Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Outside the bag the box came in.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                 

Be A Registered Trespasser

Social Responsibility meets Land Access
  (+13, -5)(+13, -5)
(+13, -5)
  [vote for,
against]

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 A landowner may report transgressions, which may result in registrations being withdrawn.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)

8th of 7, Nov 05 2009

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.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 05 2009
  

       // 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.
8th of 7, Nov 05 2009
  

       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>
FlyingToaster, Nov 05 2009
  

       // insurance,//   

       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".   

       // stills, //   

       "Blind eye" patches will be provided.   

       // dogs... //   

       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. //   

       Not if they're dead.
8th of 7, Nov 05 2009
  

       seems pointless, overall.
FlyingToaster, Nov 05 2009
  

       // I'm removing my fishbone //   

       "May Angels and Cherubim sing you to your rest ......"
8th of 7, Nov 05 2009
  

       [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. [+]
gisho, Nov 05 2009
  

       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.
vincevincevince, Nov 06 2009
  

       [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.
pocmloc, Nov 06 2009
  

       Wearing a beard and a knapsack is already an unofficial version of this.   

       Falderee, falderaaah, faldereeeee....
wagster, Nov 06 2009
  

       // 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.
DrBob, Nov 06 2009
  

       //Pedantry apart// soap, mouth, wash...   

       Coming up:   

       "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...
FlyingToaster, Nov 06 2009
  

       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?
vfrackis, Nov 06 2009
  

       Yes, but we all know how dangerous land mimes are.
normzone, Nov 06 2009
  

       Silent...but deadly.
Think I'll stick to hunting for gold mimes. They're so mercurial.
  

       If the mime was pretending to be a young sheep, would that be The Silence Of The Lambs ?
8th of 7, Nov 07 2009
  

       It's not silent - you're a bit mutton!
(Apols to cockneys everywhere)
Jinbish, Nov 07 2009
  

       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.
blissmiss, Nov 07 2009
  

       //// I mean this is a society where burglars can sue if they come to harm while pilfering a house. //   

       Not if they're dead. //   

       But thier families can. Killing the trespasser is not enough. You have to be a little more proactive, 8th.
MikeD, Nov 07 2009
  

       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.
pertinax, Nov 08 2009
  

       But doesn't the UK already have rights for people to walk on others' land, making this scheme unnecessary there?   

       // I like to trespass //   

       You're welcome to trespass on my land.   

       Edit: I tricked myself this time. I thought I was replying to a recently active discussion, having forgotten I'd opened this idea from my "untouched in 10 years" view, and seeing only that the last digit of the year in the timestamps was 9.
notexactly, Nov 14 2019
  

       A possible motivation for landowners does exist. I've walked down age-old public footpaths that intereact with people's property in the most odd ways: "headed to the top of the mountain, sure, down the side of the house, past the bins accross the patio and up the stone steps around the back of the garage, mind the dogs." It might be a legal nightmare to change the original footpath route, but a more practical route for all concerned might be available with the proposed system, without creating some permanent right of way.
bs0u0155, Nov 14 2019
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle