From: JNugent73@mail.com 
  
 On 21/08/2025 08:13 PM, Roger Hayter wrote: 
 > On 21 Aug 2025 at 18:06:05 BST, "Jethro_uk"  
 wrote: 
 > 
 >> On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 16:28:08 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote: 
 >> 
 >>> On 21 Aug 2025 at 16:58:57 BST, "Jethro_uk"  
 >>> wrote: 
 >>> 
 >>>> On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 15:57:09 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote: 
 >>>> 
 >>>>> On 21 Aug 2025 at 16:30:25 BST, "Jethro_uk"  
 >>>>> wrote: 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>>> On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 15:43:27 +0100, Les. Hayward wrote: 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>>> On 21/08/2025 15:24, brian wrote: 
 >>>>>>>> [quoted text muted] 
 >>>>>>> Well it would only be illegal if the landowner was against it and 
 >>>>>>> since it has been there for years without objection, I doubt that 
 >>>>>>> they are. I can't see how moving a chunk of rock a few feet is 
 >>>>>>> harming the environment, 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> It can be criminal damage in England. 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> If the owner of the land does not value any particular arrangement of 
 >>>>> the rocks above any other then it would be impossible to establish 
 >>>>> damage. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> I thought there was a long standing principle that "damage" need not be 
 >>>> established ? 
 >>> 
 >>> I thought it was more a principle that something does not have to be 
 >>> physically broken to be damaged if it costs you money or effort to put 
 >>> it back the way you like it. 
 >> 
 >> Seems like we are agreeing. Especially as it's also established there 
 >> need be no minimum value for the "damage". 
 > 
 > Up to point; if the owner doesn't care where the stones are put then there 
 > can't be any damage from moving them! 
  
 And the owner - varying over time - has not minded how the stones are 
 placed for a long time - probably over a century. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)