From: hex@unseen.ac.am 
  
 On 30/08/2025 15:05, Roger Hayter wrote: 
 > 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. 
  
 My point is that *anyone* has the right to remove it if the owner cannot 
 be discovered by taking reasonable steps.  The local authority has no 
 greater right than anyone else. 
  
 To which 'statute' that you say exists (but almost certainly doesn't) 
 are you referring? 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)