UKC

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-60260155

Obviously a bit more to it than crap parking but I think (probably) a good result or is it setting a precedent for any angry landowner to get the tractor out?

The drunk car driver was apparently going to walk 52 miles home.  The farmer possibly saved some other drivers life.

right result.

Cheers

Toby

I like the way the guy kicks the tele-handler in a futile attempt to stop it.

I almost posted this story...  Made my day.

The summer of 2020 saw spectacularly stupid parking around Low Force on occasion, sometimes reducing the road to a single-track width that farm vehicles couldn't  pass through.   At times the police had to close the road, e.g. [1].  It's not surprising that the locals have been running out of patience - and most of them don't see any benefit from the descending masses.  Parking was better managed in 2021 with double yellow lines and some enforcement, but there was still a lot of tension; we avoided it except on bad weather days (when swimming is anyhow more fun).

Low Force has long attracted fair-weather piss heads mind.  About 7 years ago I was swimming there when one of the piss-heads decided to copy another person jumping in from the top.  Only the drunk jumped from the wrong place and landed on blocky whin sill 5 cm below the water's surface.  I'll never forget the crumpling sound their body made, nor the sub-human moaning noises he made as he dragged himself out of the water (I swam over to help but he made it anyhow).  Litter, broken glass and burnt spots and abandoned disposable BBQs are all common.  Raby Estates have been remarkably tolerant so far but I worry it's getting to the point swimming gets clamped down on.

In reply to FactorXXX:

Kicking or punching seems to be the go-to reaction in these parts when faced with a large, powerful enemy - youtube.com/watch?v=OTsxZPJDcUY& 

[1] https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/18486146.police-close-road-due-conge...

It's a ridiculous result.  If picking up someone's car with a fork lift and tipping it over your hedge so it end up wrecked on a public road isn't criminal damage, what is?  It's a totally mental and potentially dangerous thing to do.

The farmer could have taken a photo of the car and gone to the cops to prosecute the driver for assault.  No need for tossing cars about with a forklift.  This sort of verdict, like various ones in the US, just encourages right wing crazies to get violent.

I agree as a Trebuchet would have been a lot more fun... 🙄

you don't like him because he said an English man's home is his castle? 

The farmer is pretty lucky the yob didn’t put him in hospital or worse I would guess. Clearly it is criminal damage, my reading of it is that the defence presented an unlikely but legally plausible version of events ‘I reasoned if I moved his car off my land he would leave my land and I would be safe’ and the jury decided the other guy was a tosser so they would acquit the farmer. 
 

I agree with you for once. Don't know the details of the case and it does sound like the driver/passengers of the car were idiots, but since they haven't been charged with anything themselves I think it's fair to assume they didn't do anything criminal. In that context I think this sets an absolutely awful precedent.

Indeed, much like those people who threw the statue in the harbour, there little doubt a illegal act occurred but the jury (guessing it went to crown court) sided with the defendant.

Edit just to add that the farmers defence genius was obviously the reason he hi acquitted, quoting such genius as Mike Tyson with "everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face".

That was just nuts. I enjoy seeing an inconsiderately parked vehicle being tipped out on to the road as much as the next person, but that was borderline lethal.

I don't propose to second guess the verdict of a jury that has sat through all the evidence, based on a news report and a video clip, but it is clear that at best this was a bad decision made in the heat of the moment that could easily have seen the farmer defending a charge of manslaughter rather than dangerous driving.

If you are feeling threatened, in the only mobile vehicle on the scene, the sensible thing to do is to drive to a safe distance and call the police. I appreciate that being sensible after being punched in the face is hard to achieve, but it is the right thing to do.

I also think it is simplistic to see this simply as a case of drunken idiots getting their comeuppance. There is undoubtedly more to the story than presented here.

Yes to all of that.

I do think the farmer could have been fined for littering or similar. A token “you’re not walking away completely innocent” sign.

Following this verdict, I also expect there will be a civil suit against him by the car’s insurer, and I very much doubt he will win that.  

Indeed, just like there was more to the Colton four verdict than some newspapers and politicians presented.  My guess is the verdict will have a sensible legal basis, especially given the farmer was attacked.

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2022/01/06/do-the-verdicts-in-the-trial-of-t...

Whatever the rights or wrongs on either side, that video is truly wonderful.

The only crime I can see he committed was fly tipping on the public highway.......

Seems like the right outcome to me.

They were blocking his farm drive preventing him from running the farm. He asked them to move - you can see in the video there was plenty of space for them to do so - and the passenger responded by punching him in the face.

I wouldn’t have done it myself, but i wasn’t the one who got punched in the face (it’s not a pleasant experience if done well).

(Incidentally the whole thing about walking 50 miles after 7 beers seems really suspect and it’s interesting that the driver gets almost zero mention in any versions of the story i’ve seen).

A lot of people celebrating this result but the farmer uses the forklift as a weapon and knocks the guy to the ground. Sure, the victim might be a 'banned word' and provocation could be a mitigating factor but in my opinion he should be in prison for that. If provocation was justification for violence with the potential to seriously injure the UK would be a significantly worse and more dangerous place to live than it currently is

I assume that part of the incident was accidental.

Reading the guardian, I think it was the want to be passenger who is the one who was drunk, was going to walk home, and punched the farmer. I think it's him who gets hit by the spikes of the forklift thingy. I'm surprised the farmer didn't get into trouble for just that. Wasn't the car there because it had a double puncture? I presumed the driver is the one who filmed it all?

From all I have read he had previously tried this and there had been no police response. .. ……

If accidental then he should have a dangerous driving conviction which can be an mprisonable offence. The Scottish crime of culpable and recklessness would feel appropriate but obvs this is in England

I've heard the guy in the car is the son of the Tory party chairman Tom, so it's probably OK now......

.....And he's English.

That would be the dangerous driving bit, I would have thought.

they assaulted/punched him after he politely asked them to leave.  Watch the local news coverage for a better picture of what happened than you apparently have. He had wide support in his local community

don't come back and tell me that Teesdale folk are just Hillbillies either - Weardale and Teesdale folk ar as good as any Scot

I thought you had the right to send unsolicited goods back!

 He can counter claim for nervous shock caused by the aggressive intrusion and assault with battery

Everyone loves a bit of vigilante justice and I guess the driver cut a pretty obnoxious figure but this is completely disproportionate. Trashing someone’s car because they’ve parked on (you’re very extensive) land seems a bit much. I also don’t buy the defence that ‘I was fearful for my safety so I thought the best thing to do was go out and massively inflame the situation’. 
If the farmer had done nothing how much would he have suffered? He’d have a car on his land for 24 hours (along with multiple other farm vehicles, sheds, silage bails etc). I’m glad the youth got a bit of a comeuppance but I’m prepared to make a judgement that the landowner is every bit as entitled and angry.

you speak of what should happen in a policed world.  In an unpoliced world he used reasonable measures to unblock his access route and to protect himself from further assault

You know the farmers in Teesdale well then?

I feel deeply conflicted about this.  The car occupants were clearly in need of some comeuppance... and yet this feels beyond the pale, and I can't help but think there will be a certain type of get-orf-moi-laaand farmer or gamekeeper who'll feel much more empowered to threaten people as a result.

Have you seen the lenient sentences given to drivers killing/seriously injuring cyclists these days? No chance of prison for this incident.

Dangerous or careless driving? Makes a big difference to the potential penalty. I'd say careless driving and a band 2-3 so paid for with a fine of 50-100% of weekly income and 3-6 points. But then add mitigating circumstances and first offense etc and your looking at the lower end of the scale. 

If you have a bit more detail from the local news it might be enlightening.

As mentioned previously, the police would not take action on the civil matter of blocking a driveway.

But I would be very surprised if they did not respond to a report of an assault, even in Teesdale.

I guess after this thread parking at  Almscliff is going to smarten up no end.

Like I said I’m making a judgement based on limited evidence. I’m not making a judgement on all farmers regardless of where they are from but many do have very territorial attitudes. 
In cases like this I always try to think of who I know who would behave the same way. I can’t think of anyone who would do this and I know some people who are quite firey and capricious to say the least. I don’t think they would do this possibly because they don’t think they’d get away with it, hence entitled.

Wait until they find themselves blocked on or off their property and are unable to resolve this, then phone the police to find out it’s a civil matter and they won’t intervene…

Then punch them in the face.

Then start attacking the vehicle they’re in.

Then see what they do…

Drive away and call the police, I would hope.

30 years ago when farms had smaller machines, more manpower and no phone cameras they'll likely have been given a gentle kicking and sent on their way. 

only to be told the police will be in a few hours because a biker has crashed near Alston... etc these place often have on patrol covers huge areas.

I’m not defending the car driver, I’m saying the farmers went too far. I am disputing that he was blocked off as there was a huge verge to the side and it’s inconceivable that the car driver would not have put his car there rather than left it on the lane itself  

How do you get two punctures, drunk passenger and apparently no sign of the driver?

Drunk driver sideswiped something and did a runner?

Maybe that's what jury thought and took a dislike to the victims because on the face of it the farmer looks guilty.

Did you see the farmer and his wife interviewed?  There are a lot of tenant farms in the uplands

farming in Teesdale would be more comparable crofting than to the big entitled agribarons

Presumably the driver was the one videoing the incident. I have seen no allegation that he was drunk. Being drunk and travelling home with your designated driver is not exactly an offence either.

Maybe so but not many crofters have a farm vehicle like that!

Edit: I’ve just found the farm on Streetview, I think trying to portray the farmers as someone tilling the land to eek out a substance might be wide of the mark!

If juries are the representative sample of society they are meant to be then we can take from both cases that people in general don't like racism and they don't like lagered up neds. Fine with me, neither do I. 

This. It has to be seen in the context that he was under attack by two violent drunken arseholes. The only thing he should have been charged with was dumping a car in public road. I don't know what the sightlines on that road are like but if a motorcyclist had smacked into it I suspect the case would have gone a different way.

Tom is correct that it will be a wet dream come true for all the wannabe vigilantes.

I refer you to the defence statement, "Everyone has a plan until they're punched in the face."

You joke but I've seen the farmer trying to get through a gate to which two bikes have been locked (I honestly can't believe someone would be so daft as to do this), they were considering their options either to cut away the locks or just drag the bikes and gate open with the tractor.

My sympathies were entirely with the farmer at Seathwaite who had trouble getting his vehicle through the stupid parking on Remembrance Sunday a few years back.  I was one of the first back down and I couldn't believe how people had parked as I walked through the scores of vehicles that had parked since I got there, then I saw the debris ...

If you arrive too late to park considerately then you have to change your plans

Everyone seems at fault here.

The drunk passenger for assault (which he hasn't been charged with it seems.)

The car driver for parking there in the first place and not stepping into stop his friend from assault. Though he hasn't actually broken any law

(At one time, parking enforcement was handled by the police, but following the Road Traffic Act 1991, responsibility transferred to local authorities, which can issue penalty charge notices for parking offences on the road.

If the offence is committed on a public highway or the car is blocking the driveway while parked on a public road, the council has the power to act. But when a car is on a drive, it’s technically on private property – and the council has no authority to remove it.)

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/legal/parking-on-someone-elses-driveway/

https://www.countryliving.com/uk/homes-interiors/property/a21407693/what-to...

The farmer for criminal damage and causing a hazard on the public highway (ie leaving a car on its side in the road). Mitigated by fear of attack and possible repeat offense by other drivers.

Had it not been possible to come to some amicable solution it seems the farmers best option would have been to go away and return to remove the car under cover of darkness, drop it in a lake and claim ignorance

It.... errr... wasn't a joke.

As it was a jury trial this doesn't set a precedent. One of the advantages of jury trials really - it allows each case to be tried on its own merits. 

Which seems fair enough in the scheme of things, the guy who's car it was didn't get assaulted, he just had a really bad day. In the farmer's place I may have just dragged it out on it's tyres, if I was as cross as him.

I think it’s safe to assume the police dealing with this would have had sympathy with the farmer and it would probably have helped his case if this were true so it seems strange they were never charged with anything…..

I think that whole principle of 'people who own property can be as violent as they like to any poor person who comes on or near it' is dangerous.  You can see where it leads in the US with 'stand your ground' laws and repeated cases where white vigilantes have shot black people in their neighbourhood.

I've been punched in the face and I didn't go get a car and run the people involved or their stuff over.  If I had I'd have got nicked for sure.  Actually, I did very little except leave the scene because one eye was closing up and I could hardly see.

Why didn't the farmer take a picture of the culprits and their vehicle and phone the police to report an assault?  The car has a registration number, it would be easy to identify the owner.  

If it was urgent to move the car why didn't he move it more carefully.  There was no need to tip it over and wreck it.  That's the difference between proportionate response and criminal damage.  Leaving bits of wrecked car on a public highway where they could cause an accident also has to be some kind of offense.

does he own the land or is he a tenant?

That’s not what happened, the lad wasn’t injured and nobody’s suggested property owners “can be as violent as they like”

Yeah, no. Pure hyperbole wrapped up in a Slippery Slope fallacy.

Safe to assume your assailant wasn’t English then

So the assailant got away Scot free? Confirmed in his view that he can get away with assault and no doubt they’ll carry on assaulting people until they pick the wrong victim.

Because the farmer had had cause to report numerous incidents to the police prior to this one and had a pretty good idea of the resources they’d have available to investigate low level incidents of this type ie. Sod All

The farmer had a choice between no justice or seeking his own justice. He chose the latter and the courts agreed with him.

This. Never mind that the story was funny when I read about it the first time.

The wanker getting cleared by a jury is as big a miscarriage of justice as the coppers walking free after beating up Rodney King.

The Anglo-Saxon jury system is an idiotic anachronism. Thanks Napoleon for a civilized system of criminal law here on the continent!

CB

This is a fair point, although I wasn't really thinking about a strict legal precedent so much as the message of a precedent it sends to other farmers who are fed up with people using their land. Probably a poor use of language.

If you read the report, he didn't report it to the police as he'd already had several robberies and the police were rather lax in their responses.  

And once he'd been beaten up by the louts what proof would he have? It would have been their word against his.

Don't park on someone else's property!

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

you think dragging doesn't damage a car? what with as many cars don't have permanent hooks, plus he'd have to get out and risk being hit again. 

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

didn't the scottish police leave two people in a ditch to die? Slow response, under funding, bad management or over stretched services aren't just an english problem.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Please do tell us how?

No. He'd have to be in front of the car to drag it and the whole point was his farm vehicles were trapped behind it, as shown in the video.

No. His options for picking it up were from the rear of the vehicle only. Start picking up a car from the rear with forks and you tip the vehicle, as shown in the video. Simple physics.

His only option was moving the car from the rear. He didn't have an option as to where the pedestrian was, as the pedestrian had taken it upon himself to stand right next to the farmer videoing him (presumably while reiterating that he wasn't moving the car "and I'm filming you, so what yer gonna do about it?") and when forks met Corsa, Mr Burns decided his best option was to repeatedly launch kicks at the farmers vehicle.

"in England"

Get a grip. It's farmer at the end of his tether versus shirtless drunk who's already assaulted him once.

Yeah, how exactly does that work when you live in an isolated rural location and even if there are resources available, the nearest police station is 30 minutes away (Stanhope). It's that basic physics problem again.

You can move cars very easily if you have a fork lift. The handbrake on most cars only locks the rear brakes so if you lift the rear and push it slowly to avoid locking the steering lock you can move it around. Alternatively, the handbrake on most cars (some 4x4s lock the diff) the hand brake only acts on one pad or shoe and isn't powerful enough to stop a car being pushed.

More creative and level headed people wishing to exact revenge on bad parkers had done things like put their cars in impossibility tight parking spots or up on blocks which are too high to be driven off without damaging the sills. One bloke in South Wales built a brick wall across the end of his drive to block someone who parked there and flew off on holiday from the nearby airport. 

You can even bounce a car around on the suspension if there's a few of you. I've seen this done with great success where the offending car was moved into the centre of the road before the police were called to report a car blocking the road and the vehicle moved to the local police pound.

Is it still easy to lift a car and move it slowly while a shirtless drunk repeatedly punches you through the open cab window?

The farmer left the scene, moving to a safe space, and then returned with the forklift (something I thought would have done for him in court). So although he did get assaulted, this wasn't while he was actually moving/destroying the car. If he'd waited they'd probably have buggered off and he could have done whatever he liked with the car.

Not according to what was stated in court.

Durham Crown Court heard he was under attack at the time of the incident from Charlie Burns, a friend of the driver Elliott Johnson, who was kicking the tractor and trying to punch him in the cab.

He could be slightly more patient and slightly less aggressive.

If he'd photographed them and got the car number plate and made a complaint about the assault even if the cops didn't come out immediately they could have nicked them later.

Also, as I understand it, it is illegal for a private company/citizen to clamp or remove cars illegally parked on private land in England.  You are supposed to get the council or cops to do it.  So the whole picking it up with a forklift thing was probably illegal no matter how careful he was.

I'm thinking you've lived a sheltered life and have been fortunate enough to not meet many if any of these types of youths. 

'As you understand it.' Sheesh.

He was found not guilty after a criminal trial. What else do you want?

You're missing the beginning of the story. 

You really should read more about that case, if you think they "got off" with it because of the jury.

Look up the thread on UKC somewhere, it's all explained for you.

Edit: or follow the link Offwidth posted just after you comment.

You should probably be surprised then.  I have no trouble believing the police wouldn't have turned up. I've reported a minor assault and threat of violence to the police in the past and they literally did nothing except ring an old number they had for the address of the assailant, which didn't get picked up. Because I didn't have third party witnesses or video evidence they didn't even bother going to speak to the guy.

We're supposed to feel safe though, because once a fortnight a pcso walks round the local park and they post some pics of the ducks they saw on the police Facebook page.

I am still undecided on it.

On the one hand I cant really blame the farmer but on the other I have come across the get orrffff my land lot who might feel it gives them a free pass.

About the one thing I am certain on is he should have been done for dumping the car in the road as opposed to just dropping it upside down on the verge but that might be due to the casual approach to making roads unusable for the general public the farmers round here display.

Fully justified, more of this kind of thing please.
This old school, no f*cks given approach to a situation is absolutely grand and I love to see it.

These lads that got their car wrecked have a great story to tell in the boozer too, its a win win really. 

I'm generally on your side on this one Tom but Summo and Stichtplate, leaving aside their cheap anti-jock jibes, are correct.

In an ideal world your scenario would be the best course of action, but I'd find it difficult to be temperate while under physical attack from a pair of shirtless bams. Aye, he could have dealt with it better, but when you've been punched by someone half your age, backed up by a mate and they're both pished, I'd say patience has been exhausted. That farmer is a year younger than me. I'm in good shape but I wouldn't fancy my chances against two violent guys half my age. I suspect he was pretty shaken by it and lost his rag. Possibly lucky he didn't have a shotgun to hand.

I'd hope that the cops had a quiet word cautioning him, especially about dumping the car on a public road but otherwise, fair play in a very sorry game. I hope it dissuades general scum from spreading their anti social tendencies.

Is not the right outcome that the lad be charged with assault and the farmer with criminal damage?  With any mitigation being at the sentence level?

This verdict essentialy says two wrongs make a right, and I have an issue with that.

When I was a teenager I was walking through a lane and I got stopped by two older kids.  One had a butcher knife and the other had a hatchet.  They said bend down we're going to cut your head off.   It was Glasgow in the late 70s and I had a knife in my pocket.  I thought they were kidding but I wasn't sure. They let it go on a bit too long and I was about two seconds away from stabbing the first one in the stomach when they laughed and walked away.

That changed my views on carrying knives and escalating confrontations with idiots.  We have laws and police to deal with idiots.  Violence just puts you in a situation where you're likely to get badly hurt or arrested yourself.

So why suggest the guy get out and start fixing tow ropes? 

Ah yes, the tried and tested solution of taking a photo.

Now you've got an obstruction, a photo of an obstruction and you still can't get on with your working day because someone was not willing to move their car.

I’ve just read the secret barrister so obviously feel like an absolute criminal law expert now (lol) - but one of his main point, and that of the link above about the colston 4, is that it’s up to the jury to decide whether to convict someone, and no one can ask them why they decided what they decided. 
 

the police did charge him and the cps will have thought it was a robust enough case to support going to court, but the jury didn’t find him guilty. Jury of your peers and all that. 

Not always so simple, years back when someone parked in the entrance to my workshop I lifted the back with my forklift but the car slipped off the forks because it was in gear. It made some very interesting noises when I put a sling round the axle and dragged it clear. 

Again not always so simple, we tried it with this car with the help of a couple of lads from the gym where the cars owner was and had been ignoring both tannoy calls and the receptionist going round asking everyone to move it for over a hour.

4 of us took a wheel arch each and started to bounce it, 2 crumpled wings and 2 crumpled wheel arches later and its not moved. The metal was so thin it just folded.

Apparently the owner came out of the gym a couple of minutes after I had loaded my van and set off to the Breakdown. He then went back and started kicking off with the gym owner who promptly told him to do one and that if he ever came back to the gym again he would personally break his legs.

No one ever blocked mine or any other workshop doorway on the industrial estate again. 

This one?

https:thesecretbarrister.com/2022/01/06/do-the-verdicts-in-the-trial-of-the-colston-4-signal-something-wrong-with-our-jury-system-10-things-you-should-know/amp/

I thought this was super interesting and some parallels with this case in regards to how Juries consider cases

It's a clear case of copy-cat crime, a month ago in Garmisch-Partenkirchen a farmer with tractor pushed a car parked in his entrance across the road and dumped it upside down on the other side. No doubt the story made it to Farmers Weekly or whatever it is now.

Reminds me of a Harry Enfield annual I once had with a picture of "Buggerallmoney" standing in front of an inter city 125 express train in his  vest, tab in mouth; "I'm that hoard! Ya bastard!"

Cheers for that Jesus, but if someone assaults me I'll be defending myself to the best of my flaccid, fifty something ability.

And what was the outcome in Germany? Did napoleonic justice give a different result?

Teesdale is hill farming country. I think I may have met the farmer. He blocked the back road over to Weardale when I was trying to drive up to the pass in my Corsa. He had a civilised word with me about the possibility of my car making it up there in the snow and ice. "  I don't want to have to come up there and pull you out."

I've managed to get that little  car up into some pretty unlikely places but I took his advice gratefully. Farmers do have a lot of trouble with ignoramuses and bad guys from towns. It ranges from damn nuisance to terrifying. 

He's got a good point though. If you "win" the fight you could end up in front of a judge for it and if you "lose" the fight you could end up in hospital or worse. I can't profess to being the coolest of heads in extremes but I'm moving towards the end of just not getting involved in these things.

As my old muay thai instructor used to hammer into us, in a confrontation the best form of self defense is to run away where possible, and only fight when you can't.

If you succeed in getting away to a safe place, and then come back with a tractor and start chucking cars around, you're not acting in self defence, you're acting out of anger - and by doing so he put himself back into danger, as well as the guy who assaulted him, his mate, and the general public by dumping a smashed up car in the middle of the road.

And whilst I can sympathise with getting angry when you've been assaulted, it's vigilante justice - which isn't how we should allow things to happen IMO.

His actions might discourage idiots from parking irresponsibly in the countryside in future, or they might encourage idiots to arrive tooled up to deal with angry farmers.

Well yes, not much tilling the land in sheep farming, is there?  There’s been a big shift to sheep farming on what was good lowland arable fields since the 80s which hasn’t helped hill sheep farming. 

Almost all the land and houses there are tenanted from Raby Estates.  Hill sheep farming there is not a wealthy way of life.  I know farmers who’ve suffered livestock theft, tool theft and arson in a nearby area.  I don’t know of any criminal charges in any of those cases.  The risk of retribution from chasing off trouble markers from a farm is very real.

The estimate up thread of half an hour for a police car to arrive is a best case assuming it’s ready to go from Stanhope when the call comes in.  If the roads over the tops are snowed up it’s more like an hour. Time to hospital by an ambulance from the 999 call is probably an hour or more if the helicopter isn’t available.

To the people suggesting he wait a few hours, that doesn’t show much understanding of the working day nor the welfare needs of the animals.

The situation never should have come to this point, but unless hill farmers are better supported against the drip/drip/drip of crime, harassment and nuisance it’s only going to escalate.  Despite this, almost all the farmers remain lovely, helpful people and they’ll be out clearing roads and rescuing cars every time it snows, stopping for a chat with walkers away from the honeypots, maintaining and never obstructing the extensive PROW networks in Weardale and Teesdale.  The contrast with the “gamekeepers” on the grouse moors in between couldn’t be more extreme.

Since the incident being discussed here took place eight months ago, it sounds like the farmer in Garmisch was the copy-cat, rather than the other way around.

Anyway, I've learned a new word: 'Telehandler.'

More and more people are heading towards the "just not getting involved in these things" type attitude. Once everyone is won over to the "just not getting involved in these things" mindset, then the violent nobheads will have won a free pass. Personally speaking, I think society would suffer the consequences and not just an increase in casual violence, but a loss of that general feeling of cohesion engendered by the fact that strangers will often try to do "the right thing" to help out others in distress. The last few years has seen me get out of my car at a set of lights to intervene in three lads (aged about 14... I'm not Chuck Norris) bracing another against the window of a Tesco Express. On another occasion I stepped in when a pissed up bloke had his partner by the throat and was screaming in her face in the middle of the street. 

If you're able, you should help people out. If you can't walk away, you should attempt to defend yourself. If you're being assaulted and do nothing, you're still at extreme risk of serious injury.

It's not vigilante justice.  Vigilante is something else

Or driving your car at somebody assaulting somebody else as per that case in London this week. 

Did you read the whole story? It wasn't just farmer angry at parking uses telehandler and drivers were innocent victims.

They had punched the farmer in the face twice, were very abusive, not removing car, very drunk and trying to attack him further and trapping him in. The farmer's claim was self defence and defence of property, not a parking dispute

I think this is a pretty extreme and unusual case (can't see any precident being applicable unless someone has attacked or continuing to attack/threaten the farmer) and the law, for once, got it right!

Taking the law into your own land then - same point.

That occured to me later, doubt it's come to court yet. He was charged with damage to property and ordered to have his fitness to drive assesed.

So intervening in an assault, detaining some scrote you've discovered in your Gran's house, taking the keys off a drunk who's planning on driving home, stepping in on witnessing someone forcibly bundling child into a car, etc. Your response is "taking the law into your own hands, that is. Vigilante justice mate. Not on" ???

I absolutely abhor this attitude. Looking out for each other is the right thing to do. 

There doesn't appear to be a lot of difference with the end results.   

 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/france-tony-martin-self-defen... 

This is the part of the story I don’t get.  He says he was punched in the face, but I don’t think that this is accepted.  The police don’t seem to have been very interested in that claim, nor have we seen any pictures of his injuries, which we usually do in these type of stories. I assume he was arrested on the day so these injuries would have been visible.  But most of the comments on this thread take the punch as an established fact.

He seems like a bright bloke.  If I had been punched in the face and was scared of two lads who “might have weapons” the last thing I think would improve the situation would be to flip their car upside down with a forklift.  Saying I thought they’d leave once I’d tipped their car outside makes no sense at all.

There’s also no suggestion that the driver was drunk and I’m not sure how he was expected to move a car (very far) with two punctures.  The driver says the car was awaiting recovery which I don’t think is disputed.

I think the farmer’s got away with one.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

The Cambridge dictionary defines taking the law into your own hands as:

"to do something illegal and often violent in order to punish someone because you know the law will not punish that person"

It's been mentioned up thread several times as support for his behavior that the police wouldn't do anything about the vehicle because it's a civil matter.

He didn't prevent a child abduction, and he didn't detain an offender waiting for the police to arrive - he got into an altercation with the passenger of a car that was parked in his land with two flat tyres, so he willfully totalled the car with a telehandler, in the process knocking someone over with it.

The bollocks about thinking he'd defuse the situation by trashing their car was clearly made up by a good defence solicitor, and the line about everyone having a plan until they get punched in the face is very true, but should have been a mitigating factor in sentencing IMO, not a reason to get off with criminal damage.

I come from a farming community, and I have a lot of sympathy for the problems it can cause farmers when people park and act irresponsibly, but the car wasn't a threat to anyone where it was sat, and moving it wasn't an act of self defence. He moved it out of anger.

You seem to be missing the point that the farmer's actions could have been morally wrong but not legally wrong enough for the jury to secure a guilty sentence. Equally the CPS will have looked at assault charges for the two youths but might have dropped it due to lack of evidence. Arguments on the internet on such subjects are mostly hot air and I'm glad the Secret Barrister sets out what the real issues are these days.

Seriously?

None of those situations are remotely  comparable to the farmer’s predicament.  I like to think I would intervene in any of them.  I wouldn’t flip a broken down car into the road with a forklift.

You should only use violence in self defence if you cannot get away.  It is a fallback, not a default.

I fail to see how this was in any way self defence.

In my view, both parties committed criminal offences and both should, accordingly, be charged with those offences.

I utterly fail to see how picking a car up with a forklift, a tool not designed to move cars and so likely to damage them, would not be criminal damage.

Are you saying a member of a gym near your workshop had his car wrecked by you and some employees/other members of the gym, and when he raised it with the gym owner he was threatened with broken legs?

What’s the name of the gym?

Not sure I did. You've stated people shouldn't take the law into their own hands. I think this is often justifiable and as is well established, so do the courts.

You missed out the next sentence providing an example: "One day, after years of violent abuse from her husband, she took the law into her own hands."

Google that example and you'll find a great many instances where the courts ruled "taking the law into their own hands" was justified.

It's the wider principle that the public shouldn't get involved that I disagree with.

"It is clear that members of the public should be prevented from taking the law into their own hands, but they nevertheless have a responsibility to help preserve community safety.  According to the Peelian principles the only difference between the public and the police is that the police are “paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare” – in other words the public are not absolved from their responsibilities to their fellow citizens just because their taxes pay for a police officer to don a uniform and walk the beat.  The fact we are in a time of increased demands on limited police resources makes the need for active citizens even more pressing."

https://www.police-foundation.org.uk/author/ruth-halkon/

I was commenting on the general principle.

Neither would I. But then I wouldn't park my car blocking a farm lane, repeatedly kick a moving tractor, plan to get drunk then take a 52 mile walk home and moon the police officers who've arrived to sort the mess out. 

I'd have come back in this if I'd had one

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-57965260

(nerd alert) the extraordinary thing about this tank is it was made post end of hostilities under British management, came to the UK and was re exported to Germany later

I read the BBC report linked to in the OP.

The farmer said they punched him twice and that he was polite.  Doesn't mean it was true.  His only chance was to claim self defence.  Why weren't the youths prosecuted for assault?

I don't see anything in the BBC report about trapping him in.  If they, in fact, trapped him in a confined area to continue an assault that would change everything.  At that point taking their car out of the only escape route would be reasonable self defence.  The key difference being he was moving the car in order to leave.  But it doesn't look like that on the video.  He doesn't keep driving down the road after he clears the entrance he reverses, hits one of them with the prongs and heads back towards his field.

I was once guiding a group of lawyers on Ben Vrackie. They had arrived in a long 12 seater minibus (not driven by me). When we got back, someone had parked right on the corner of the car park exit, so the minibus couldn't get out. The lawyers all got around the, rather fancy looking (maybe a Merc?) car and bounced it up the banking. They left it at a crazy looking angle, and I wouldn't have wanted to try and get it out of there! 

I stood back and decided it was up to the lawyers to decide whether that would be defensible if anyone tried to take them to court! Lol. 

Yeah, I'm not super angry about the guy getting off or anything, but I'm struggling to follow the logic behind "I thought that if I wrecked their car with a telehandler then they might calm down and leave me in peace"...

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

While I think it is somewhat difficult to move a parked car without being accused of damage. I am actually 100% with you on the point below

In reply to summo:

This:

https://www.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/your-council/policies-and-perform...

All Gypsies and Travellers living on a local authority or privately owned sites pay council tax, rent, gas, electricity, and all other charges measured in the same way as other houses.

Those living on unauthorised encampments, generally speaking, do not pay council tax, but they also do not generally receive services. There are occasions when basic services, such as a toilet or a wheelie bin, are provided and the Gypsies and Travellers might make payment for this service direct to the appropriate local authority.

All residents within the UK pay tax on their purchases, petrol and road tax as do Gypsies and Travellers.

Absolutely deadly serious.

CB

It’s so weird that they insisted on blocking his drive when they could’ve just parked in entrance way where it widens and still been completely off the road.

Right, so a beating of a handcuffed man by police officers, isn't worse than a farmer being let off for using arguably disproportionate force to remove a car not allowed to be on his land. 

I genuinely don't understand how this can be so. I think the farmer did go a bit over the top, but I don't think that the guy who parked didn't have it coming - which in no way can be said about anybody being horrible beaten by multiple law enforcement personal while they are handcuffed and down on the ground.

That's a pretty childish counter argument.  

Oh no it isn’t 

The severity of the crime in question is undoubtedly different, my point is that the failure of the jury system to recognize that a crime had been committed was similarly blatant.

As I said, the initial report made me laugh, but I had no doubt that what the farmer did was illegal.

Indeed, many years ago I have myself (with a couple of friends) tipped a car that was parked on the footpath so that it ended up laying on its side on the road. However, I had no doubt that while I felt that what we had done was justified, and that some arsehole got a lesson they will not forget, we should better not be caught because we had quite obviously committed criminal damage as well as some traffic offence.

CB

Possibly illegal, possibly not. If the car was obstructing the foot path, you have a right to remove the obstruction and proceed.
There was a case that went to court where someone walked over a car that was parked on a footpath, right over it and I assume dented the roof which IIRC often rights the car off. Apparently they took their shoes off, and the judge ruled not guilty  as they had made efforts to not damage the car, and they had a right in law to proceed along the footpath, which was being denied by the parked car.
Off course I could be dreaming this, and cannot be bothered googling a link, but pretty sure thats the tale.

The farmer was correct in enforcing his rights in my opinion, in this instance, but do hope other landowners do not take this as Carte Blanche to use this to impinge on peoples rights of access.

i can't see why someone reacting against antisocial behaviour should be a precursor to action denying people's legal right of access.

Most farmers will probably watch this, give it a thumbs up but also realise that he got off a bit lightly and that following suit is not advisable because the novelty value has probably worn off. 

"'TRIAL VERDICT INCORRECT!' - SAYS ANONYMOUS INTERNET PUNDIT UNFAMILIAR WITH DETAILS OF CASE"

....or the law in question, as outlined by The Secret Barrister.

Well, a little reading comprehension would go a long way. With a little practise you may get there.

CB

And as a more serious answer, I could not care less about the damage to the car, but to me this case demonstrates that a jury system seems intrinsically unfit to deliver reliable verdicts.

It is in a long line of jury trials where people are either let off or convicted not based on facts but because of sympathy, racism, fame, you name it.

It seems even worse in the US, where jury selection is the first major battle ground in many trials, which actually proves my point. If jury trial worked, it should work with any jury!

CB

Ah I see ...the some jurys make bad decisions (picking the flawed US system as your main evidence) so all jurys must go... argument. If you were serious on this subject you could produce research evidence comparing miscarriages of justice across countries (as they happen everywhere) showing the UK system as a much bigger problem. I see no compelling evidence that the UK jury system is systematically failing us, outside a few niche areas like the trial of organised crime bosses or of highly technical fraud.

Looking at the specific details of the law linked from The Secret Barrister, are you seriously telling us you can't see any circumstances where deliberate damage might not be unlawful?

Picking it up might be regarded as using reasonable means to remove an obstruction, dropping it might be regarded as careless

Picking a car up using something that isn't designed for picking cars up (i.e. will put its weight on parts of the car other than the marked jacking points or wheels) is near enough guaranteed to cause damage (e.g. to the exhaust, fuel/brake lines etc), and as such could not possibly be considered a reasonable means to remove an obstruction.  As such doing so would be reasonably expected to damage the vehicle, as such criminal damage.

While whoever said so above is right that the jury don't have to give their reasons (perhaps they should?), it seems they have come to a verdict on the basis of "social justice", i.e. that they think the farmer has a better moral case, and that's not how the court system is supposed to work, it is supposed to consider simple fact of whether an offence was committed or not.  Sentencing, not the verdict, is where mitigating factors not contained within the definition of the offence are generally considered, e.g. if the farmer's actions were felt morally justified he might have just got a small amount of community service or similar, or a suspended sentence.

My view remains that both parties committed offences and as such both should have been charged with those respective offences.  Vigilanteism, which is what this is (clearly not self-defence, as unless the farmer had something wrong with his legs he could have run from the scene across the field and called 999), must not be tolerated as it undermines a proper legal system.

I remain highly disappointed in this verdict.

This, put much more eloquently than I could have done.

CB

You seem to be seeking a change in the law, which is fair enough as an opinion but I prefer it as it is.

As the law stands there are reasons that damage can occur but still correctly lead to a not guilty verdict, and the wording that allows that is deliberate. You are ignoring that wording and how it might honestly influence a jury and instead impugning a very different dishonest motive for the jury.

In what specific manner do you feel such a thing would apply here?  It seems very clear to me that this was NOT self-defence, and could reasonably have been expected to damage the car for the reasons I outlined above.

If he had used a vehicle designed for the purpose of moving a car (the sort of thing used by bailiffs taking possession of a car due to debt) and was trained to use such a vehicle but then accidentally dropped it in doing so then I'd agree with you.

Arguably it is exactly how the jury system is meant to work with the ability to overrule the law if it is seen as unfit for that particular case.

When the death sentence was being imposed for theft the juries had a remarkable habit of finding the person either innocent or guilty of stealing an amount just below that which would have triggered the death sentence.

I'm against the death sentence and so can see the moral position there, but I would definitely see that as misuse of the gaps in the system.  The idea is that Courts interpret the law as is written (and in some cases set precedent by doing so which then has to be followed - often because the law didn't realistically consider situations* which didn't exist when it was written**), not that they decide they don't like it and thus return a verdict based on a moral judgement rather than a legal one.

It certainly happens (it seems to me it did here) but I'm not convinced it is the right way for things to be.

* Fast advances in IT and media have often led to this sort of thing.

** Mobile phones when driving are a good one - that law is incredibly specific so as to allow for the issue of FPNs, but if it was an offence solely prosecuted in Court "use" would be enough and interpretations of that would shift over time as the tech developed.

Read the link from The Secret Barrister, it's not hard to extrapolate across cases and see the legal grey area where damage can occur, the CPS decide to prosecute but the jury can still correctly come to a not guilty verdict (and recognise the jury had detailed evidence you won't know about, and acted under legal guidance).  Jury's do make mistakes but applying Occam's razor to what we do know, this case, like the Colston 4 case, looks a distance from that. Jury trials just don't work in a few unusual areas and lead to far too common bad decisions in others, due to other failures in the legal system (in rape trials in particular). I'm unaware of any mass evidence of bad decisions encouraging vigilante behaviour.

I'm of course assuming you are the intelligent person you seem to be here and as such want the law changed to avoid that deliberate grey area.

it is frequently not "a simple fact" that determines whether an offence is committed.  Remember that many offences outside social regulatory fields require the presence of 2 elements, Actus Reus and Mens Rea.  The jury are allowed in those cases to establish (ie come to a determination about) both the fact of the Act and the mental state of the defendant.  In taking into account the mental state of the defendant they must look at all accompanying circumstances and the effect those might have on the mental state.

So not a simple fact at all, in many cases.  If it was such then perhaps criminal law could be learned from a small format paperback

Have you seen the size, weight and cost of legal textbooks?

Just read it - I guess it's the "lawful excuse" part that you think they may have found not-guilty on here?  Interesting point, you could well be right.

Yes, I think I would seek to have that changed so as to tighten it to define a lawful excuse as only where there was no viable other course of action to ensure the safety of the farmer (as an example in this case), and to me there clearly was.  A car causing a wilful obstruction is annoying, and I wouldn't park mine in such a position, but I don't think it should be legal to move it in such a way as to cause damage to it unless it was necessary to avoid injury or death (I'm thinking of e.g. if the Fire Service had to move or damage a vehicle or building in order to rescue someone from a fire).

The hypothetical anti-Semitic mural issue they discuss is an interesting one, but it strikes me that the example actually does constitute a hate crime*, or if it doesn't then it probably should, so there could be something to fix in the law or policing there, too.

* It's different from the Colston statue it sort-of discusses, as he correctly points out, because the hypothetical mural is put up *knowing* that anti-Semitism is not acceptable, whereas the Colston statue was put up in a different time when prevailing views were different.

Agreed, but I wish we could dump the latin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

Agreed, but I wish we could dump the latin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

Agreed, but I wish we could dump the latin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

Criminal damage to a car and “lawful excuse”, consider one possible spectrum:

• Child trapped in a boiling hot car without driver present
• Car blocking a fire engine accessing a hydrant
• Car blocking a farmer from attending animal welfare
• Car blocking a farmer with no immediate need to egress
• Car parked on private land causing no harm

There’s a spectrum and determining the veracity of lawful excuse defence at either end is trivial.  This case falls in the middle.  To assume the jury acted in “social justice” and not the law is not appropriate IMO.  I’ve not seen the information on why he needed to get farm vehicles out, but I see other farms going for welfare checks, taking food out and in some cases a daily trip out with a water bowser to refill tanks for drinking water.  Lots of scope in that middle ground.

Potes dicere iterum

"Dog trapped in a hot car" might be one to throw in there too.

I'd have an awuffully hard time deciding what to do then.

With the need for the farmer to be able to farm, combined with the state of mind side of things (as per all the latin gobbledegook up thread) there is a big grey area consisting of at least two different parts of the law.  It's by no means as clear cut - as a few seem to think - that the jury acted in any way other than in strict accordance to the law.

The state of mind stuff is unlikely to apply to.a civil suit from the car's insurers as I understand it.  Assuming, of course, that the car was insured.  

Although in reaching this view, you are assuming that a crime had been committed.

I think there are clear reasons the jury could have found this not to be a crime whilst acting in strict accordance to the law, given the state of mind of the farmer at the time and/or given the necessity of him being able to egress from his farm with a farm vehicle.  

Not being on the jury, and not having seen all the evidence presented to them, I'm going to avoid jumping to a conclusion here.

Sorry, I missed this.

Key point.

They couldn’t drive away because they were blocked in. 

A mistake I often make in life is assuming that other people are as reasonable as me.  It's an easy mistake to make. 

From the video it looked to me a lot like the car was parked between an electric fence and a long grass meadow right in front of the lane end, with the gate and a stub dry stone wall coming of the wall parallel to the road preventing anything going around the parked car.  Edit: Looking at Google overheads that seems pretty accurate, and for the time of year we'd expect long meadow grass.

If the car had been parked in the meadow (not a verge) off the lane (your supposition, not confirmed by the video) then I agree the farmer would have been bang out of order under any imaginable circumstances to do what he did.  Indeed, given how bad a tool the fork truck is for moving a car, and given that the car in the video was un-mangled, on the lane and pointing in the right direction, it seems very unlikely that it had previously been off to the side and had been moved on to the lane.

To me it looks like the car was right in front of the lane's exit on to the road with no possibility for the farmer to go around it, and with the driver having made no effort to get it out of the way...  Looking at the overheads there's also no obvious alternative route off the farm for the farmer.  

The only possibility I see for wiggle room is if the car was significantly further along the lane before the video started, and the farmer happened to have shunted it to a point blocking the lane when filming started.  Again, given how badly the fork truck manages to handle the car, and the initial good physical shape of the vehicle and its alignment with the track, that seems unlikely.

Is that a latin pun about writing things backwards?

You can say that again!

Ah... hadn't noticed it was posted twice. I'm not sure how that can happen as UKC normally blocks a double posting.

Not twice, but thrice...

Two birds, very good

Similarly if you’re right and he was parked such that there was no way airbus then that changes it for me as well. If not surrounding it with farm implements or dousing it I slurry would have been a proportionate response.

What was the judge's summing-up in this case?

Maybe he didn't have a vehicle that was designed for the purpose because it is not the sort of kit that he could reasonably expect to need?

It would never have been an issue if the driver had moved the car when it became apparent that it was a problem.

If you don't have proper equipment to do things with regard to others' property, then you don't do those things.  He could I suppose have called a tow vehicle in and attempted to sue them for the cost.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

And if I was the driver of the tow vehicle I wouldn't move the car.  As it doesn't belong to the bloke who called me out.  

What a pair of total dicks. The pair of them (the puncher and farmer just to be clear) should be spending a lot of time together this year picking litter.

Jk

The police probably wouldnt have turned up because of other priorities; this followed several weeks of insanely high visitors numbers to a normally pretty quiet area, with it being so bad on 2 or 3 occasions that the police had to close off the entire dale to road traffic because of the danger presented by ridiculous parking; similar to the Seathwaite remembrance issue, but for several weeks on end. On one occasion the police had to forcibly move over 100 vehicles to be able to reopen the area to traffic. So this farmer was at the very very end of a particularly badly worn tether when a bevvied up youth decided the best response to being asked / told "politely" to move the car was to punch the farmer.

Whether he should have done what he did is a different matter, but i can understand why he did it.

I'd probably sort of agree, summing it up perhaps as "I can see how his anger had been built up, and why it seems he acted on that anger, however the manner in which he acted was not right and not what someone acting with a cool head and rational thought would have done".

We all see "red mist" sometimes, and it strikes me it was done on that basis.  Wouldn't surprise me if before the filming something like "well, if you're not going to effing move it and give me an effing mouthful of abuse/attempt to whack me in the face, then I'll effing move it" was said, followed by a demonstration of that.

Where I differ from others, though, is that while it can be human to act in anger, acting in anger is in my view pretty universally a bad thing; sometimes to live in society in the UK* we need to control our anger.

* There are of course countries where anger to the extent of revenge killings of family members is accepted even if not strictly legal; obviously this is well below that!

On the other hand, I've been in receipt of a bit of a gobful from a Cumbrian farmer when I came upon him moving his sheep, and all I wanted to do was turn my car around (by reversing towards, but not into, his gate) and go back the other way rather than wait ten minutes!  It does seem they are extremely possessive of their lanes.

So while the lads were clearly in the wrong for parking there in the first place, and punching people is not acceptable under any circumstances other than where strictly necessary for self defence, it is quite possible that the farmer didn't exactly make the first contact in a polite manner either.

 >So this farmer was at the very very end of a particularly badly worn tether when a bevvied up youth decided the best response to being asked / told "politely" to move the car was to punch the farmer.

This was my take on the situation, these guys trod on the very last nerve of a normally reasonable bloke and it was the straw that broke the camels back and he vented months of frustration and anger, and I guess that's the way the jury saw it.

What I find slightly ironic is they were parked there because they had a double puncture. If, when asked to move the car they'ed said 'Sorry mate, we've got these punctures, is there somewhere we can leave it while we get it sorted out' the farmer would probably have bent over backwards to help them out instead. 

And as others have said he shouldnt have trashed the car like that, despite provocation, but then even if he was unpleasant and aggressive to the two lads, they still shouldnt have resorted to punching him, especially as flatlandrich said, if they'd have just asked, he'd probably have helped them out, however grudgingly.

There is a longer video which shows it started a bit further down, probably behind the gate.  He would probably have been able to get the vehicle he was in around it.

It would be interesting to know how long the car was actually there for.  It sounds like minutes.  The farmer has never said anything about not being able to feed his animals.  He says he was scared, which he solved by turning the car upside down.

So based on a 'gobful' from a farmer on the other side of the country you know 'they' are extremely possessive of their lanes, and it's 'quite possible' this farmer was also abusive?

No bias there then.

Other than back up the lane, of course.

To be clear, I am not arguing with the jury decision, based (hopefully) on 4 days of evidence and legal advice, that the farmer's action was lawful. I am just saying that the farmer made a bad decision (under trying circumstances) that could clearly have had tragic consequences and that another course of action (like driving away to call the police) would have been preferable in this case and in similar cases that might occur in future.

There have been other comments that the police would have been unlikely to attend such a call. Perhaps. I haven't lived in England for some time, and not in this area. But I really would hope that if I reported an assault, on my property, by two youths who had remained on my property and were preventing me from leaving, that the police would turn up reasonably quickly (I imagine they appeared fairly smartish once there was an upside-down car in the road).

Neither is going shirts off but I bet the jury didn't respond well to that bit of narcissism.

Yet again the UKC Court of Appeal swings into action using the just evidence of newspaper reports.....

If you've never encountered an abusive farmer, you've never been hillwalking.

Not the majority, but there are plenty out there.

But anyway, I've already said I am biased against both parties and would like to see both parties charged with their respective* offences.  I have no time for revenge actions nor vigilanteism.  We have a legal system for a reason.

* And a change to Criminal Damage law that would have resulted in the farmer being prosecuted in this case; the "get-out" is just too wide.

The bottom line is that both parties were in the wrong.

Wasn't he, though?  The BBC piece from the OP mentions:

"the jury cleared Mr Hooper following a four-day trial."

Yes, this.

Ah, I must be a climber then!

Unless you habitually climb in places where access is disputed, you're a heck of a lot more likely to have issues with the classic "git orf maa land" as a walker than a climber, largely because you cross a lot more farms in a walk than a day at the crag.

In all seriousness I can only recall one such encounter in 40odd years - and that was when it was suggested to me that a bike should not be on a bridle path because it do not have a bridle.