I can imagine someone in a “town hall” getting a piece of paper from someone asking to use a public area to play some games or do some compass bearing work and wondering what medication they were on.
TBH if it went to the Army they’d have to think the same.
The problem with the waiver is the word “may”, which always gives a doubt.
1 Like
I’ve just read the draft policy as detailed in the IBN and can see no reference to the RC Dispensation for not requiring ToPL Clearance can someone please give the full reference?
Why couldn’t HQAC just write to all local authorities for blanket confirmation of authority to use publicly operated and freely accessed areas for training?
A radius (distance or travel time) is then set by HQAC, instantly giving every single unit an ESF for certain activities, probably with non-uniform and other caveats.
I would accept at least some FT still needing separate approval, as not all areas would be suitable; however, there is surely little debate that a park or recreation ground, open for public use, could possibly be dangerous or unsuitable for compass/micronav/judging distance type activities…
Takes the admin away from us, and removes the potential for c.1000 units requesting a stream of individual authorisations. It would even still be simpler (surely, probably even more so now I think about it) if delegated to WHQs.
2 Likes
Something that I find confusing is that I thought the “P” stood for Private, so if you are using Public land why would you need a waiver or permission from anyone.
Private to me suggests land that you need specific permission or an invite from the owner to use, to avoid trespassing, in which case you contact the owner of the land. Not too sure about the legalities, but showing the owner a piece of paper signed by some military type, would carry no weight.
Would you accept someone turning up in your back/front garden waving a bit of paper saying some military type says you can be there and do what you want. I think some Anglo-Saxon would be offered.
What exactly do you think “public land” is exactly?
I’ve no idea what the other two paragraphs are about.
There isn’t really such a thing as ‘public’ land anymore.
Common land may be the closest thing, but true common land is rare as hen’s teeth any time post the early 1800s
There’s a good breakdown of the complexities of it all here:
While the RCs intentions are good, I’m not sure they really have the power to be able to ignore this sort of thing, we’ll only really find out when something goes wrong of course and a land owner complains.
Public land would be somewhere anyone can use at any time without requiring any permission, like a park.
Good luck on not understanding the idea of private land requiring specific permission from the owner and not just some military type. If people would be happy with someone just parking on their drive for instance and leaving their car there without asking your permission, but they have a letter from some Gp Capt saying it’s OK then you would only have yourself to blame.
Are you deliberately getting this backwards?
Have you ever actually completed a TOPL request?
You get the owner’s permission and show that to MOD, because TOPL forms a contract of indemnity between the land owner and MOD. I.e. Permission to use the land within certain constraints set by the owner, with recompense or other ramifications due for breaking the conditions and/or causing damage, etc.
It’s certainly not waltzing in “waving a piece of paper” declaring that you’re taking over someone’s field and they have no say.
As for your flagrant misrepresentation of “public”…
2 Likes
Yeah, gotta say Teflon. You’re talking out of your hoop here.
Even parks are owned by the council’s. That’s the problem. They just don’t care enough to be bothered about giving us permission.
1 Like
Yeah, use for what?
I could walk into Hyde Park at any time. But think the local authority would take issue if I took a shedload of cadets down and proceeded to practise sentry drills and how to put up and camouflage a bivvy.
Here’s a way to think of it Teflon…
Picture your idea of “Public” land okay? Perhaps a local park …Now imagine that it has been torn up by a vehicle - maybe some scroat has been driving on it, doing doughnuts and whatnot… Or somebody set a big fire and burned it…
…Now ask yourself who has to pay for it to be fixed?
1 Like
The problem is that if you go to most councils and ask “can we use your park” they assume you are mad as it’s a public place, assuming what you want to do isn’t on the sign by the gate that says “you can’t do this” they would expect you to just crack on.
Our local park has an orienteering course, if I write to them and say “can a group of kids in sports kit use your park for Navigation Training” they are going to think I’m a simpleton!
3 Likes
The idea of the waiver suggests that some military type looks at what you say you are doing and says you don’t need the permission of the owner. Off you go. It doesn’t seem to suggest that ask permission from the owner and then get told by the military type you don’t need it.
I’ve done one TOPL to the council to use the car park we’ve used for years for drill and got nothing back. Probably as thought it’s a prank and put it in the round tuit tray. We’ve kept on doing what we’ve being doing. If the ATC wants to play hardball, we won’t do drill or anything else.
Given that 99% of what squadrons do will be using public footpaths and commercial camping areas for AT/DofE and public parks/recreation grounds/fields, the idea we need to get permission is bonkers. Those doing FMS type things where you are in ‘greens’ will invariably do them on military training areas, unless it’s some things like distance judging, which don’t need a uniform.
Allow me to refresh your memory:
I mean, that’s kinda proving the case for gaining TOPL authorisation (and taking your paperwork with you).
Rod Liddle is a thoroughly unpleasant chap. Though from this video I start to wonder if perhaps he is an ATC Sqn OC who regularly posts on here.
1 Like
You’re not wrong.
Yes - That’s absolutely correct.
But I should go further to say that is not only what it implies - it’s what it’s actually intended to be.
…Because it allows us to take small groups of cadets, as “civies”, onto public footpaths - where we don’t need the permission of the owner because it’s a public highway and right of access is granted by The Highways Act 1980.
The idea of TOPL and the associated permission is intended to cater for situations where damage may occur as a result of training by obviously recognisable military personnel and a subsequent claim for damages may be made against the MOD. Or for situations where Farmer Joe might object to the military crossing his lower field and a subsequent complaint may be received by the MOD.
The MOD need to know who is training where in case such claims/complaints/incidents occur.
The waiver recognises that a small group of young people in civilian clothes (and thus unrecognisable as a military concern) walking on a public right of way is not going to attract a claim against the MOD.
And now onto more of your usual nonsense…
“Invariably”?? Do you even know what that word means? What utter tosh.
You think that every squadron limits its fieldcraft training to the MOD Training Estate?
“Okay kids - On Friday we’re going to teach a practical on Cam & Concealment so we’re all off to to Lydd for 2 hours”.
It should be quite obvious that a huge number of squadrons simply nip over to their local park, or wooded area, or school playing field to carry out training in greens.
In those cases there is the potential for a claim against the MOD - albeit a far lower risk than say, driving a tank around Farmer Joe’s field - and thus TOPL is still currently required. Hopefully in due course the low risk will encourage a further waiver.
1 Like