"John Morgan" wrote in message
...

Huw wrote in message
...

There is only one major thing wrong with your point. That is,
that hedges are man made and only came into being
relitively recently, the vast majority after the Enclosures
Act. Other Countries do not have hedges as such and never
have. They are completely artificial and if one were to invent
them today and try and buid on a large scale, they would
likely be huge objections and they would be classified as
a blight on the natural landscape.

The artificial nature of hedgerows is neither here nor there in
my argument. Every square inch of European terrain shows some
signs of man's hand; a good example is lowland heath, which could
only have existed in Britain - before the landnam phase - on
windy promontories with nutrient-poor soils.

Hedges are important reserves for species that previously
occupied niches in the 'wildwood' and it is because of this, not
for their landscape value or their 'naturalness', that they are
objects for conservation today.

The problem is that they are a management tool which is, in many cases, no
longer necessary. Insisting that farmers use these obsolete methods is as
silly as demanding companies scrap all their computers and go back to hand
written ledgers.
If the state wishes to preserve these obsolete practices then obviously the
state should pay for their preservation

Jim Webster

Actually, if you were to read the book, "The History of the Countryside", by
Oliver Rackman, you will find that, rather than hedges being a relatively
recent thing, there is strong evidence to suggest that many are in fact
predating the Roman occupation.

Just thought i would mention it....
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"John Morgan" wrote in message
...

Huw wrote in message
...

There is only one major thing wrong with your point. That is,
that hedges are man made and only came into being
relitively recently, the vast majority after the Enclosures
Act. Other Countries do not have hedges as such and never
have. They are completely artificial and if one were to invent
them today and try and buid on a large scale, they would
likely be huge objections and they would be classified as
a blight on the natural landscape.

The artificial nature of hedgerows is neither here nor there in
my argument. Every square inch of European terrain shows some
signs of man's hand; a good example is lowland heath, which could
only have existed in Britain - before the landnam phase - on
windy promontories with nutrient-poor soils.

Hedges are important reserves for species that previously
occupied niches in the 'wildwood' and it is because of this, not
for their landscape value or their 'naturalness', that they are
objects for conservation today.

The problem is that they are a management tool which is, in many cases, no
longer necessary. Insisting that farmers use these obsolete methods is as
silly as demanding companies scrap all their computers and go back to hand
written ledgers.
If the state wishes to preserve these obsolete practices then obviously
the
state should pay for their preservation

Jim Webster

"BARRY ELLSON" wrote in message
...
Actually, if you were to read the book, "The History of the Countryside",
by
Oliver Rackman, you will find that, rather than hedges being a relatively
recent thing, there is strong evidence to suggest that many are in fact
predating the Roman occupation.

depends on what you mean by 'many'
There might be a thousand miles of such hedge. But as a proportion it is
pretty irrelevent.

Jim Webster

Jim Webster wrote in message
...

"John Morgan" wrote in message
...

Hedges are important reserves for species that previously
occupied niches in the 'wildwood' and it is because of this,
not for their landscape value or their 'naturalness', that
they are objects for conservation today.

The problem is that they are a management tool which is, in
many cases, no longer necessary
[...]
If the state wishes to preserve these obsolete practices then
obviously the state should pay for their preservation

Spot on, Jim. We_should_, indeed we must, pay farmers for good
stewardship, raising some of the money in the form of fines
levied on those who practise bad stewardship. As I'm sure you're
aware, it's not your land you are farming, it belongs to your
children and mine.

I've got my cheque book ready! How much do you need?

John Morgan writes

Spot on, Jim. We_should_, indeed we must, pay farmers for good
stewardship, raising some of the money in the form of fines
levied on those who practise bad stewardship.

The problem with this is defining 'good stweardship'.
One man's 'good stewardship' is another mans 'bad'.

For example a conventional farmer might reasonably say that organic
farming is bad stewardship and vice-versa. Both might object to
reversion to the wild, but ecologists might consider it good.

Whether its good or bad depends greatly on what you strive to achieve
and even what you actually achieve (which may not be intentional).

As I'm sure you're
aware, it's not your land you are farming, it belongs to your
children and mine.

Er, no, actually it belongs to Jim.
It belongs to anyone else about as much as your house belongs to someone
else. Jim may, or may not, run it with children in mind (or even the
rest of the population), but that's another matter.

I've got my cheque book ready! How much do you need?

Of course given appropriate funding one's aims might change.
But that's quite another matter too.

No realistic amount of money would make me plant any more trees, for
example. Simply because once planted they can in effect never be removed
due to legislation.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

BTOPENWORLD address about to cease. DEMON address no longer in use.
Use
still functions.

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 12:19:53 +0100, Oz
wrote:

Er, no, actually it belongs to Jim.
It belongs to anyone else about as much as your house belongs to someone
else. Jim may, or may not, run it with children in mind (or even the
rest of the population), but that's another matter.


Actually it's mine. I lay claim to the lot. It was promised to me in a
dream one night, after I'd polished off a bottle and a quarter of
Bells. I can't remember any details though.

--

Paul


(Watch this space)

"John Morgan" wrote in message
...

Jim Webster wrote in message
...

"John Morgan" wrote in message
...

Hedges are important reserves for species that previously
occupied niches in the 'wildwood' and it is because of this,
not for their landscape value or their 'naturalness', that
they are objects for conservation today.

The problem is that they are a management tool which is, in
many cases, no longer necessary
[...]
If the state wishes to preserve these obsolete practices then
obviously the state should pay for their preservation

Spot on, Jim. We_should_, indeed we must, pay farmers for good
stewardship, raising some of the money in the form of fines
levied on those who practise bad stewardship. As I'm sure you're
aware, it's not your land you are farming, it belongs to your
children and mine.

I've got my cheque book ready! How much do you need?

none, just arrange for food to be sold at an economic price. You can then
pay benefit to those who cannot afford food.

But remember for every quango that tells me this is good stewardship,
another ngo wanders by and wants me to stop it immediately because it is bad

so I do what my ancestors have done, we just ignore them all because by the
time you can change to do what they tell you, they'll be telling you to do
something different

Jim Webster

"Paul Rooney" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 12:19:53 +0100, Oz
wrote:

Er, no, actually it belongs to Jim.
It belongs to anyone else about as much as your house belongs to someone
else. Jim may, or may not, run it with children in mind (or even the
rest of the population), but that's another matter.


Actually it's mine. I lay claim to the lot.

then take it

Jim Webster

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 12:57:20 +0100, Paul Rooney wrote:

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 12:19:53 +0100, Oz
wrote:

Er, no, actually it belongs to Jim.
It belongs to anyone else about as much as your house belongs to someone
else. Jim may, or may not, run it with children in mind (or even the
rest of the population), but that's another matter.


Actually it's mine. I lay claim to the lot. It was promised to me in a
dream one night, after I'd polished off a bottle and a quarter of
Bells. I can't remember any details though.

One of the details is that your promised land has the historical name
Mesopotamia. Your presence there is required urgently. You need to pacify
your tenants.

--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from uba)

"In the beginning was The Tautology."

In article , Nick Maclaren
wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:04:52 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Paul Rooney" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 12:19:53 +0100, Oz
wrote:

Er, no, actually it belongs to Jim.
It belongs to anyone else about as much as your house belongs to someone
else. Jim may, or may not, run it with children in mind (or even the
rest of the population), but that's another matter.


Actually it's mine. I lay claim to the lot.

then take it

We already have. Why only this weekend me and my rambling buddies
were.................... lol

Judging by your posting times Pete; you never left the computer for longer
than it took to eat and sleep.

Cheerio,

--


http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/

"Derek Moody" wrote in message
...
In article , Nick Maclaren
wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:04:52 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Paul Rooney" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 12:19:53 +0100, Oz
wrote:

Er, no, actually it belongs to Jim.
It belongs to anyone else about as much as your house belongs to
someone
else. Jim may, or may not, run it with children in mind (or even the
rest of the population), but that's another matter.


Actually it's mine. I lay claim to the lot.

then take it

We already have. Why only this weekend me and my rambling buddies
were.................... lol

Judging by your posting times Pete; you never left the computer for longer
than it took to eat and sleep.

perhaps he voids his bowels and bladder through the computer

Jim Webster

"Jim Webster" wrote in message news:cimv8k$dv1
"Derek Moody" wrote in message
Judging by your posting times Pete; you never left the computer for
longer
than it took to eat and sleep.

perhaps he voids his bowels and bladder through the computer

Eeeeew!

--
Michelle
Fort Worth, Texas, USA
Life is short. Be determined to enjoy every minute of it!

Jim Webster wrote in message
...

"John Morgan" wrote in message
...

Jim Webster wrote in message
...

[...]
If the state wishes to preserve these obsolete practices
then
obviously the state should pay for their preservation

Spot on, Jim. We_should_, indeed we must, pay farmers for
good
stewardship, raising some of the money in the form of fines
levied on those who practise bad stewardship. As I'm sure
you're
aware, it's not your land you are farming, it belongs to your
children and mine.

I've got my cheque book ready! How much do you need?

none, just arrange for food to be sold at an economic price.
You can then
pay benefit to those who cannot afford food.

I've already tried that. They used the money to make more
children, who then, out of desperation, felled all the forest on
the mountains above their town and got drowned in this week's
flood.

But remember for every quango that tells me this is good
stewardship,
another ngo wanders by and wants me to stop it immediately
because it is bad.

That's because they are making decisions without talking to the
people on the ground. I do not envisage decisions on methods of
stewardship being implimented without lengthy discussion right
across the board.

so I do what my ancestors have done, we just ignore them all
because by the
time you can change to do what they tell you, they'll be
telling you to do
something different.

Can't say I blame you.

Oz wrote in message
...
John Morgan writes

As I'm sure you're
aware, it's not your land you are farming, it belongs to your
children and mine.

Er, no, actually it belongs to Jim.
It belongs to anyone else about as much as your house belongs
to someone
else. Jim may, or may not, run it with children in mind (or
even the
rest of the population), but that's another matter.

He no doubt has a Land Certificate that guarantees ownership of
the land. I had one for a parcel of land that the government
wanted to build a road on. It turned out not to be worth the
paper it was printed on. If the state wants your land, for any
reason whatsoever, it's as good as gone. THAT'S how much it
belongs to him.
[...]
No realistic amount of money would make me plant any more
trees, for
example. Simply because once planted they can in effect never
be removed
due to legislation.

I find that difficult to believe. Plantation trees are a crop as
much as wheat or sheep. Seems your government has screwed up
somewhere and needs to have the error of its ways pointed out to
it.

John Morgan writes

He no doubt has a Land Certificate that guarantees ownership of
the land. I had one for a parcel of land that the government
wanted to build a road on. It turned out not to be worth the
paper it was printed on.

Well it is, but in certain circumstances the government assumes certain
powers,

If the state wants your land, for any
reason whatsoever, it's as good as gone.

They will pay a 'fair price', which is regrettably usually substantially
less than the owner considers it worth.

THAT'S how much it
belongs to him.

Still about as good as it gets.

No realistic amount of money would make me plant any more
trees, for
example. Simply because once planted they can in effect never
be removed
due to legislation.

I find that difficult to believe. Plantation trees are a crop as
much as wheat or sheep.

No problem, you can fell a woodland but invariably the license that
permits that specifies that it shall be replanted within XX years and
maintained properly thereafter. So these can be removed, but only if you
immediately replace them.

Trees elsewhere still require a license to fell, with much the same
result.

Trees that have been inadvertently been left to grow to a significant
size in a garden in a conservation area, are definitely there for good.
The examples of this I could give would make your hair curl.

Seems your government has screwed up
somewhere and needs to have the error of its ways pointed out to
it.

Completely pointless. They are so clueless they don't understand the
words you use. Trees are GOOD and should NEVER be cut down under ANY
circumstance....

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

BTOPENWORLD address about to cease. DEMON address no longer in use.
Use
still functions.