to all this patchwork of guidelines, laws, partial rights and the like. Invest full control over the land and every part of it and in it in the landowner. |
|
| |
[vvv], no country will allow total private ownership, since liability for taxes etc. is usually geographically based. i.e. your total ownership scenario surely allows a freeholder to declare their land an independent juristiction? |
|
| |
In England and Wales, the scenario mentioned, of people taking a short cut, would be strong grounds for the path being recognised as a public right of way. In Scotland there is presumed access to most uncultivated land anyway so public rights of way legislation is less critical. |
|
| |
Wearing a beard and a knapsack is already an unofficial version of this. |
|
| |
Falderee, falderaaah, faldereeeee.... |
|
| |
Wear a camouflage uniform and drive a tank. Not much chance you'll get any violent arguments against your little excursion. |
|
| |
// those who wish to legitimately cross land which does not belong to them, and where no public right of way exists//
Hmm! Surely, in this case, the word legitimately is inappropriate. If it was legitimate then people wouldn't need a license in order to make it so. I think 'illegitimately' is the word you are looking for.
Pedantry apart, I'm against the idea because, presumably, there will be a fee to obtain the license and if you don't have the money then you can't buy one. Access for the rich, shotgun pellets for the poor!
Also, you have an assumption that this will be used purely to cross areas of rural land but actually I foresee gangs of unruly but 'licensed' teenagers trampling through old ladies' gardens. |
|
| |
//presumably, there will be a fee to obtain the license and if you don't have the money then you can't buy one// |
|
| |
I happen to like that aspect of the idea. [+] |
|
| |
//Pedantry apart// soap, mouth, wash... |
|
| |
"registered burglars" who remove stuff you probably didn't want anyways, |
|
| |
"registered litterers": you don't mind do you ? I'ts just some old newspapers and you have such a big property... and you can always put signs up all-round your property in all the major world languages if you feel otherwise... |
|
| |
"registered rapists": well sometimes "no" means "yes"; you can always purchase a "no" means "no" card, just wait in line... |
|
| |
Or you could just get your prospector license. |
|
| |
You'll like this [link].
Even scarier though is that it legally entitles carrying a handgun as well.
I was thinking of applying before our government goes all millitant and such. |
|
| |
what if you discovered a mime on your property pretending to be stuck in an invisible box or pretending to be a statue of someone famous? and they produced no credentials and everyone knows that mines have no malicious intent could you shoot him for trespassing? |
|
| |
A mime is a terrible thing to waste. |
|
| |
Yes, but we all know how dangerous land mimes are. |
|
| |
Silent...but deadly.
Think I'll stick to hunting for gold mimes. They're so mercurial. |
|
| |
Now now, let's all mime our manners. |
|
| |
If the mime was pretending to be a young sheep, would that be The Silence Of The Lambs ? |
|
| |
It's not silent - you're a bit mutton!
(Apols to cockneys everywhere) |
|
| |
Something about the title of this intrigues me. Sort
of like a registered wildebeest would be. I like to
trespass, so I should probably not like this though.
Not sure. |
|
| |
//// I mean this is a society where burglars can sue if they come to harm while pilfering a house. // |
|
| |
But thier families can. Killing the trespasser is not enough. You have to be a little more proactive, 8th. |
|
| |
Oh, killing the trespasser is enough, alright. You just have to hide
the body. What's the family going to do then? |
|
| |
"I know that mean old man killed my boy!" |
|
| |
"How do you know that, ma'am?" |
|
| |
"Because he told me he was gonna be trespassing there!" |
|
| |
"You mean you knew your son was going to commit a crime and
didn't
report it?" |
|
| |
Actually, this idea is at least borderline MFD material, since it
boils down to 'license people who do X'. I'm still staying neutral,
though, because I'm not really sure how much it applies with
some of the annoed stipulations. |
|
| |
There's more point to this idea in a small, crowded country like the UK than there is in the U.S., Australia or Canada, where I can probably just detour around your property without serious inconvenience. I think that crowdedness makes a big difference to attitudes to land-holding and land-holders. |
|
| |
I don't think size of nation matters so much as size of property
being traversed, when travelling on foot, which is what I think
this is geared toward. A road-weary foot traveller who must
reach a point that is on the far side of a 40-acre horse pasture is
going to make a choice to either hop the fence and walk through
the field, or travel twice the distance or more to go around. And
he's probably thirsty, too. |
|
| |
Although, for landowners, there is certainly a difference, I think. I
have a (approximately) half-acre backyard and neighbors within
arms' reach of my fences. I imagine I would probably be much
less welcoming to a school-age kid running through it than a
farmer might be to a kid cutting through his pasture. Then
again... maybe not. |
|
| |