From: roger@hayter.org 
  
 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. 
  
 -- 
  
 Roger Hayter 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)