Trespass Injunction

[TCIB]

Could they make specific stipulations i.e. regarding to "scaling" any of the property. So it would only be applicable to those who sneaked in by climbing a barrier etc. Legally that may tighten the scope on who it affects enough for it to be considered a reasonable and enforceable response. I am just speculating pretty wildly here i should add.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

You sometimes get the impression from the club that they'd like us all to fuck off and not set foot on the premises.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Could they make specific stipulations i.e. regarding to "scaling" any of the property. So it would only be applicable to those who sneaked in by climbing a barrier etc. Legally that may tighten the scope on who it affects enough for it to be considered a reasonable and enforceable response. I am just speculating pretty wildly here i should add.

I take your point, but is it still reasonable/proportionate to enforce a Court Order against someone who it hasn't been served upon, though? Maybe it's there as a means to add further parties to the Order more readily, as circumstances dictate.

Thinking back, I remember at the time the Giggs super-injunction being widely discussed amongst the great and the good at a particular gathering I was at, including his name being repeatedly and openly used, and no-one seemed to bat an eyelid. I'm not even sure that super-injunction would be enforceable in the terms widely envisaged, otherwise someone would have been subject to proceedings, which they weren't as far as I'm aware. Proportionality is the keyword here and on that basis, it would undoubtedly apply to publications, but not someone down the pub, as that would be wholly disproportionate and surely an infringement of free speech.

My view remains is that part of the Order is practically unenforceable as it stands, although as I've already conceded, I may be wrong on that point and I am perfectly happy to be pointed in that direction by someone better qualified to comment on it than me.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

I take your point, but is it still reasonable/proportionate to enforce a Court Order against someone who it hasn't been served upon, though? Maybe it's there as a means to add further parties to the Order more readily, as circumstances dictate.

Thinking back, I remember at the time the Giggs super-injunction being widely discussed amongst the great and the good at a particular gathering I was at, including his name being repeatedly and openly used, and no-one seemed to bat an eyelid. I'm not even sure that super-injunction would be enforceable in the terms widely envisaged, otherwise someone would have been subject to proceedings, which they weren't as far as I'm aware. Proportionality is the keyword here and on that basis, it would undoubtedly apply to publications, but not someone down the pub, as that would be wholly disproportionate and surely an infringement of free speech.

My view remains is that part of the Order is practically unenforceable as it stands, although as I've already conceded, I may be wrong on that point and I am perfectly happy to be pointed in that direction by someone better qualified to comment on it than me.

Doesnt the 'implied consent' cover that? If the ground (or any of the grounds, or any part of the ground) is 'open' then there would be implied consent to be there (although not on the roof!). They are also going to post the notices around the areas owned by CFG, thus giving any interlopers the information they may not hitherto have had access to. Mind you, what is reasonable and what is lawful are quite often very different..

 

[acton28.blog]

I guess with recent terror attacks, attempts and the like, it isn't the time to start jibbing in at footy. Even the friendliest cop can get twitchy fingers.