The message
from "Jim" (remove $ ) contains these words:

Do we all remember the term "Shithouse Lawyers". I think they have all made
a comment here. The problem is between neighbours and if they can't resolve
it then it may require "REAL" lawyers and they are off on holiday spending
the money they squeezed out of other people who failed to solve simple
things using common sense.

Well, not a term I've come across. In my day it was 'barrack-room
lawyers', and AFAIK it still is.

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

The message
from Sacha contains these words:

I suggested that the OP told the children that they could go into his garden
at any time - in other words, that they have his blanket permission to
retrieve the ball and do not have to keep ringing his door bell and asking
his permission.

This does have dangers. It would be wise to include the concept of
'accidental' into the equation, and 'until or unless I say otherwise' -
with such open-ended blanket permission there is a possibility of
generating a *LOT* of bad feeling, and redress might be very difficult.

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

In article ,
Jaques d'Alltrades wrote:
|
| Going onto someone's land unbidden is trespass. It only becomes a crime
| if damage is done or if the trespass is committed with unlawful intent,
| and is now, I believe, called 'aggravated trespass'.

Sigh. No. Merely entering and not doing damage is not trespass,
and you may even have a right to do so. There are both statutory
and common law rights to enter other people's property, though
collecting balls is not one of them.

Even bigger sigh. No, Nick, you're wrong. "Every inch of the countryside
is owned by someone. It is trespass to go onto someone's land without
authority - which means either their permission or some legal right. But
the public are able to use large parts of the countryside, including
some commons, and all public rights of way and country parks.

[You and the Law. Ch 8.4 (Prof. Michael Furmston T.D., M.A., B.C.L.,
LL.M. & Dr. Vincent Powell-Smith LL.B., LL.M., D.Litt., F.C.I. Arb. -
Hamlyn)]

I am fully aware that the Little Texans among this poxious bunch of
land reivers that claim to be the government of the country have been
trying to revise history and the law, but that is complete nonsense
and always has been. Neither in Anglo-Saxon law nor Norman law do
people own land in the sense of property, but own rights to land.

You are NOT committing trespass if you enter someone's land without
permission if you are trying to contact that person, and have reasonable
grounds to do so. You do NOT have a right to access, and have to leave
if requested, but you cannot be sued for trespass. And there are MANY
other circumstances where you have no RIGHT of entry but have a RIGHT
not to be sued for trespass.

From the OED:

Trespass to land. A wrongful entry upon the lands of another, with
damage (however inconsiderable) to his real property.

In particular, look at the reference to Blackstone (a rather more
authoritative source than yours), which says "and doing some damage
(however inconsiderable) to his property".

Sorry. Trespass just means a wrong against someone, and entering
someone's land without lawful excuse is trespass.

Only in Texas. We haven't YET, QUITE been turned into Little Texas,
and there are those of us who will do our damnedest to stop you Little
Texans from doing it.

And, doing damage can be a criminal offence if it is done deliberately,
depending, I think, on the value of the damage done. Ever heard of
'Criminal Damage'?

Of course. If I had referred to that, I would have said so.

Treapass by itself is actiuonable, but one who sues might expect to be
awarded a minute sum in damages, and it is unlikely that it would be
ordered that their costs be paid by the defendant.

And merely entering someone's land even WITHOUT reason is not actionable.
If you sue, and make NO attempt to claim for damage, you will lose and
have to pay costs. If that were not so, there would be far more
vindictive cases for trespass than there are.

There is no law of Common Trespass in Scotland.

There is an equivalent - at least to the law in England, though not
to what you claim is the law.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

What ho?

The British royalty is one big laugh riot!!!

They are more hysterically funny than the clowns in a three ring circus!!!

They had to kill off Di because she had endeared herself to us Yankees. Its
amazing that Fergie managed to escape alive!!!



"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 17:52:15 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Cereus-validus..." wrote in message
.com...
Yeah, that Theft act is a bit convoluted. It protects the stupid and
punishes the victim. Must have been written up by a republican
judge.

There are no republican judges in the UK.

The
neighbor should have returned the balls deflated with punctures in
them!

You son is obviously a dyslexic dumb jock meat head. Don't want to
know
anything more about your dimwit spawn. His not being able to keep
his balls
out of neighbor's yards six times (or more) is all the proof one
needs of
how inept the dullard is. He's so dumb, he could be president some
day!

We are not cursed with objects of scorn like presidents in the UK.

We are not cursed with objects of scorn like the monarchy in the UK.
--
Martin

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jaques d'Alltrades wrote:
|
| Going onto someone's land unbidden is trespass. It only becomes a
crime
| if damage is done or if the trespass is committed with unlawful
intent,
| and is now, I believe, called 'aggravated trespass'.

Sigh. No. Merely entering and not doing damage is not trespass,
and you may even have a right to do so. There are both statutory
and common law rights to enter other people's property, though
collecting balls is not one of them.

Even bigger sigh. No, Nick, you're wrong. "Every inch of the countryside
is owned by someone. It is trespass to go onto someone's land without
authority - which means either their permission or some legal right. But
the public are able to use large parts of the countryside, including
some commons, and all public rights of way and country parks.

[You and the Law. Ch 8.4 (Prof. Michael Furmston T.D., M.A., B.C.L.,
LL.M. & Dr. Vincent Powell-Smith LL.B., LL.M., D.Litt., F.C.I. Arb. -
Hamlyn)]

I am fully aware that the Little Texans among this poxious bunch of
land reivers that claim to be the government of the country have been
trying to revise history and the law, but that is complete nonsense
and always has been. Neither in Anglo-Saxon law nor Norman law do
people own land in the sense of property, but own rights to land.

You are NOT committing trespass if you enter someone's land without
permission if you are trying to contact that person, and have reasonable
grounds to do so. You do NOT have a right to access, and have to leave
if requested, but you cannot be sued for trespass. And there are MANY
other circumstances where you have no RIGHT of entry but have a RIGHT
not to be sued for trespass.

From the OED:

Trespass to land. A wrongful entry upon the lands of another, with
damage (however inconsiderable) to his real property.

In particular, look at the reference to Blackstone (a rather more
authoritative source than yours), which says "and doing some damage
(however inconsiderable) to his property".

Sorry. Trespass just means a wrong against someone, and entering
someone's land without lawful excuse is trespass.

Only in Texas. We haven't YET, QUITE been turned into Little Texas,
and there are those of us who will do our damnedest to stop you Little
Texans from doing it.

And, doing damage can be a criminal offence if it is done deliberately,
depending, I think, on the value of the damage done. Ever heard of
'Criminal Damage'?

Of course. If I had referred to that, I would have said so.

Treapass by itself is actiuonable, but one who sues might expect to be
awarded a minute sum in damages, and it is unlikely that it would be
ordered that their costs be paid by the defendant.

And merely entering someone's land even WITHOUT reason is not actionable.
If you sue, and make NO attempt to claim for damage, you will lose and
have to pay costs. If that were not so, there would be far more
vindictive cases for trespass than there are.

There is no law of Common Trespass in Scotland.

There is an equivalent - at least to the law in England, though not
to what you claim is the law.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Trespass is a civil offence under the laws of England and Wales and is
actionable see another link below

"Trespass
Trespass (illegally entering another person's property) is a tort which is
prosecuted by civil proceedings rather then a criminal court.

Straight forward trespass that does not form part of any criminal offence
e.g.when a person wanders onto another's land from a public footpath
intentionally or otherwise this is a civil offence. Police generally have no
powers in respect of civil trespass.

Sometimes the entry may have been lawful and authorised, but the person
entering may later become a trespasser (e.g. the purchaser of a theatre
ticket who creates a disturbance and refuses to leave when requested becomes
a trespasser).

Trespass is an ingredient part of numerous criminal offences, an example
being burglary which cannot be proved unless the offender trespasses and
steals etc. It then becomes part of a criminal offence triable accordingly.
"

http://www.nottinghamshire.police.uk...=-1&pk_main=72

"suspicious minds"

Elvis has entered the building!!!

SUSPICIOUS MINDS

(words & music by Mark James)

We're caught in a trap
I can't walk out
Because I love you too much baby

Why can't you see
What you're doing to me
When you don't believe a word I say?

We can't go on together
With suspicious minds
And we can't build our dreams
On suspicious minds

So, if an old friend I know
Drops by to say hello
Would I still see suspicion in your eyes?

Here we go again
Asking where I've been
You can't see these tears are real
I'm crying

We can't go on together
With suspicious minds
And be can't build our dreams
On suspicious minds

Oh let our love survive
Or dry the tears from your eyes
Let's don't let a good thing die

When honey, you know
I've never lied to you
Mmm yeah, yeah

Jaques d'Alltrades wrote in message . uk...
The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:
In article ,
"ex WGS Hamm" writes:
|
| You and I are reading the same thing and interpreting it differently. If
| someone told my neighbour's kids that they didn't have to ask my
permission
| to come into my garden but to just come and get the ball, that to
me means
| they are being incited to trespass.

Nonsense. Trespass requires damage. Merely entering someone else's
land is not trespass.

Going onto someone's land unbidden is trespass. It only becomes a crime
if damage is done or if the trespass is committed with unlawful intent,
and is now, I believe, called 'aggravated trespass'.

For instance, if you take your car on the road to visit your Great Aunt
Agatha, there is no unlawful intent (unless you intend to put rat poison
in her tea caddy). However, under fairly recent legislation, if you
drive your car on the road with the intention of shooting your
neighbour's pheasants, you are committing the tort of trespass on the
public highway, as well as the crimes of armed trespass and aggravated
trespass.

The Oxford English Dictionary has a specific entry for Trespass to
Land.
From memory it says "Unlawful entry onto the land of another with
damage to his real property"

This definition Must be based on theblegal definition to be so worded.

It is a commonly misunderstood word but simply entering onto somone
else's land without thier permission cannot be trespass since it does
not fit the definition.

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
om...
Jaques d'Alltrades wrote in message
. uk...
The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:
In article ,
"ex WGS Hamm" writes:
|
The Oxford English Dictionary has a specific entry for Trespass to
Land.
From memory it says "Unlawful entry onto the land of another with
damage to his real property"
Iy actually Says " vto enter a persons land or property unlawfully"

This definition Must be based on theblegal definition to be so worded.

It is a commonly misunderstood word but simply entering onto somone
else's land without thier permission cannot be trespass since it does
not fit the definition.
WRONG see below from
http://www.lawteacher.net/Tort/Tresp...0to%20Land.htm

TRESPASS TO LAND
DEFINITION

Trespass to land occurs where a person directly enters upon another's land
without permission, or remains upon the land, or places or projects any
object upon the land.

This tort is actionable per se without the need to prove damage.

By contrast, nuisance is an indirect interference with another's use and
enjoyment of land, and normally requires proof of damage to be actionable.



THE WAYS IN WHICH TRESPASS MAY OCCUR

1. Entering upon land

Walking onto land without permission, or refusing to leave when permission
has been withdrawn, or throwing objects onto land are all example of
trespass to land. For example, see Basely v Clarkson (1681) 3 Lev 37, below.

2. Trespass to the airspace

Trespass to airspace above the land can be committed. In Kelsen v Imperial
Tobacco Co [1957] 2 QB 334, D committed trespass by allowing an advertising
board to project eight inches into P's property at ground level and another
above ground level.

Note that s76(1) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 provides that no action
shall lie in nuisance or trespass by reason only of the flight of an
aircraft over any property at a height above the ground which is reasonable.
However, s76(2) confers a statutory right of action in respect of physical
damage caused by aircraft, actionable without proof of negligence.

3. Trespass to the ground beneath the surface

In Bulli Coal Mining Co v Osborne [1899] AC 351, the Ds mined from their
land through to the P's land. This was held to be trespass to the subsoil.



POSSESSION OF LAND

This tort developed to protect a person's possession of land, and so only a
person who has exclusive possession of land may sue.

Thus, a landlord of leased premises does not have exclusive possession, nor
does a lodger or a licensee. However, a tenant or subtenant does (Street v
Mountford [1985] 2 All ER 289).



CONTINUING TRESPASS

A continuing trespass is a failure to remove an object (or the defendant in
person) unlawfully placed on land. It will lead to a new cause of action
each day for as long as it lasts (Holmes v Wilson and others (1839) 10 A&E
503; Konskier v Goodman Ltd [1928] 1 KB 421).

For example, in Holmes v Wilson and others (1839) the Ds built supports for
a road on P's land. The Ds paid damages for the trespass, but were held
liable again in a further action for failing to remove the buttresses.



MISTAKEN OR NEGLIGENT ENTRY

Trespass to land is an intentional tort. However, intention for the act is
required, not an intention to trespass. Consequently, deliberate entry is
required and lack of knowledge as to trespass will not be a defence (Conway
v George Wimpey & Co [1951] 2 KB 266, 273).

Mistaken entry

In Basely v Clarkson (1681) 3 Lev 37, the D owned land adjoining P's, and in
mowing his own land he involuntarily and by mistake mowed down some grass on
the land of P. P had judgment for 2s.

Involuntary entry

An involuntary trespass is not actionable: Smith v Stone (1647) Sty 65,
where D was carried onto the land of P by force and violence of others;
there was trespass by the people who carried D onto the land, and not by D.

Negligent entry

A negligent entry is possible and was considered in League Against Cruel
Sports v Scott [1985] 2 All ER 489. The Ps owned 23 unfenced areas of land.
Staghounds used to enter the land in pursuit of deer. The Ps sued the joint
Masters of the Hounds for damages and sought an injunction against further
trespasses. Park J issued an injunction in respect of one area restraining
the defendants themselves, their servants or agents, or mounted followers,
from causing or permitting hounds to enter or cross the property. Damages
for six trespasses were awarded. The judge said:

"Where a master of staghounds takes out a pack of hounds and deliberately
sets them in pursuit of a stag or hind knowing that there is a real risk
that in the pursuit hounds may enter or cross prohibited land, the master
will be liable for trespass if he intended to cause the hounds to enter such
land or if by his failure to exercise proper control over them he causes
them to enter such land."



DEFENCES

Licence

A licence is a permission to enter land and may be express, implied or
contractual. A dictionary definition is as follows:

"In land law, a licence is given by X to Y when X, the occupier of land,
gives Y permission to perform an act which, in other circumstances, would be
considered a trespass, e.g., where X allows Y to reside in X's house as a
lodger. A bare licence is merely gratuitous permission. A licence may be
coupled with an interest, as where X sells standing timber to Y on condition
that Y is to sever the timber; in this case the sale implies the grant of a
licence to Y to enter X's land. For contractual licence see Horrocks v
Forray [1976] 1 WLR 230. See Somma v Hazelhurst [1978] 2 All ER 1011; Street
v Mountford [1985] AC 809." (LB Curzon, Dictionary of Law, Fourth Edition).

If a licensee exceeds their licence, or remains on the land after it has
expired or been revoked, the licensee becomes a trespasser (Wood v
Leadbitter (1845) 13 M&W 838; Hillen v ICI (Alkali) Ltd [1936] AC 65). Such
a person is allowed a reasonable time in which to leave (Robson v Hallett
[1967] 2 QB 939; Minister of Health v Bellotti [1944] KB 298).


There is also the defence of estoppel by acquiescence, that is, consent
which is expressed or implied from conduct, eg, inactivity or silence (Jones
v Stones [1999] 1 WLR 1739 - mere delay in complaining is not acquiescence).

Rights of entry

A person may exercise a lawful right of entry onto land, for example:

· A private right of way granted to the defendant;
· A public right of way;
· A right given by the common law, such as the right to abate a
nuisance; and
· A right of access given by statute, such as ss16-18 PACE 1984, the
Access to Neighbouring Land Act 1992 and s8 of the Party Wall Act etc. Act
1996.



REMEDIES

Remedies include:

· Damages (which will be nominal if there is only slight harm to land).

· An injunction to prevent further acts of trespass (at the discretion of
the court).

· An action for the recovery of land if a person has been deprived of lawful
possession of the land (formerly known as ejectment).

Note 1: an action cannot be brought to recover land after the expiration
of twelve years from the date on which the right of action accrued: s15 of
the Limitation Act 1980.

Note 2: the procedure for the removal of squatters is now contained in
schedule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules (previously RSC Ord. 113), and a
residential occupier cannot be evicted by a landlord without a court order
under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.

Two recent cases a

Dutton v Manchester Airport plc [1999] 2 All ER 675
Countryside Residential Ltd v Tugwell (2000) The Times April 4

· An action for mesne profits, to recover damages for loss during a period
of dispossession (Inverugie Investments Ltd v Hackett [1995] 3 All ER 841,
846 per Lord Lloyd).

· Right of entry, ie the right of resuming possession of land by entering.

Note 1: A lease may give the lessor the right to re-enter on a breach of
covenant by the lessee but the right is not enforceable unless and until
notice is served on the lessee under s146 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

Note 2: It is unlawful to enforce a right of re-entry, except through
court proceedings, while the occupier is lawfully residing in the premises:
s2 Protection from Eviction Act 1977.

The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:

Even bigger sigh. No, Nick, you're wrong. "Every inch of the countryside
is owned by someone. It is trespass to go onto someone's land without
authority - which means either their permission or some legal right. But
the public are able to use large parts of the countryside, including
some commons, and all public rights of way and country parks.

[You and the Law. Ch 8.4 (Prof. Michael Furmston T.D., M.A., B.C.L.,
LL.M. & Dr. Vincent Powell-Smith LL.B., LL.M., D.Litt., F.C.I. Arb. -
Hamlyn)]

I am fully aware that the Little Texans among this poxious bunch of
land reivers that claim to be the government of the country have been
trying to revise history and the law, but that is complete nonsense
and always has been. Neither in Anglo-Saxon law nor Norman law do
people own land in the sense of property, but own rights to land.

Ah. I was forgetting the agenda. Try looking at Case Law.

You are NOT committing trespass if you enter someone's land without
permission if you are trying to contact that person, and have reasonable
grounds to do so.

I didn't even imply that you were. You're doing a
politician-being-interviewed act - answering the point you want to make,
not responding to the one made.

You do NOT have a right to access, and have to leave
if requested, but you cannot be sued for trespass. And there are MANY
other circumstances where you have no RIGHT of entry but have a RIGHT
not to be sued for trespass.

From the OED:

The OED is not a legal authority. Indeed, it is well out of step with
normal English usage, with its '-ize' constructions - however correct it
might be from descent from the Norman and Anglo-Saxon standards. ;-p

Trespass to land. A wrongful entry upon the lands of another, with
damage (however inconsiderable) to his real property.

In particular, look at the reference to Blackstone (a rather more
authoritative source than yours), which says "and doing some damage
(however inconsiderable) to his property".

Unfortunately I don't have Blackstone to hand - and on Dial-up, I'm not
wasting valuable online time looking it up.

Most of my other law textbooks are in store, or I'd shoot you down in flames.

Sorry. Trespass just means a wrong against someone, and entering
someone's land without lawful excuse is trespass.

Only in Texas. We haven't YET, QUITE been turned into Little Texas,
and there are those of us who will do our damnedest to stop you Little
Texans from doing it.

Ah, agendas again.

And, doing damage can be a criminal offence if it is done deliberately,
depending, I think, on the value of the damage done. Ever heard of
'Criminal Damage'?

Of course. If I had referred to that, I would have said so.

You did, and you said that doing damage was not a criminal offence.

Treapass by itself is actiuonable, but one who sues might expect to be
awarded a minute sum in damages, and it is unlikely that it would be
ordered that their costs be paid by the defendant.

And merely entering someone's land even WITHOUT reason is not actionable.
If you sue, and make NO attempt to claim for damage, you will lose and
have to pay costs. If that were not so, there would be far more
vindictive cases for trespass than there are.

With the threat of having to pay *ALL* the costs of the case, I find
that unlikely. (I wish I had Tony Weir's excellent casebook to hand -
ISTR that very point in case law.)

There is no law of Common Trespass in Scotland.

There is an equivalent - at least to the law in England, though not
to what you claim is the law.

No, there isn't. Trust me.

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
k...
The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:

Even bigger sigh. No, Nick, you're wrong. "Every inch of the countryside
is owned by someone. It is trespass to go onto someone's land without
authority - which means either their permission or some legal right. But
the public are able to use large parts of the countryside, including
some commons, and all public rights of way and country parks.

[You and the Law. Ch 8.4 (Prof. Michael Furmston T.D., M.A., B.C.L.,
LL.M. & Dr. Vincent Powell-Smith LL.B., LL.M., D.Litt., F.C.I. Arb. -
Hamlyn)]

I am fully aware that the Little Texans among this poxious bunch of
land reivers that claim to be the government of the country have been
trying to revise history and the law, but that is complete nonsense
and always has been. Neither in Anglo-Saxon law nor Norman law do
people own land in the sense of property, but own rights to land.

Ah. I was forgetting the agenda. Try looking at Case Law.

You are NOT committing trespass if you enter someone's land without
permission if you are trying to contact that person, and have reasonable
grounds to do so.

I didn't even imply that you were. You're doing a
politician-being-interviewed act - answering the point you want to make,
not responding to the one made.

You do NOT have a right to access, and have to leave
if requested, but you cannot be sued for trespass. And there are MANY
other circumstances where you have no RIGHT of entry but have a RIGHT
not to be sued for trespass.

From the OED:

The OED is not a legal authority. Indeed, it is well out of step with
normal English usage, with its '-ize' constructions - however correct it
might be from descent from the Norman and Anglo-Saxon standards. ;-p

Trespass to land. A wrongful entry upon the lands of another, with
damage (however inconsiderable) to his real property.

In particular, look at the reference to Blackstone (a rather more
authoritative source than yours), which says "and doing some damage
(however inconsiderable) to his property".

Unfortunately I don't have Blackstone to hand - and on Dial-up, I'm not
wasting valuable online time looking it up.

Most of my other law textbooks are in store, or I'd shoot you down in
flames.

Sorry. Trespass just means a wrong against someone, and entering
someone's land without lawful excuse is trespass.

Only in Texas. We haven't YET, QUITE been turned into Little Texas,
and there are those of us who will do our damnedest to stop you Little
Texans from doing it.

Ah, agendas again.

And, doing damage can be a criminal offence if it is done deliberately,
depending, I think, on the value of the damage done. Ever heard of
'Criminal Damage'?

Of course. If I had referred to that, I would have said so.

You did, and you said that doing damage was not a criminal offence.

Treapass by itself is actiuonable, but one who sues might expect to be
awarded a minute sum in damages, and it is unlikely that it would be
ordered that their costs be paid by the defendant.

And merely entering someone's land even WITHOUT reason is not actionable.
If you sue, and make NO attempt to claim for damage, you will lose and
have to pay costs. If that were not so, there would be far more
vindictive cases for trespass than there are.

With the threat of having to pay *ALL* the costs of the case, I find
that unlikely. (I wish I had Tony Weir's excellent casebook to hand -
ISTR that very point in case law.)

There is no law of Common Trespass in Scotland.

There is an equivalent - at least to the law in England, though not
to what you claim is the law.

No, there isn't. Trust me.

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/
You are correct ,I have posted three reliable references with links ( and
case law) and they still argue the toss. The OED is a reference for English
language not statutory law.

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

The world being what it is, I think you are in for quite a large
amount of trouble if an intruder gets seriouasly hurt by that animal
you keep. You should consider getting it put down.

You are a moron for even suggesting such a thing. I would *never* have him
put down. If someone makes an effort to break into my land or home, they
deserve to get bitten. If he was savaged, who can say which of the dogs did
it? He would have to be able to say which of the dogs did it before anything
was done and then initially it would be a warning since he has no black
marks against him so far.
If some council house chavs try to get into my land intent on thieving they
deserve all they get. Perhaps they should be put down.
Küss mich am arsche Sie blöde affe.

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
k...
The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:

snip, snip, snip

No, there isn't. Trust me.

Trust a lawyer? (Exits laughing heartily.....)

"Cereus-validus..." wrote in message
om...
What ho?

The British royalty is one big laugh riot!!!

They are more hysterically funny than the clowns in a three ring circus!!!

They had to kill off Di because she had endeared herself to us Yankees.
Its
amazing that Fergie managed to escape alive!!!

If removing Dianna upset the Yanks, at least it did some good then.

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
k...
The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:
In article ,
"ex WGS Hamm" writes:
|
| You and I are reading the same thing and interpreting it differently.
If
| someone told my neighbour's kids that they didn't have to ask my
permission
| to come into my garden but to just come and get the ball, that to
me means
| they are being incited to trespass.

Nonsense. Trespass requires damage. Merely entering someone else's
land is not trespass.

Going onto someone's land unbidden is trespass. It only becomes a crime
if damage is done or if the trespass is committed with unlawful intent,
and is now, I believe, called 'aggravated trespass'.

For instance, if you take your car on the road to visit your Great Aunt
Agatha, there is no unlawful intent (unless you intend to put rat poison
in her tea caddy). However, under fairly recent legislation, if you
drive your car on the road with the intention of shooting your
neighbour's pheasants, you are committing the tort of trespass on the
public highway, as well as the crimes of armed trespass and aggravated
trespass.

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

My understanding is that once a road had been adopted by a Local Authority
or The Highways Authority, everyone has a right of access to and over it.
Criminal intent relates to the intention to commit a crime, not the location
of the person having that intent.
Am I wrong? If so, why? And why should I believe you?

On 12/11/04 11:16 am, in article
, "Jaques d'Alltrades"
wrote:

snip

Sorry, IIRC the postie has a specific exemption - though I'm not sure
how or whether that applies to junk mail.

Possibly something to do with not obstructing Her Majesty's Mail, or
something of that sort!
--

Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)