From: roger@hayter.org 
  
 On 30 Aug 2025 at 08:40:14 BST, "Norman Wells"  wrote: 
  
 > On 28/08/2025 21:10, Roger Hayter wrote: 
 >> On 28 Aug 2025 at 14:48:13 BST, "Norman Wells"  wrote: 
 >>> On 28/08/2025 00:39, JNugent wrote: 
 >>>> On 26/08/2025 06:58 PM, Norman Wells wrote: 
 >>>>> On 26/08/2025 16:17, JNugent wrote: 
 > 
 >>>>>> I really cannot believe that you advocate theft or criminal damage of 
 >>>>>> the property of others. But it's what you are doing. 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> I've told you why it wouldn't be theft.  What criminal damage are you 
 >>>>> now alleging?  Of what, how, and by whom? 
 >>>> 
 >>>> Of the flags or their moorings. 
 >>> 
 >>> Again, criminal damage to be such has to be to property belonging to 
 >>> another, just as theft has to be.  If that cannot be established, there 
 >>> is no case. 
 >> 
 >> I'll just say this once more, for the record. If you (or a court) can 
 >> reasonably infer that they have tied their flag unlawfully to a streetlamp 
 >> because they *want* it there to make a political point then you can't 
 assume 
 >> it has been abandoned. 
 > 
 > Abandonment is not the criterion in the Act but is just one example of 
 > what is.  The criterion in the Act, which I've said before you really 
 > ought to read because it is definitive, is whether the the person to 
 > whom the property belongs can be discovered by taking reasonable steps. 
 > 
 > Do comment again when you've read it. 
 > 
 >> So theft of or damage to it is illegal whether you know 
 >> which person put it there or not. 
 > 
 > No, it's whether the *owner* of the property can reasonably be discovered. 
 > 
 >> The fact they put it there unlawfully does 
 >> not negate the fact that they *want* it on the lamp post and *haven't* 
 >> abandoned it. 
 > 
 > Of course they want it to be there.  They've put it there after all. 
 > 
 > Whether they have abandoned it is another matter.  What do you say is 
 > the legal definition of 'abandoned'?  If the owner of it does not intend 
 > to recover it, why is it not 'abandoned'? 
 > 
 >> You have no vigilante right to thwart their possibly unlawful 
 >> desire for their property to be displayed. 
 > 
 > No law protects their 'desire'.  And no law prevents my thwarting it. 
 > 
 >> (Anyway, there is quite good chance that if you knock on a couple of local 
 >> door someone will know who put it there. That is not my main point though. 
 ) 
 > 
 > Well, it should be because that is more in accord with the law as 
 > enacted by Parliament than what you imagine it to be. 
 > 
 > But it raises all sorts of other questions. Is knocking on strangers' 
 > doors and asking such questions 'reasonable steps' and something you'd 
 > be expected to do?  Is it in fact likely to reveal who put it there, 
 > which I very much doubt?  Is whoever put it there the person to whom the 
 > property belongs, which it may well not be? And when, if at all, do they 
 > intend to remove it, or have they abandoned it? 
 > 
 >>> Anyway, there may well be no discernible damage. 
 >> 
 >> Just removing it from where it is fixed is likely to be criminal damage. 
 > 
 > Then the local authority would be just as guilty as I if it removed it. 
  
 The local authority have a right to remove it from *their* property, both 
 intrinsic and by statute. 
  
 -- 
  
 Roger Hayter 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)