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