UKH

Apologies if this has already been posted.

If anyone is interested in giving their views :

https://www.homeofficesurveys.homeoffice.gov.uk/s/I1EI5/

I'm disappointed with the wording of some of the questions. 

there seems an intent to force an answer that can be misinterpreted for the purpose of saying that every respondent is in favour of criminalising trespass

Is this Priti Patel's idea of how we should do things now?

I agree.  The first question, I interpreted as having the choice of :

• I agree this should be an offence.
• I don't have a strong opinion.
• I think the law should go further

You can write in the note boxes but will my words be taken into account when the answers are compiled into statistics?

The first question is:
1. To what extent do you agree or disagree that knowingly entering land without the landowner’s permission should only be made a criminal offence if it is for the purpose of residing on it?

You may answer Strongly agree .... strongly disagree in 5 steps. Yo may also add an explanation of your answer.

So, how do you answer if you think entering someone's land should never be illegal? OK, now how do you answer if you think entering someone's land should always be illegal?

Poisonous!

edit: Gritrash0 won!

it is a disgrace, and cause for worry, that the Home Office should post such a trap masquerading as a consultation.

there does indeed seem to be an implied agreement by taking part that trespass should be made illegal.  I do not think the text boxes are anything but decoys to lure you into the killing zone.  Scandalous.  Priti has not taken on European or British values.

(I did English at A Level and then a Lore degree, long, long, long ago, so I hope my interpretation is not made in ignorance...)

Did you pass your A Level? 

I wouldn't have mentioned it otherwise.  My purpose was only to show that my interpretation had some little foundation behind it.

It's worse than one of those undergraduate surveys that UKC loves to hate at length, only worse, much, much worse.

and more harmful in intent and effect

It's a shit survey but it is designed primarily to get the answer they want.

The fall out from this could be profound - we have to live with this law for many many years and while it is strictly targeted at DM headlines re: travellers, it significantly erodes rights we hold close to our hearts and would be open to wide scale application beyond it's original remit and is bad law. It is very anti "British" in that it repeals many things we hold dear that were achieved in the 20th century. 

It is an odd contrast to the decriminalisation of TV license offences.

In that sense it is a very political rather than practical application of criminal law and will make very bad law.

It reminds me a lot of the criminal justice bill (now act) and the Thatcherite bollocks therein.

decriminalisation sounds like a positive but its effects were terrible when parking offences were decriminalised.

decriminalisation sounds soft but in effect it would mean bringing in civil law, opening you up to private civil debt enforcement agencies, threats, credit records, CCJ and all that follows. 

From my experience they do take into account your words. At the end of the consultation period they publish a report where they give their answer to any issues that were raised. On one I did I was 1 of only 46 respondents and the report didn't name me but it did have my words and an answer to them. So, if you raise an issue they will be forced to consider it and not only that but the low level of interest in these consultataions means that you really do need to raise your issue because there is a good chance that nobody else will.

If the intention of this is to address the issue posed by travellers, applying this only to vehicular trespass is the way to go.

I do wonder however if the intention is also to "legislate away homelessness" rather than dealing with it properly?  With wild campers being caught in the crossfire.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by this?

she's turning the Home office into something you'd expect in a despot ruled country.

Plus she is a f*cking traitor having secret and unauthorised dealings with Israel and Mossad for all we know while a cabinet minister

Oh okay, I thought you were suggesting that she was somehow not British; I see now that you were just being generally unpleasant.

Wow - the frequent use of "only" really shifts the meaning of those questions. If you simply have another instance in mind as well as the one posed you would logically disagree with the question as put.

I think it is also an interesting example of socialism for the rich or corporate welfare.

Along with all of the advantages that come with being a landowner you additionally no longer have to bother to secure your property or pay to enforce civil law and employ bailiffs. You can instead just get the government to pick up the tab for you.

Scrounging f*ckers want all the benefits of private property without the downsides.

she is unpleasant indeed and this thread is about a very unpleasant initiative unscrupulously executed.  Are you an apologist for it?

Keep your eyes open for what we might be having taken away from us

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50836164

a politically appointed judiciary - US style?

Homeless campers are on the increase around towns and cities, in secluded woodlands and abandoned places. They would surely come under the heading of Unauthorized Encampments with residential purpose.

It's her PR work for BAT on a joint venture tobacco factory in Myanmar run by the military which used child labour that got me.   She's evil.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/30/priti-patel-worked-as-spin...

I don't really care about that. I know she's an embittered idealogue. I'm interested in how to stop this legislation.

This 'consultation' is a sham.

now it's you just being unpleasant

I agree

that fits with a lot of Asian interests wanting us away from the EU - perhaps enough to tip the vote in '16

I have  nothing against any immigrant fitting in and making good here but not those that group to destabilise our status quo, nor Any vested sector of our society of any origin doing the same

The real rogues are the manipulators like Cummings et al  who used people to create their majority and the Tories who did it or let it happen for party reasons

That's really good to know, thankyou.

On having a google it seems when a consultation came up for the new drone laws one of the groups with an interest (BMFA?) gave advice on how to answer and what notes to write so that a clear message could be sent by many people to try and limit how much effect the legislation would have on groups with a history of safe model aircraft flying.  I'm not sure how much of an impact this had though.

There were some detailed suggestions on Twitter for filling this consultation in from a pro traveller position so I would guess this is standard practice for interested parties.

In the meantime I've emailed my MP who says he will raise concerns about the survey with the minister. Bated breath etc.

Are questions in government consultations generally as loaded as this or is this just par for the course?