Bluebell seeds
 

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Bluebell seeds
 

"Tim" wrote in message
news:oprqyrlvuwwxhha1@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

Bluebell seeds