#111
|
|||
|
|||
Forester says...
In rec.bicycles.tech AMuzi wrote:
:Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote: : On 2/5/2011 2:43 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote: : On Feb 5, 2:29 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI : $southslope.net" wrote: : On 2/5/2011 7:44 AM, Peter Cole wrote: : : On 2/4/2011 10:20 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote: : On 2/4/2011 4:23 PM, Peter Cole wrote: : [...] : There is a right to mobility. That goes back centuries, if not : millennia. The world just wouldn't function if people couldn't get : around. The public right of way is just that. To deny right of way by : vehicle type puts the burden of justification on the municipality. : I am : bordered by a road that is a "private way". It is not owned by the : city : or state but I can not bar traffic on it. I must allow free passage. : : In the US, there is only the right to travel where there is a public : right-of-way. : : Right. That's the relevant point. Hence the name. : : In the UK, travel over private lands has to be allowed by the owners in : many cases. Not so in the US. : : Flaming idiot. Many more hypothetical journies are not accomplished : in the UK because travel over private land requires owners permission : and cannot "be allowed". Trespass is considered a very serious crime : by some landowners. Lack of co-operation by the authourities means : that punishment can be swift. Ever heard of lime pits? : : Is there not right-of-way over the traditional paths on private lands? : : And certainly in the past, open access was allowed for certain : activities, e.g. hunting. : :Passage and especially hunting are traditionally 'by ermission of owner'. Perhaps Mr Beattie might contribute. Depends on the state. US states range from "if it's not posted, you can enter" to "the landowner gets to feed you to his pet lion". -- sig 127 |
Ads |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Forester says...
On 2/5/2011 4:53 PM, A. Muzi wrote:
Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote: On 2/5/2011 2:43 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote: On Feb 5, 2:29 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI $southslope.net" wrote: On 2/5/2011 7:44 AM, Peter Cole wrote: On 2/4/2011 10:20 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote: On 2/4/2011 4:23 PM, Peter Cole wrote: [...] There is a right to mobility. That goes back centuries, if not millennia. The world just wouldn't function if people couldn't get around. The public right of way is just that. To deny right of way by vehicle type puts the burden of justification on the municipality. I am bordered by a road that is a "private way". It is not owned by the city or state but I can not bar traffic on it. I must allow free passage. In the US, there is only the right to travel where there is a public right-of-way. Right. That's the relevant point. Hence the name. In the UK, travel over private lands has to be allowed by the owners in many cases. Not so in the US. Flaming idiot. Many more hypothetical journies are not accomplished in the UK because travel over private land requires owners permission and cannot "be allowed". Trespass is considered a very serious crime by some landowners. Lack of co-operation by the authourities means that punishment can be swift. Ever heard of lime pits? Is there not right-of-way over the traditional paths on private lands? And certainly in the past, open access was allowed for certain activities, e.g. hunting. Passage and especially hunting are traditionally 'by permission of owner'. Perhaps Mr Beattie might contribute. Note Phil W. Lee's post. While fishing, fowling, shooting of game, etc were the right of the landowner (to use or let), blocking the hunt would not have been allowed (prior to the 20th Century). -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Forester says...
On Feb 5, 12:51*pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote: On 2/5/2011 2:43 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote: On Feb 5, 2:29 pm, T m Sherm n _ ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI $southslope.net" *wrote: On 2/5/2011 7:44 AM, Peter Cole wrote: On 2/4/2011 10:20 PM, T m Sherm n _ *wrote: On 2/4/2011 4:23 PM, Peter Cole wrote: [...] There is a right to mobility. That goes back centuries, if not millennia. The world just wouldn't function if people couldn't get around. The public right of way is just that. To deny right of way by vehicle type puts the burden of justification on the municipality. I am bordered by a road that is a "private way". It is not owned by the city or state but I can not bar traffic on it. I must allow free passage.. In the US, there is only the right to travel where there is a public right-of-way. Right. That's the relevant point. Hence the name. In the UK, travel over private lands has to be allowed by the owners in many cases. *Not so in the US. Flaming idiot. *Many more hypothetical journies are not accomplished in the UK because travel over private land requires owners permission and cannot "be allowed". *Trespass is considered a very serious crime by some landowners. *Lack of co-operation by the authourities means that punishment can be swift. *Ever heard of lime pits? Is there not right-of-way over the traditional paths on private lands? And certainly in the past, open access was allowed for certain activities, e.g. hunting. Not in the US, although there are plenty of easements over private lands -- generally given to utilites. Governments can condemn a right of way if necessary, but in general, one never had the right to cross on to another's property without permission. There are some exceptions. In Oregon, for example, the state passed an easment law that basically gave the beaches to everyone -- which, I'm sure was a ****er for a lot of beach front property owners. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Coast By the way, an easement or right of way is an interest in property. If you are talking about a right to cross property or temporarily use property, that is called a license. You have an implied license to go in to Muzi's shop 365 days of the year and cannot be arrested for trespass until the license is revoked, e.g., Muzi tells you to get out. The old open range laws gave animals a license to wander on to the highway or graze on your property. Those laws have been trimmed way back in most range states. I am not aware of any statute or common law principle giving you an implied license to go on to private property to hunt game in the US or GB. Private property has always been the cornerstone of Anglo-American law. The earliest common law actions were for trespass.-- Jay Beattie. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Forester says...
On Feb 5, 10:34*pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote: On 2/5/2011 3:52 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote: On Feb 5, 8:51 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI $southslope.net" *wrote: On 2/5/2011 2:43 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote: On Feb 5, 2:29 pm, T m Sherm n _""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI $southslope.net" * *wrote: On 2/5/2011 7:44 AM, Peter Cole wrote: On 2/4/2011 10:20 PM, T m Sherm n _ * *wrote: On 2/4/2011 4:23 PM, Peter Cole wrote: [...] There is a right to mobility. That goes back centuries, if not millennia. The world just wouldn't function if people couldn't get around. The public right of way is just that. To deny right of way by vehicle type puts the burden of justification on the municipality.. I am bordered by a road that is a "private way". It is not owned by the city or state but I can not bar traffic on it. I must allow free passage. In the US, there is only the right to travel where there is a public right-of-way. Right. That's the relevant point. Hence the name. In the UK, travel over private lands has to be allowed by the owners in many cases. *Not so in the US. Flaming idiot. *Many more hypothetical journies are not accomplished in the UK because travel over private land requires owners permission and cannot "be allowed". *Trespass is considered a very serious crime by some landowners. *Lack of co-operation by the authourities means that punishment can be swift. *Ever heard of lime pits? Is there not right-of-way over the traditional paths on private lands? There are ancient footpaths of which many were registered and give the user the right of legal passage on foot only. *You may not wander from the path, if maintained. *You may not grab a cabbage, nor a leek. *You must travel directly to the other side and must not pause on the land itself, to make a cuppa. *Basically, if you are not actually walking on the given route, you are trespassing. *Many landowners go out of their way and remove styles and fingerpoint signage to the paths. *It is hardly surprising then that walkers then become trespassers because the way is not marked. And certainly in the past, open access was allowed for certain activities, e.g. hunting. No such thing. *Permission to hunt an area of land may come with a tenancy, or may even be granted to the local parishoners, but freedom for all and sundry there has not been. *The ancient rights to the forest will vary, but usually amount to no more than collecting (not felling) firewood nuts and berries. *Plums, quinces, pears etc will have ownership andd you'd better be careful if raiding these. The hunt had the right to go wherever the fox led it, with the only restriction being that areas in the territory of other hunts should not be drawn. That's the law of the country gent with his shotgun in hand, not the law of the land. The hunt (fox's) is a specific 'sport' (arguable) which is carried out over land usually owned by the lord of the manor who leads the hunt. Over his own land including that occupied by tennants. Obviously adjacent landowners who partake in the event would give their permission for the hunt to run over their land. Any damage caused by trespass on other land, the cost of repairs, damage tec can legally be recovered from the hunt. Only a swarm of bees may be recovered off another's land, should you own the bees, with the protection of the law. Stop being so fanciful in your ideas what happens here. -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Forester says...
|
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Forester says...
On 2/5/2011 5:22 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Feb 5, 12:51 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI $southslope.net" wrote: On 2/5/2011 2:43 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote: On Feb 5, 2:29 pm, T m Sherm n _""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI $southslope.net" wrote: On 2/5/2011 7:44 AM, Peter Cole wrote: On 2/4/2011 10:20 PM, T m Sherm n _ wrote: On 2/4/2011 4:23 PM, Peter Cole wrote: [...] There is a right to mobility. That goes back centuries, if not millennia. The world just wouldn't function if people couldn't get around. The public right of way is just that. To deny right of way by vehicle type puts the burden of justification on the municipality. I am bordered by a road that is a "private way". It is not owned by the city or state but I can not bar traffic on it. I must allow free passage. In the US, there is only the right to travel where there is a public right-of-way. Right. That's the relevant point. Hence the name. In the UK, travel over private lands has to be allowed by the owners in many cases. Not so in the US. Flaming idiot. Many more hypothetical journies are not accomplished in the UK because travel over private land requires owners permission and cannot "be allowed". Trespass is considered a very serious crime by some landowners. Lack of co-operation by the authourities means that punishment can be swift. Ever heard of lime pits? Is there not right-of-way over the traditional paths on private lands? And certainly in the past, open access was allowed for certain activities, e.g. hunting. Not in the US, although there are plenty of easements over private lands -- generally given to utilites. Governments can condemn a right of way if necessary, but in general, one never had the right to cross on to another's property without permission. There are some exceptions. In Oregon, for example, the state passed an easment law that basically gave the beaches to everyone -- which, I'm sure was a ****er for a lot of beach front property owners. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Coast By the way, an easement or right of way is an interest in property. If you are talking about a right to cross property or temporarily use property, that is called a license. You have an implied license to go in to Muzi's shop 365 days of the year and cannot be arrested for trespass until the license is revoked, e.g., Muzi tells you to get out. The old open range laws gave animals a license to wander on to the highway or graze on your property. Those laws have been trimmed way back in most range states. I am not aware of any statute or common law principle giving you an implied license to go on to private property to hunt game in the US or GB. Private property has always been the cornerstone of Anglo-American law. The earliest common law actions were for trespass.-- Jay Beattie. Please note that in the UK, hunting refers to chasing after foxes, not shooting or otherwise obtaining game. -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Forester says...
On 2/5/2011 5:35 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:
On Feb 5, 10:34 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI $southslope.net" wrote: On 2/5/2011 3:52 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote: On Feb 5, 8:51 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI $southslope.net" wrote: On 2/5/2011 2:43 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote: On Feb 5, 2:29 pm, T m Sherm n _""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI $southslope.net" wrote: On 2/5/2011 7:44 AM, Peter Cole wrote: On 2/4/2011 10:20 PM, T m Sherm n _ wrote: On 2/4/2011 4:23 PM, Peter Cole wrote: [...] There is a right to mobility. That goes back centuries, if not millennia. The world just wouldn't function if people couldn't get around. The public right of way is just that. To deny right of way by vehicle type puts the burden of justification on the municipality. I am bordered by a road that is a "private way". It is not owned by the city or state but I can not bar traffic on it. I must allow free passage. In the US, there is only the right to travel where there is a public right-of-way. Right. That's the relevant point. Hence the name. In the UK, travel over private lands has to be allowed by the owners in many cases. Not so in the US. Flaming idiot. Many more hypothetical journies are not accomplished in the UK because travel over private land requires owners permission and cannot "be allowed". Trespass is considered a very serious crime by some landowners. Lack of co-operation by the authourities means that punishment can be swift. Ever heard of lime pits? Is there not right-of-way over the traditional paths on private lands? There are ancient footpaths of which many were registered and give the user the right of legal passage on foot only. You may not wander from the path, if maintained. You may not grab a cabbage, nor a leek. You must travel directly to the other side and must not pause on the land itself, to make a cuppa. Basically, if you are not actually walking on the given route, you are trespassing. Many landowners go out of their way and remove styles and fingerpoint signage to the paths. It is hardly surprising then that walkers then become trespassers because the way is not marked. And certainly in the past, open access was allowed for certain activities, e.g. hunting. No such thing. Permission to hunt an area of land may come with a tenancy, or may even be granted to the local parishoners, but freedom for all and sundry there has not been. The ancient rights to the forest will vary, but usually amount to no more than collecting (not felling) firewood nuts and berries. Plums, quinces, pears etc will have ownership andd you'd better be careful if raiding these. The hunt had the right to go wherever the fox led it, with the only restriction being that areas in the territory of other hunts should not be drawn. That's the law of the country gent with his shotgun in hand, not the law of the land. The hunt (fox's) is a specific 'sport' (arguable) which is carried out over land usually owned by the lord of the manor who leads the hunt. Over his own land including that occupied by tennants. Obviously adjacent landowners who partake in the event would give their permission for the hunt to run over their land. Any damage caused by trespass on other land, the cost of repairs, damage tec can legally be recovered from the hunt. Only a swarm of bees may be recovered off another's land, should you own the bees, with the protection of the law. Stop being so fanciful in your ideas what happens here. The reality in the past was that the magistrates would *not* have enforced trespassing claims against those hunting, and would have limited any penalties to financial compensation for property damage. As in all places and times, the law is enforced and interpreted to benefit the privileged of society over the middle class and proletariat. -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Forester says...
On Feb 6, 2:00*am, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote: On 2/5/2011 5:35 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote: On Feb 5, 10:34 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI $southslope.net" *wrote: On 2/5/2011 3:52 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote: On Feb 5, 8:51 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI $southslope.net" * *wrote: On 2/5/2011 2:43 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote: On Feb 5, 2:29 pm, T m Sherm n _""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI $southslope.net" * * *wrote: On 2/5/2011 7:44 AM, Peter Cole wrote: On 2/4/2011 10:20 PM, T m Sherm n _ * * *wrote: On 2/4/2011 4:23 PM, Peter Cole wrote: [...] There is a right to mobility. That goes back centuries, if not millennia. The world just wouldn't function if people couldn't get around. The public right of way is just that. To deny right of way by vehicle type puts the burden of justification on the municipality. I am bordered by a road that is a "private way". It is not owned by the city or state but I can not bar traffic on it. I must allow free passage. In the US, there is only the right to travel where there is a public right-of-way. Right. That's the relevant point. Hence the name. In the UK, travel over private lands has to be allowed by the owners in many cases. *Not so in the US. Flaming idiot. *Many more hypothetical journies are not accomplished in the UK because travel over private land requires owners permission and cannot "be allowed". *Trespass is considered a very serious crime by some landowners. *Lack of co-operation by the authourities means that punishment can be swift. *Ever heard of lime pits? Is there not right-of-way over the traditional paths on private lands? There are ancient footpaths of which many were registered and give the user the right of legal passage on foot only. *You may not wander from the path, if maintained. *You may not grab a cabbage, nor a leek. *You must travel directly to the other side and must not pause on the land itself, to make a cuppa. *Basically, if you are not actually walking on the given route, you are trespassing. *Many landowners go out of their way and remove styles and fingerpoint signage to the paths. *It is hardly surprising then that walkers then become trespassers because the way is not marked. And certainly in the past, open access was allowed for certain activities, e.g. hunting. No such thing. *Permission to hunt an area of land may come with a tenancy, or may even be granted to the local parishoners, but freedom for all and sundry there has not been. *The ancient rights to the forest will vary, but usually amount to no more than collecting (not felling) firewood nuts and berries. *Plums, quinces, pears etc will have ownership andd you'd better be careful if raiding these. The hunt had the right to go wherever the fox led it, with the only restriction being that areas in the territory of other hunts should not be drawn. That's the law of the country gent with his shotgun in hand, not the law of the land. *The hunt (fox's) is a specific 'sport' (arguable) which is carried out over land usually owned by the lord of the manor who leads the hunt. *Over his own land including that occupied by tennants. *Obviously adjacent landowners who partake in the event would give their permission for the hunt to run over their land. *Any damage caused by trespass on other land, the cost of repairs, damage tec can legally be recovered from the hunt. Only a swarm of bees may be recovered off another's land, should you own the bees, with the protection of the law. Stop being so fanciful in your ideas what happens here. The reality in the past was that the magistrates would *not* have enforced trespassing claims against those hunting, and would have limited any penalties to financial compensation for property damage. Trespass has to be shown to reocver damages. As in all places and times, the law is enforced and interpreted to benefit the privileged of society over the middle class and proletariat. JPs are made up, generally from what is considered the lower class society. There is not generally the bias assumed against the working/lazy class in the police courts. By "the law is enforced" I can only assume you mean criminal law, as 'enforcement' does not attatch itself to civil action. County court considers actions of tort, and again, it is difficult to show bias when the majority of evidence is paper based and clear cut. Claims are usually settled within twenty minutes. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Forester says...
On Feb 6, 1:57*am, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote: On 2/5/2011 5:22 PM, Jay Beattie wrote: On Feb 5, 12:51 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI $southslope.net" *wrote: On 2/5/2011 2:43 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote: On Feb 5, 2:29 pm, T m Sherm n _""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI $southslope.net" * *wrote: On 2/5/2011 7:44 AM, Peter Cole wrote: On 2/4/2011 10:20 PM, T m Sherm n _ * *wrote: On 2/4/2011 4:23 PM, Peter Cole wrote: [...] There is a right to mobility. That goes back centuries, if not millennia. The world just wouldn't function if people couldn't get around. The public right of way is just that. To deny right of way by vehicle type puts the burden of justification on the municipality.. I am bordered by a road that is a "private way". It is not owned by the city or state but I can not bar traffic on it. I must allow free passage. In the US, there is only the right to travel where there is a public right-of-way. Right. That's the relevant point. Hence the name. In the UK, travel over private lands has to be allowed by the owners in many cases. *Not so in the US. Flaming idiot. *Many more hypothetical journies are not accomplished in the UK because travel over private land requires owners permission and cannot "be allowed". *Trespass is considered a very serious crime by some landowners. *Lack of co-operation by the authourities means that punishment can be swift. *Ever heard of lime pits? Is there not right-of-way over the traditional paths on private lands? And certainly in the past, open access was allowed for certain activities, e.g. hunting. Not in the US, although there are plenty of easements over private lands -- generally given to utilites. *Governments can condemn a right of way if necessary, but in general, one never had the right to cross on to another's property without permission. There are some exceptions. *In Oregon, for example, the state passed an easment law that basically gave the beaches to everyone -- which, I'm sure was a ****er for a lot of beach front property owners.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Coast By the way, an easement or right of way is an interest in property. If you are talking about a right to cross property or temporarily use property, that is called a license. *You have an implied license to go in to Muzi's shop 365 days of the year and cannot be arrested for trespass until the license is revoked, e.g., Muzi tells you to get out. *The old open range laws gave animals a license to wander on to the highway or graze on your property. *Those laws have been trimmed way back in most range states. *I am not aware of any statute or common law principle giving you an implied license to go on to private property to hunt game in the US or GB. Private property has always been the cornerstone of Anglo-American law. *The earliest common law actions were for trespass.-- Jay Beattie. Please note that in the UK, hunting refers to chasing after foxes, not shooting or otherwise obtaining game. -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. FFS hunting is hunting, "fox hunting" with hounds is considered a sport. Deer is wild and wildly available, should you have permission from the landowner. We do eat the stuff along with hare, rabbit, hog, pheasant, partridge, pigeon. It's all hunted because trapping is mostly illegal. It's just that 98% of the poulation hun ttheir chicken down in the supemarket. The Hunt means a fox hunt with hounds but hunting is still widespread. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Forester says...
AMuzi wrote:
Wes Newell wrote: Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote: In the UK, travel over private lands has to be allowed by the owners in many cases. *Not so in the US. What are you talking about? I think my state (Texas) is still part of the US, and if you come on to my property without my permission I can shoot you dead. That's only because Texas is civilized. By some measures. If you think the law of the jungle constitutes civilization, you'd probably be right at home here. http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...k-1186762.html Note that this murderer got convicted because he pulled his stunt in "liberal" Austin, but still got off with probation because Austin is in Texas after all. In WI, you cannot shoot an armed intruder even if he shoots first. That's absolute insanity besides being an affront to liberty, which begins at the individual in his person and property. I'd prefer to live in a place where a man's life is valued more highly than a twelve-pack of beer. YMMV, as you are so fond of saying. Chalo |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Casio Men's Ana-Digi Forester Illuminator Watch #FT610WV-3BV -Cheapest Watch | [email protected] | Social Issues | 0 | April 30th 08 09:24 PM |
J.Forester How to Brake | nash | General | 0 | March 11th 07 06:17 PM |