Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #32   Report Post  
Old 17-06-2003, 01:20 PM
Nick Maclaren
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bluebell seeds

In article ,
Mike Lyle wrote:

NO, IT IS NOT.


There's no need to shout, unless of course it makes you feel better.


Unfortunately, there is :-( It at least gets attention. In my
life, I have seen catastrophic erosion of civil rights due to people
not standing up for them. And this has often or usually started by
a large amount of propaganda saying that they aren't rights, or that
they shouldn't be rights.

There's some logic there; but it's not uncommon for an action to be
unlawful under more than one law. I wouldn't consider helping myself
to the produce of your land -- especially if I thought you might catch
me.


So you regard people picking wild blackberries as morally no better
than thieves? Because that is the logical consequence of your
position.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
  #33   Report Post  
Old 17-06-2003, 03:32 PM
Neil Jones
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bluebell seeds

(Mike Lyle) wrote in message om...
(Nick Maclaren) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Mike Lyle) writes:
|
| But under UK law all land is somebody's property, and that includes
| anything growing on it. So even if it isn't illegal to collect seed of
| a particular species (but ISTR the prohibition now covers all
| species), without the owner's permission it's ordinary theft to
| collect seed from privately-owned plants: i.e., all plants. Catch 23?

NO, IT IS NOT.


There's no need to shout, unless of course it makes you feel better.

That is wholly wrong. You own RIGHTS to land, though there is a
primary set of rights that is normally called land ownership.
Neither wild plants nor wild animals are property, which is why
there is a special offence of trespassing in pursuit of game, and
why the infamous Countryside Act introduced one of digging up wild
plants. If those actions were theft, neither law would have been
wanted.


There's some logic there; but it's not uncommon for an action to be
unlawful under more than one law. I wouldn't consider helping myself
to the produce of your land -- especially if I thought you might catch
me.



Nick is correct. He has studied this subject.
As he says there are a set of RIGHTS to land that are commonly called
"Land ownership". In actual technical fact the land belongs to the
crown and the right over it is called the "Freehold."

He is quite correct to say that neither wild plants or wild animals
are property.


--
Neil Jones-
http://www.butterflyguy.com/
"At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn
Bog
National Nature Reserve
  #34   Report Post  
Old 18-06-2003, 03:20 AM
Annabel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bluebell seeds

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
om...
(Mike Lyle) wrote in message

om...
(Nick Maclaren) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Mike Lyle) writes:
|
| But under UK law all land is somebody's property, and that

includes
| anything growing on it. So even if it isn't illegal to collect

seed of
| a particular species (but ISTR the prohibition now covers all
| species), without the owner's permission it's ordinary theft to
| collect seed from privately-owned plants: i.e., all plants.

Catch 23?

NO, IT IS NOT.


There's no need to shout, unless of course it makes you feel better.

That is wholly wrong. You own RIGHTS to land, though there is a
primary set of rights that is normally called land ownership.
Neither wild plants nor wild animals are property, which is why
there is a special offence of trespassing in pursuit of game, and
why the infamous Countryside Act introduced one of digging up wild
plants. If those actions were theft, neither law would have been
wanted.


There's some logic there; but it's not uncommon for an action to be
unlawful under more than one law. I wouldn't consider helping

myself
to the produce of your land -- especially if I thought you might

catch
me.



Nick is correct. He has studied this subject.
As he says there are a set of RIGHTS to land that are commonly called
"Land ownership". In actual technical fact the land belongs to the
crown and the right over it is called the "Freehold."

He is quite correct to say that neither wild plants or wild animals
are property.


(1) Then surely the plants belong to the crown therefor you would
have to get royal assent to harvest from them
(2) If the crown has for some reason kept ownership of wild plants
and animals why did it not have the foresight to retain ownership of
mineral rights for it would have major implications re oil, gold etc.

This isn't well put but you get the gist

bel


  #35   Report Post  
Old 18-06-2003, 10:44 AM
Nick Maclaren
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bluebell seeds

In article ,
Annabel wrote:

(1) Then surely the plants belong to the crown therefor you would
have to get royal assent to harvest from them


In the same way that you do to walk along the road, yes. Think about
it a little more - "The Crown" is both a pseudo-person and a complete
legal fiction, depending on context.

(2) If the crown has for some reason kept ownership of wild plants
and animals why did it not have the foresight to retain ownership of
mineral rights for it would have major implications re oil, gold etc.


You are improving. Full marks for deduction. No marks for homework.
That is precisely what the situation is in the UK - I do not own the
mineral rights under my house or the air rights over it! As I am
under an airport flight path, the latter could be useful :-)

I believe that English and Scottish law differ, but in ways that are
completely baffling to most lawyers, let alone laymen.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.


  #36   Report Post  
Old 18-06-2003, 11:08 AM
Tim
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bluebell seeds

On 18 Jun 2003 08:35:13 GMT, Nick Maclaren wrote:

In article ,
Annabel wrote:

(1) Then surely the plants belong to the crown therefor you would
have to get royal assent to harvest from them


In the same way that you do to walk along the road, yes. Think about
it a little more - "The Crown" is both a pseudo-person and a complete
legal fiction, depending on context.

(2) If the crown has for some reason kept ownership of wild plants
and animals why did it not have the foresight to retain ownership of
mineral rights for it would have major implications re oil, gold etc.


You are improving. Full marks for deduction. No marks for homework.
That is precisely what the situation is in the UK - I do not own the
mineral rights under my house or the air rights over it! As I am
under an airport flight path, the latter could be useful :-)

I believe that English and Scottish law differ, but in ways that are
completely baffling to most lawyers, let alone laymen.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.


As an aside, the law is just that in Austria, if you own the land(or the
rights to it), you also own the minerals and everything under it to the
centre of the earth. I'm sure the air above is not considered the same way.
If you strike oil or gold on your land it's yours. The water in or under
your land is yours, etc. In the centre of Linz, there's a hill that's
ridled with natural tunnels that were extended by the Romans and others.
These belong to the people who own the houses and land directly above(even
though there is no direct access from the land above), and they
traditionally used them to dump thier household waste into for decades.
Then came WWII and the German forces wanted to use the tunnels as a
regional command bunker and also for air-raid shelters. So far so good,
except the people above wouldn't have anywhere to dump thier rubbish so
they were offered free refuse collection for ever in return for the use of
the tunnels. That situation still remains.
Tim.
  #37   Report Post  
Old 18-06-2003, 01:08 PM
Neil Jones
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bluebell seeds

"Annabel" wrote in message ...
"Neil Jones" wrote in message
om...
(Mike Lyle) wrote in message

om...
(Nick Maclaren) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Mike Lyle) writes:
|
| But under UK law all land is somebody's property, and that

includes
| anything growing on it. So even if it isn't illegal to collect

seed of
| a particular species (but ISTR the prohibition now covers all
| species), without the owner's permission it's ordinary theft to
| collect seed from privately-owned plants: i.e., all plants.

Catch 23?

NO, IT IS NOT.

There's no need to shout, unless of course it makes you feel better.

That is wholly wrong. You own RIGHTS to land, though there is a
primary set of rights that is normally called land ownership.
Neither wild plants nor wild animals are property, which is why
there is a special offence of trespassing in pursuit of game, and
why the infamous Countryside Act introduced one of digging up wild
plants. If those actions were theft, neither law would have been
wanted.

There's some logic there; but it's not uncommon for an action to be
unlawful under more than one law. I wouldn't consider helping

myself
to the produce of your land -- especially if I thought you might

catch
me.



Nick is correct. He has studied this subject.
As he says there are a set of RIGHTS to land that are commonly called
"Land ownership". In actual technical fact the land belongs to the
crown and the right over it is called the "Freehold."

He is quite correct to say that neither wild plants or wild animals
are property.


(1) Then surely the plants belong to the crown therefor you would
have to get royal assent to harvest from them


In point of fact they belong to nobody.


(2) If the crown has for some reason kept ownership of wild plants
and animals why did it not have the foresight to retain ownership of
mineral rights for it would have major implications re oil, gold etc.

This isn't well put but you get the gist



They didn't for what ever reason.
bel--

Neil Jones-
http://www.butterflyguy.com/
"At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn
Bog National Nature Reserve
  #38   Report Post  
Old 18-06-2003, 02:56 PM
Ophelia
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bluebell seeds


"Tim" wrote in message

Then came WWII and the German forces wanted to use the tunnels as a
regional command bunker and also for air-raid shelters. So far so good,
except the people above wouldn't have anywhere to dump thier rubbish so
they were offered free refuse collection for ever in return for the use of
the tunnels. That situation still remains.
Tim.


No such thing as a free lunch or even refuse collection. Someone is paying
for it.

Ophelia


  #39   Report Post  
Old 18-06-2003, 03:08 PM
Tim
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bluebell seeds

On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:43:30 +0100, Ophelia
wrote:


"Tim" wrote in message

Then came WWII and the German forces wanted to use the tunnels as a
regional command bunker and also for air-raid shelters. So far so good,
except the people above wouldn't have anywhere to dump thier rubbish so
they were offered free refuse collection for ever in return for the use
of
the tunnels. That situation still remains.
Tim.


No such thing as a free lunch or even refuse collection. Someone is
paying
for it.

Ophelia


well, free to the land owners above. Otherwise the price they paid was to
not be able to use something they really didn't use much before.
I'm paying for it otherwise.
Tim.

  #40   Report Post  
Old 18-06-2003, 03:08 PM
Ophelia
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bluebell seeds


"Tim" wrote in message
newsprqyrlvuwwxhha1@localhost...
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:43:30 +0100, Ophelia
wrote:


"Tim" wrote in message

Then came WWII and the German forces wanted to use the tunnels as a
regional command bunker and also for air-raid shelters. So far so good,
except the people above wouldn't have anywhere to dump thier rubbish so
they were offered free refuse collection for ever in return for the use
of
the tunnels. That situation still remains.
Tim.


No such thing as a free lunch or even refuse collection. Someone is
paying
for it.

Ophelia


well, free to the land owners above. Otherwise the price they paid was to
not be able to use something they really didn't use much before.
I'm paying for it otherwise.


quite so

O




  #41   Report Post  
Old 19-06-2003, 07:32 PM
Mike Lyle
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bluebell seeds

(Nick Maclaren) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Mike Lyle wrote:

NO, IT IS NOT.


There's no need to shout, unless of course it makes you feel better.


Unfortunately, there is :-( It at least gets attention. In my
life, I have seen catastrophic erosion of civil rights due to people
not standing up for them. And this has often or usually started by
a large amount of propaganda saying that they aren't rights, or that
they shouldn't be rights.


OK, nothing to disagree with there.

There's some logic there; but it's not uncommon for an action to be
unlawful under more than one law. I wouldn't consider helping myself
to the produce of your land -- especially if I thought you might catch
me.


So you regard people picking wild blackberries as morally no better
than thieves? Because that is the logical consequence of your
position.


In some circumstances, yes. I know there are plenty of dirty jokes
about *de minimis non curat lex*, though, so let's forget blackberries
for now. Let's also forget things you or I have actually planted. I've
got some oak trees here, self-sown, and therefore wild. Somebody comes
in and cuts them down, and takes them away: does this mean he hasn't
committed a criminal act of theft? Even if it doesn't, surely I would
have grounds to seek a civil remedy: and wouldn't that be based on my
owning the trees in some sense? (These are genuine questions seeking
information, not rhetorical challenges.)

Would it be different if I'd cut the trees down myself, and he'd just
dropped in and taken the trunks?

If I'd gone the whole way and made the wood into a table, is he
allowed to take the table with impunity? Have I, in fact, committed
some form of criminal damage by messing around with wood that didn't
belong to me? (Let's also forget tree-preservation orders, of course.)

Where I live, it *is* explicitly regarded as theft if you pick up
branches a farmer has cut off and left lying on the roadside verge: a
fortunately short-term neighbour got into bad odour with the community
for doing just that a while back.

In this area, you always ask if you can pick berries or mushrooms:
nobody would dream of saying "No", but you do ask.

Mike.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Temporary storage of bluebell roots patrick j United Kingdom 3 09-10-2006 11:44 PM
Bluebell rescue! Mike Lyle United Kingdom 6 15-04-2005 08:15 PM
English Bluebell seeds for swaps Mark Allison United Kingdom 0 25-06-2003 09:28 PM
English Bluebell seeds for swaps Mark Allison United Kingdom 0 23-06-2003 10:44 PM
Bluebell seeds for swaps Mark Allison United Kingdom 2 25-05-2003 10:44 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:02 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017