Incident with land owner - WWYD?

fburton said:
So that he could start to behave in a threatening manner? Right.
Click to expand...

As none of us were there, we can only assume he was behaving in a threatening manner but the facts were that OP was trespassing and assaulted the LO. Lets not allow the facts to get in the way of a good story eh......
 
mcnaughty said:
As none of us were there, we can only assume he was behaving in a threatening manner but the facts were that OP was trespassing and assaulted the LO. Lets not allow the facts to get in the way of a good story eh......
Click to expand...

Yes but to be fair tha works both ways. To read some of these posts the farmer was a poor old salt of the earth yeoman, assaulted by a smart arsed young whippersnapper in very tight breeches and with a penchant for random assaults. The whole thread is frankly ludicrous, though entertaining, the OP is long gone - and who can blame her, and people evidently have very fevered imaginations on here.
 
lula said:
LO couldnt make a citizen's arrest on what isnt a criminal matter!!
trespassing is civil
Click to expand...

1.1 Damage by trespassers
Any damage done by a trespasser while trespassing may amount to the offence of criminal damage. The elements of that offence are set out in section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971:
A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.
 
siennamum said:
Yes but to be fair tha works both ways. To read some of these posts the farmer was a poor old salt of the earth yeoman, assaulted by a smart arsed young whippersnapper in very tight breeches and with a penchant for random assaults. The whole thread is frankly ludicrous, though entertaining, the OP is long gone - and who can blame her, and people evidently have very fevered imaginations on here.
Click to expand...

Surely he should have been paying her for her services then!!!
 
So listening to some of these posts, it seems that its ok to ride wherever you fancy and if some farmer has the cheek to ask who you are and holds on to your reins to stop you riding off,because you don't want to listen to a telling off, you can thrash him with your whip so hard that it leaves welts ?

Nice one, won't bother paying £15 for the local farm ride or buying a permit to ride on the local farm estate then.

Is it just farmers we can beat or can it be anyone who annoys us ?
 
horserider said:
So listening to some of these posts, it seems that its ok to ride wherever you fancy and if some farmer has the cheek to ask who you are and holds on to your reins to stop you riding off,because you don't want to listen to a telling off, you can thrash him with your whip so hard that it leaves welts ?

Nice one, won't bother paying £15 for the local farm ride or buying a permit to ride on the local farm estate then.

Is it just farmers we can beat or can it be anyone who annoys us ?
Click to expand...

I think it applies to all land owners, farmers or not :D
 
Oh good, loving horseriders take on right to roam. Does it apply to the arena near me, I fancy using it free of charge? Also an adventure playground I take daughter to, every time I'm there I find myself eyeing up the strides to logs, ditches, banks etc. If park keeper objects or the guy that owns the arena I have the right to defend myself!
 
The thing that concerns me is that the way the man behaved was just plain wrong.
I just spoke to a policeman and he said that if you were going to comply then you were in the right and he was wrong. this is fun!!! but there are no witnesses.
 
yannialice said:
The thing that concerns me is that the way the man behaved was just plain wrong.
I just spoke to a policeman and he said that if you were going to comply then you were in the right and he was wrong. this is fun!!! but there are no witnesses.
Click to expand...
And the way the OP behaved was just fine, was it?
Admittedly, getting shouty and angry was not the best way to tackle the situation, but to get whipped for his efforts was waaay past the line of reasonable, surely?
 
The law states that if a land owner catches a trespasser on their land, they of course should ask the person to leave. If the trespasser refuses, you can use "reasonable" force to eject them from your land. You are not entitled to assault or harm them in anyway. I do not believe you are entitled to the person's details either, especially if they have already agreed to leave the property. I'm trying to see if there's any case law on point here.

The Guardian tells me that there was a case where a trespasser put a ladder against a house. The house's owner shook and overturned the ladder and threw the intruder to the ground. The court ruled that this was excessive force even though the intruder was not injured.

So to all you landowners: you definitely have the right to shout at the person to leave. If they refuse, you have the right to physically remove them, so long as you use "reasonable" (hah -- whatever that means) force. You may or may not have a right to know where they live but I truly doubt you have the right to physically restrain them AFTER they have agreed to leave your property.
 
fburton said:
I don't think anyone is claiming that.
Click to expand...

Ah, but leaves a dilemma, if OP hadn't been riding on private land she wouldn't have got into a dispute with the farmer which led to him becoming frustrated because she wanted to ride away anonymously and kept repeating 'let go of my reins'.
Doesn't seem that frightened, more obtuse.

Of course, those that think the farmer was wrong, perhaps the alternative senerio would be better-

Farmer shouts to rider, 'what are you doing'.
'Riding' She replies.

'Oh, thank you Miss'. Farmer doffs his cap as Miss gallops off splattering mud in his face.

I like the 2nd one better.
 
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/trespass_and_nuisance_on_land/#a01
From what I can make out you care of sue if they in the civil courts if,they have damaged the land; 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.
so if you wandered or continued to wander on someones land they would have to prove you intended or have caused damage. Its up to the landowner to keep unwanted people out with gates lockes fences etc.http://www.dailypost.co.uk/farming-...eal-with-fly-grazing-problems-55578-30596935/
If your dog is loose in your garden and it bites the postman you are liable unless you have put up a warning sign. You can not use CCTV footage in court unless you have put up warning signs.
If someone squats on your land there are procedures to go through before getting them off and this applies to everyone. An Englishmans home is not his castle and you have to follow the law wether you think it right or wrong. I own land and unfortuately I have been in the position to have to find this out.
My other thought did she know this man? If I was on my own and any man approached me I would be wary and if he grabbed hold of me or my horse I would be fearful. You would have no way of knowing if whatever he said was true and I would have probabely used what ever means to get away.
I have to say this is a bit bit boring for Jilly C, the farmer would have to look like Colin Firth in a wet shirt and......
 
horserider said:
So listening to some of these posts, it seems that its ok to ride wherever you fancy and if some farmer has the cheek to ask who you are and holds on to your reins to stop you riding off,because you don't want to listen to a telling off, you can thrash him with your whip so hard that it leaves welts ?
Click to expand...

Are you seriously suggesting that its okay to physically restrain a stranger, simply because you want to give them a telling off???

It doesn't seem like the OP had done any damage, or surely this would have been brought up by the police when they requested her attendence at the mediation, so the 'citizens arest' theory looks a bit shaky. Or he would have told her that was why he was restraining her at the time, surely?

Lets not even consider that holding a horse by the reins like that can upset it and cause and accident!!
 
Last edited:
honetpot said:
If your dog is loose in your garden and it bites the postman you are liable unless you have put up a warning sign.
Click to expand...

Be very very careful with warning signs.
Dog loose on grounds is okay. Dangerous dog on site admits liability etc.
Thread about it on here with horses and what is on the back of fluorescent jackets.

Caol Ila said:
So to all you landowners: you definitely have the right to shout at the person to leave. If they refuse, you have the right to physically remove them, so long as you use "reasonable" (hah -- whatever that means) force. You may or may not have a right to know where they live but I truly doubt you have the right to physically restrain them AFTER they have agreed to leave your property.
Click to expand...

And being that there are no witnesses, this will come down to whoever is more convincing in their version of events on the day...
 
I don't think OP was right to be where she was....personally if I had got lost or ended up in the wrong place I would have politely said so, asked for the quickest way home and left. I'm not sure I would have given my details....I'm a bit funny about about giving personal details out at the best of times, so to give them to someone who 'said' he was the landowner....not sure really.

The force of the whip does seem excessive, if it left wheals and welts.

However....think of it this way. If the landowner had reached in and taken your car keys and prevented you from leaving, or put his hands on your bike handles etc and prevented you from leaving, would this be OK? I don't think so TBH.

I think it was a situation which escalated, and could easily have not done so. A good bit of grovelling by the OP- who was quite clearly somewhere she shouldn't have been would have gone a long way.
 
Only time I did get really badly lost ( new yard, spooked horse courtesey of hikers asking me directions and then flapping a large map in said horses face ) I DID end up in someone's garden.

It's called desperation and saddle sore. The lady was the first living soul I had seen for nearly 3 hours!
 
Of course the landowner could have been holding the rein to steady the horse and prevent himself from being injured.
On stopping an unknown rider, I think I'd be wary about being knocked over by the horse too as she tried to ride off.
 
hessy12 said:
I was hacking on land when a man drove up in a truck and said 'what are you doing here?'
I said "riding" he said "you shouldn't be here" I said "sorry I'll leave now and not come back" but he had grabbed my horses' right rein.

There are no signs on the land saying 'private' or similar.

The man asked me to give him my details, I refused and asked repeatedly, over and over, politely for him to release my horses' rein. He did not. He started to shout at me "Give me your ****ing details". Horse was freaking, swishing his tail, raising his head. The man was pulling on the right rein so hard the bit was practically all the way through the horses' mouth.
I thought he might rear up. I was very very scared of this man, I was alone miles from anywhere.

So, I hit the man with my crop until he let go. My horse immediately galloped off (scared), the man followed hot on my heels and chased us, shouting and swearing "i'm gonna do you for assult" and generally being horrid. I ignored him and went home.

Police came a week or so later, man is charging me with assult. He showed police the welts on his back.

I admitted I ought not to have been there but there are no signs. I told them how scared I was and that it was dangerous him pulling on the rein and scaring my horse.
Police have arranged me to meet the man at a "restorative justice" session this week. I have to apologise and listen to the man.

What I want is an apology from HIM. He grabbed my horse for no reason and if he had let go when I asked him to repeatedly, none of this would've happened.

I know I should not have hit him but I was exceptionally frightened and did not know if he or me or my horse would be injured if horse reared which he could easily have done.

It is a big mess and I am angry at the police for saying the man did not assult my horse - apparently no such offense exists.
My husband is furious and thinks I should charge the man with assult, after all he grabbed my horse after I said I was sorry and was leaving etc.

So, please advice me. Should I go to this restorative justice session and accept the blame or see a lawyer. I am very upset.
Click to expand...

see I'm a little confused......

was he in or out of his truck when grabbed the horse's rein?
was he in or out of the truck when you struck him?
did he pursue you in the truck or on foot?
If you gave no details how did the police contact you or are known to the land owner?

I believe there may be more to this than meets the eye, and certainly only one side of the story.
And trespass is trespass no matter how you dress it up, it may not be a criminal offence but riding on and damaging private land is criminal damage.

I would go cap in hand and apologise.

We had an incident a few years ago with my OH
he was ditching on the side of a field which does have a footpath through it
a walker with a dog walked up the path, through the field and then continued around onto another path which is not part of the farm.
She then climbed the embankment at the edge of the field so she could see what my OH was doing with his tractor. By doing this she left the second public footpath, crossed the border onto the private land of the farm. She continued further only to be pulled into the ditch by the dog she had who wanted a closer look!

The ditch was over 6 feet deep!
My OH pulled up in the tractor, called her a silly old B****** and drove off!
She rang the police who helped her out of the ditch, and then proceeded to tell her that she owed my OH an apology for trespassing. He in turn apologised for calling her the above lol
But basically the police said she should not have been there, end of
She was known to us and continued to walk her dog all over the farmland despite being asked not to.

I've not seen her since..... ;)
 
fburton said:
I agree it's a better analogy, thank you. So if you said you would go and get your hat, but the staff member continue to hold on to you and shout and swear, would you not start to become just a little bit concerned about your safety? In your example, you presumably knew that the person was a member of staff, but what if OP wasn't sure who this man was? Personally, I'd want to be sure of who I was speaking to before giving them my details, especially if they were behaving in a threatening manner.
Click to expand...

Well, I think for my analogy to be comprable to the OP's situation, the RI would be demanding my details - presumably so that in future I could be prevented from repeating the offence, or reprimanded for my behaviour depending on the nature of my relationship with the RS, so no, I wouldn't be overly concerned for my safety. I might not like it, and I might be worried about the repercussions, but not fear for my safety. But, even if I were scared, that doesn't mean the RI is behaving illegally, or doing anything wrong - they are just trying to stop me from breaking the rules again.

As for not knowing who the "LO" was, I think if I were genuinely concerned on that score, I would give false details. I am still confused as to why the OP didn't do this before leathering him!

Or I might offer to swap details, amid an attempt to discuss the situation calmly and rationally (we don't know how the LO was really acting, or how he would have reacted to a calm, polite response).
 
I think this LO got what he deserves, putting his hands on the reins of a horse with a young woman rider out in the country, must have frightened her to death. The man is obviously a knobhead, if he had done this to my OH, he'd know what pain is, well done OP.
 
JFTD said:
Or I might offer to swap details, amid an attempt to discuss the situation calmly and rationally (we don't know how the LO was really acting, or how he would have reacted to a calm, polite response).
Click to expand...
Good suggestion. It's a pity that emotions escalated to the extent they reportedly did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top