- Messages
- 7,408
- Edit My Images
- Yes
For using a tripod.
I don't think so
For using a tripod.
Arrested for what exactly?
Not providing a suitable name and address for summons. Under whatever act is pertinent.Arrested for what exactly?
If it's an offence that ultimately, they could be summon'd for, then yes. But the offence would be a breach of whatever act and section applies for a bylaw like this, not necessarily "using a tripod".I don't think so
This is a screwed up legal system when using a tripod is a more serious offence than speedingNo it's not, (otherwise we'd all be criminals!)
No one said it was more serious?This is a screwed up legal system when using a tripod is a more serious offence than speeding
So if using a tripod is not a criminal offence why do you have to give your name and address? (I understand that you have to give name and address when driving a motor vehicle even if no offence whatsoever is committed, but the tripod user was not driving a motor vehicle)No one said it was more serious?
Neither are criminal and speeding actually carries a higher fine (FPN £100 for speeding, £60 for this onerous tripod offence).
Because it's an offence that if you don't pay the fixed penalty, you'd go to court for (or if you refused the fixed penalty). To go to court they need to serve a summons, so they need to know a) who to write the FPN to and b) who to send the summons to and where to send it if the FPN isn't complied with.So if using a tripod is not a criminal offence why do you have to give your name and address? (I understand that you have to give name and address when driving a motor vehicle even if no offence whatsoever is committed, but the tripod user was not driving a motor vehicle)
Because it's an offence that if you don't pay the fixed penalty, you'd go to court for (or if you refused the fixed penalty). To go to court they need to serve a summons, so they need to know a) who to write the FPN to and b) who to send the summons to and where to send it if the FPN isn't complied with.
If people didn't know who hey were reporting it won't really work!
So you can only be fined if you VOLUNTARILY give your name and address?It was in relation to the question: are you obliged to give you name and details?
No your not obliged
You would only be obligated to give your details if you are suspected of committing an offence for which you can be arrested
This was a civil matter, not a criminal one
Speeding definitely isn't a criminal offence, it's a traffic offence. Which is why you don't have to disclose it when asked for any criminal history.I know Jim says otherwise but I think speeding and using a tripod on Hampstead Heath are in fact criminal offences. If they are not, then what are they?
No, you'll be fined anyway. If you give your name and address, you'll be fined. If you don't, you'll be arrested, then fined!So you can only be fined if you VOLUNTARILY give your name and address?
I guess it depends on the offence itself but as above, I can't find this tripod offence as one listed by the Home Office.
Yes I'd think so, but was this a specific offence?Isnt the 'any erection ' (fnar fnar) bye law offence usually used to deal with camping and or fishing(with shelters) - thats how we use ours (and not being constables the dealing is more 'you're breaking x byelaw so do yourself a favour and go gorth and multiply theres a good lad'). It wouldnt occur to me to invoke it for a tripod or even a hide so long as the photographer wasnt a bell end about it
No, it's not civil, bylaws aren't civil, they are enacted by parliament. It's as enforceable as any offence, and you can be arrested (as with any offence) if arrest criteria are met, as per a previous post.It was in relation to the question: are you obliged to give you name and details?
No your not obliged
You would only be obligated to give your details if you are suspected of committing an offence for which you can be arrested
This was a civil matter, not a criminal one
Yes I'd think so, but was this a specific offence?
You can be 'convicted' of any offence even non criminal ones, hense the traffic offence example. A conviction is simply a finding of guilt.Presumably if you are summonsed to the criminal courts you are then convicted. But how can you be convicted if you haven't committed a criminal offence?
This is the problem with bylaws. Any authority can make up their own, so there is no consistancy at all. What might be lawful in one area might not be in another!according to the granuaid article its a specific cluse under the LCC byelaws 1932 section 11 baning photographic stand aparatus - I'd assume originally intended to stop photographic fly trading on the heath of the 'take your picture guvnor' type belonging to an earlier age.
our byelaws don't have that clause - but do have the standard 'any errection' clause
I thought we'd established ages ago that breaking a bye law is a crime.
I thought we'd established ages ago that breaking a bye law is a crime.
So whilst breaching a bylaw is a "criminal" offence, it's not a recordable offence thus won't give you a criminal record (though they **might** show up on an enhanced CRB check but let's not go there...)
Phew.
Exactly, it might show but won't mean anything as it's not what they're really checking for, so will immediately be discounted.Thing is - CRB, or DBS as it is now, in most cases is about checking that your prospective employye isnt a nonce , or a serial killer, or a fraudster etc.. so yes it might come back as 'this guy once used a tripod on hampstead heath' , but it would yake a seriously paranoid employer to withdraw an offer of employment based on that (especially if it was declared on the form)
Exactly, it might show but won't mean anything as it's not what they're really checking for, so will immediately be discounted.
we did - but not everyone reads the whole thread
Also the not giving your details thing is bad advice even in a purely civil matter like say trespass , it falls under the 'acting like an obstreperous cock' criteria , and will just exarcerbate the situation.....
The shopping centre example wouldn't be trespass as they entered with permission. Breaking the rules once in doesn't constitute trespass, more of a breach of agreement between the photographer and the shopping centre. I guess it's like entering a car park but then not buying a ticket. You're not trespassing but likely to get a civil invoice dressed up as a fine!"trespass" could be something as innocuous as taking a photo somewhere where it is against the rules such as a shopping centre - this is VERY different from the flytipping scenario that you describe, where actual harm is caused to the land owner (it would cost them money to have the rubbish removed).
"trespass" could be something as innocuous as taking a photo somewhere where it is against the rules such as a shopping centre - this is VERY different from the flytipping scenario that you describe, where actual harm is caused to the land owner (it would cost them money to have the rubbish removed).
The shopping centre example wouldn't be trespass as they entered with permission. Breaking the rules once in doesn't constitute trespass, more of a breach of agreement between the photographer and the shopping centre. I guess it's like entering a car park but then not buying a ticket. You're not trespassing but likely to get a civil invoice dressed up as a fine!
You're probably right, the only reason I thought it might not be is I thought there was a stating "having entered as a trespasser" but realised I was thinking of something else!I don't entirely agree, imo strictly speaking it is trespass if you refuse to stop/leave - because the permissive access has conditions , once you've broken those conditions you no longer have permission to be there (I dealt with this a lot while working as a PRoW offiucer - clasic case being cycling on a footpath.... the footpath gives you permission to pass and freely repass on foot (or in a wheel chair or class one mobility scooter) it doesnt give you permission to cycle and therefore someone doing so is guilty of trespass , if the landowner wants to sue them for it )
You're probably right, the only reason I thought it might not be is I thought there was a stating "having entered as a trespasser" but realised I was thinking of something else!
Hmm 6 or more vehicles between them? Why is this law never used when the gypsys come to town, break down gates and set up camp in the local field's?Returning to my point about not acting like a cock , having checked my bible aka the big blue book (the PRoW handbook), it appears that a police officer can ask a civil trespasser to leave if they do any of the following (S61 of CJPOA)
- they have damaged the land/premises; or
- they have used threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour to the occupier, the occupier's family, employees or agents; or
- between them they have 6 or more vehicles on the land
acting like a cock is very easy to construe as threatening ,abusive or insulting behaviour - refusing to leave , or returning within 3 months is an arrestable offence (police can also seize vehicles if relevant)
Also S68 of CJPOA provides that agravated trespass (a criminal offence) occurs when a trespasser does anything (with reference to any lawful activity on the land) which has the effect of
a) of intimidating those persons or any of them so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity,
b) of obstructing that activity, or
c) of disrupting that activity
(this is inaddition to the more traditional agravations of commiting another offence while you are there)
Although that is meant to deal more with things like hunt sab it could be held that a photographer setting up a tripod so that it obstructs a path , or repeatedly firing a flash in a distracting manner was guilty of these - especially if hes a complete cockend when challenged about his behaviour
(it used to be that S68 only applied in the open air, but that was changed by S59 of the ASB act 2003 )
I don't entirely agree, imo strictly speaking it is trespass if you refuse to stop/leave - because the permissive access has conditions , once you've broken those conditions you no longer have permission to be there (I dealt with this a lot while working as a PRoW offiucer - clasic case being cycling on a footpath.... the footpath gives you permission to pass and freely repass on foot (or in a wheel chair or class one mobility scooter) it doesnt give you permission to cycle and therefore someone doing so is guilty of trespass , if the landowner wants to sue them for it )
yeah but the same applies - if you are stopped while taking a photo on private land theres nothing to be gained by acting like an obstreperous hard on, refusing to identify yoiurself and generally being a cock ....
I'm having some difficulty understanding what you would sue for. Doesn't the landowner have to prove damage, or that the trespasser obtained some benefit from his actions, which can be translated into financial terms?
Hmm 6 or more vehicles between them? Why is this law never used when the gypsys come to town, break down gates and set up camp in the local field's?