Boat People in Land Grab

[Guest]

I thought to "steal" was to take another person's property without permission? If nobody owned the land initially, is it then stealing or laying claim?

[mark99]

I thought to "steal" was to take another person's property without permission?

 

Agreed.

 

I quite like the next door neighbours boat - I think I'll take it off him suggesting he stole or received the steel as stolen goods from the earth.

Edited June 23, 2014 by mark99

[Sir Nibble]

I think the "All property is theft" thing is a philosophical point insofar as it does seem perverse for anyone to own bits of space-time. Oft quoted is the allegedly Australian aboriginal suggestion that to claim ownership of the land is like fleas claiming to own the dog. It does seem odd that topography that has stood since the earth was shaped before man arose to shit on it can somehow belong to any man any more than to the birds and animals that live there. It's interesting and colourful but to take it seriously means the dismantling of civilisation as we know it so let's not beat each other up about it eh?

[Henhouse]

I think the "All property is theft" thing is a philosophical point insofar as it does seem perverse for anyone to own bits of space-time. Oft quoted is the allegedly Australian aboriginal suggestion that to claim ownership of the land is like fleas claiming to own the dog. It does seem odd that topography that has stood since the earth was shaped before man arose to shit on it can somehow belong to any man any more than to the birds and animals that live there. It's interesting and colourful but to take it seriously means the dismantling of civilisation as we know it so let's not beat each other up about it eh?

I don't buy into the Property is Theft thing at all. It's just some Marxist twaddle peddled by the bearded lefties.

 

But your point about birds and animals does pose another thought.

 

Surely when animals scent mark they are in effect staking their claim to it as what they regard as their territory.

 

Animals can be just as defensive of their "castle" as the metaphorical Englishman. Especially at breeding time.

[Sir Nibble]

I think it would be massively naïve to buy into it, it's the kind of thing adolescents find so alluring as they learn to think. A mental exercise is all and I note you are taking yours out for a canter now It is interesting if unavoidable how land ownership exists and another example of the "all property is theft" view is the old "Fight you for it" joke.

[MtB]

I think I am right in saying it is only the Crown that actually owns land in this country. Everyone else merely owns the freehold rights to the property.

 

This is my understanding too. The term 'freehold' is an abbreviation for 'freehold tenancy'.

 

A freehold tenancy is special in that it has no expiry date and the rent is set to zero in perpetuity, and freehold tenancy rights can be bought and sold.

 

A freehold tenancy is the nearest one can get to owning land in the UK.

 

 

MtB

 

MtB

[Beaker]

 

 

That's not a particularly good picture of Nick Norman.

 

Well, I recognised him!

 

<hides>

[bassplayer]

 

This is my understanding too. The term 'freehold' is an abbreviation for 'freehold tenancy'.

 

A freehold tenancy is special in that it has no expiry date and the rent is set to zero in perpetuity, and freehold tenancy rights can be bought and sold.

 

A freehold tenancy is the nearest one can get to owning land in the UK.

 

 

MtB

 

MtB

When you think how long people have to work to pay off a mortgage to have that 'right' it doesn't seem great value for money really.

[Steilsteven]

I think it would be massively naïve to buy into it, it's the kind of thing adolescents find so alluring as they learn to think. A mental exercise is all and I note you are taking yours out for a canter now It is interesting if unavoidable how land ownership exists and another example of the "all property is theft" view is the old "Fight you for it" joke.

 

I think it would be massively naïve to buy into it, it's the kind of thing adolescents find so alluring as they learn to think. A mental exercise is all and I note you are taking yours out for a canter now It is interesting if unavoidable how land ownership exists and another example of the "all property is theft" view is the old "Fight you for it" joke.

As I said indoctrinated.

 

Think native Americans, Palestine and those Aborigines you mentioned earlier.

 

Keith

[Alan de Enfield]

When I was in South Africa (some years ago - it may have all changed now) there were still areas of un-owned, un-claimed land (particularly 'up-North.) where you could go and put 4 stakes in the ground (any size area you fancied, - a square yard or 50 square miles, or more, send the posts' location to the Government and the land was registered as yours.

 

Even in this country the idea of "Squatters rights" is accepted

 

If you fence, or maintain a plot of land for 12 years without being asked to pay any rent then you can claim it as yours

 

Where land is unregistered, a squatter can acquire title by their adverse possession over a period of time. This is through a combination of the positive effect of the adverse possession giving them title and the negative effect of the LA 1980, which extinguishes the documentary or paper title1. - See more at: http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/professional/guides/practice-guide-5#sthash.jCz4xcKi.dpuf

 

If during the period you are told to move on ot to pay rent the "Squatters claim" starts again from that date.

 

In theory those unlicensed boats moored up on the K&A for 12 years may be able to claim part of the towpath

[John Williamson 1955]

When you think how long people have to work to pay off a mortgage to have that 'right' it doesn't seem great value for money really.

It can be, as the right is transferable to your heirs in perpetuity, with no further payments to be made apart from those determined from time to time for things like stamp duty and other taxes the Government may think up from time to time. It's certainly better value than almost any form of leasehold or tenancy.

 

That's if you are in a situation to take on the responsibilities that go with the rights.

[bassplayer]

It can be, as the right is transferable to your heirs in perpetuity, with no further payments to be made apart from those determined from time to time for things like stamp duty and other taxes the Government may think up from time to time. It's certainly better value than almost any form of leasehold or tenancy.

 

That's if you are in a situation to take on the responsibilities that go with the rights.

I don't believe throwing money at our kids and leaving the house in the will when we die is the answer either.

 

Good parents spend enough of their lives bringing them up, nurturing and caring for them...after all isn't time the only real precious commodity?

[Paul C]

When you think how long people have to work to pay off a mortgage to have that 'right' it doesn't seem great value for money really.

 

 

I don't believe throwing money at our kids and leaving the house in the will when we die is the answer either.

 

Good parents spend enough of their lives bringing them up, nurturing and caring for them...after all isn't time the only real precious commodity?

 

That's your choice though. You've chosen to CC, and not own any land etc. Others choose to buy a home (and realistically, the only way for most is with a long term mortgage); and these particular boaters have decided to "claim" this piece of bank as their land (I don't think its going to be successful though).

[bassplayer]

 

 

 

That's your choice though. You've chosen to CC, and not own any land etc. Others choose to buy a home (and realistically, the only way for most is with a long term mortgage); and these particular boaters have decided to "claim" this piece of bank as their land (I don't think its going to be successful though).

You're absolutely right, we all have a choice. I do wonder sometimes if I'd been happier sticking with my boat when I was a teenager but I chose to follow the main stream, get married, have kids, work 9-5 to pay for a house.

 

I seem to have ended up where I started and I'm very happy about that. I can't really say I regret the last 35 years either though...Maybe it's good to have had the best of both worlds after all!

 

It must be very difficult to keep everyone happy so I don't envy the job of politicians. The trouble is it only takes a few very desperate people to shake the whole country up. It's a juggling act...

[rubblequeen]

Many years ago we had a left wing lecturer who gave an impromptu lecture on "all property is theft" - concluding that there was no such thing as ownership!

 

That evening he made the local newspaper as he had been found guilty of shoplifting.

[NigelMoore]

 

Tosh!!

 

I have to agree with this, albeit there is truth in the comment: “No doubt the outcome will prove the rule of one law for the powerful and another for the weak.” It is not, however, strictly a matter of different laws, rather [as the wording is of course intended to convey], that the law tends to be applied according to the persuasion of the highest paid barrister, most especially when their client forms part of the ‘establishment’.

 

It is certainly an interesting philosophical issue, but as Sir Nibble intimates #28, living within a structured and crowded society such as ours requires an applied code of legal definitions, wherein as much protection is accorded to individual as can be contrived.

 

So far as we are concerned in England, the concept of property law derives originally from the accepted postulate of a God in a position to dispose of ownership of that which He created, certain sophisticated rules concerning which are laid down in Mosaic Law. These formed the core of our English Common Law as initially drawn up by Alfred the Great, with the concept cemented explicitly by the much later compiler, Henry Lord Bracton, and expanded upon by the courts ever since, with statutory Acts playing their part in increasing simplification of a once tediously complex system.

 

This is whence the issue of ‘Crown’ ownership derives, alluded to by several posters – it being laid down thus early that the Crown governs by the will of God [the country’s motto to that effect, emblazoned above every judge’s seat in the land, being officially adopted in the 15thC by Henry V.]

 

However, this is the ultimate “root of title” in English law, not the current universal situation that some seem to think – in other words, while all title is taken as derived from the Crown, once granted by the Crown [or even possessed against it], the ‘fee-simple’ title in possession adheres for all time to the heirs and successors of the ‘grantees’ of the Crown. The title only ever reverts to the Crown in certain rare specified circumstances.

 

The position is most clearly seen in operation in modern times in respect of tidal lands, where the presumption remains that title to the bed resides in the Crown. This has always been, however, a ‘rebuttable presumption’, and where long history speaks to the possession of others, the legal fiction of a “lost modern grant” is applied.

 

[Anyone fancying their chances against the Crown Estate Commissioners these days needs to be well fortified with facts – they take this seriously. So far as I am aware, the CEC have been the only ones so far successful in rectifying theft of their land by BW; they are one body even BW couldn’t face down, and lesser individuals no matter how wealthy, have naturally been equally unsuccessful in claims against the Crown.]

 

There are two other principles of ownership that apply to this underlying concept; first is that ownership most properly applies to those who make productive use of the land in conscientious guardianship of it. Anyone who is so removed from using land to which they have title that they can be unaware of any others in occupation or possession, can lose it to those who do make productive use of it.

 

Second is the principle of relativity of title, which recognises that varying degrees of priority can exist – as for example, landlord and tenant, or even landlord and ‘squatter’. [The levels of priority have been reduced over the centuries, for example the once popular class of ownership termed ‘copyhold’ was abolished in 1926.]

 

It is these latter two principles that come into operation when such as the OP topic arises.

 

It is not, in other words, illegal to do as the Oxford boaters have done – and their declaration of intent to the world [which is what their signs are intended to convey], far from having no legal effect as the article suggests, have a perfectly powerful legal effect. Their entry into possession gives them “title good against all the world, save only the paper title holder.” So the lady with the stone-throwing daughter could legitimately be sued for trespass by the boaters if she entered the land without their permission.

 

Apparently, if the article can be relied upon, the boaters have been getting some very clever advice – and granting permission for members of the public to carry on using the land, subject to their respect for the property, ensures that any effective dispossession by members of the public would have to entail rather extreme criminal violation of the boaters’ persons and property.

 

The signs also serve to give notice to the paper title owner that if the owner wishes to protect his interests, he has [a limited] time within which to do so – and given recent reforms, that will be very easy to accomplish; the law as it now is, ensures that the land cannot be taken away surreptitiously. It would have to be a very absent landlord indeed who remained ignorant of what was happening to his property for a twelve year period, and in effect the law says that in such circumstances, if others have made good use of the land he cares nothing for, then they are more entitled to it than he is.

 

The other effect of the law on adverse possession, is of course that it [at least ostensibly] militates against dispossession by force - because the law permits the person in possession to appeal to the courts for their protection against those with lesser [or no] title, and criminal actions are discounted as valid acts of possession sufficient to usurp title.

[Stilllearning]

I had hoped to see a reasoned response from Nigel Moore on this subject. Many thanks for clarifying the situation for the rest of us.

[bassplayer]

Yes, that was interesting thanks Nigel.

[Paul C]

 

I have to agree with this, albeit there is truth in the comment: “No doubt the outcome will prove the rule of one law for the powerful and another for the weak.” It is not, however, strictly a matter of different laws, rather [as the wording is of course intended to convey], that the law tends to be applied according to the persuasion of the highest paid barrister, most especially when their client forms part of the ‘establishment’.

 

It is certainly an interesting philosophical issue, but as Sir Nibble intimates #28, living within a structured and crowded society such as ours requires an applied code of legal definitions, wherein as much protection is accorded to individual as can be contrived.

 

So far as we are concerned in England, the concept of property law derives originally from the accepted postulate of a God in a position to dispose of ownership of that which He created, certain sophisticated rules concerning which are laid down in Mosaic Law. These formed the core of our English Common Law as initially drawn up by Alfred the Great, with the concept cemented explicitly by the much later compiler, Henry Lord Bracton, and expanded upon by the courts ever since, with statutory Acts playing their part in increasing simplification of a once tediously complex system.

 

This is whence the issue of ‘Crown’ ownership derives, alluded to by several posters – it being laid down thus early that the Crown governs by the will of God [the country’s motto to that effect, emblazoned above every judge’s seat in the land, being officially adopted in the 15thC by Henry V.]

 

However, this is the ultimate “root of title” in English law, not the current universal situation that some seem to think – in other words, while all title is taken as derived from the Crown, once granted by the Crown [or even possessed against it], the ‘fee-simple’ title in possession adheres for all time to the heirs and successors of the ‘grantees’ of the Crown. The title only ever reverts to the Crown in certain rare specified circumstances.

 

The position is most clearly seen in operation in modern times in respect of tidal lands, where the presumption remains that title to the bed resides in the Crown. This has always been, however, a ‘rebuttable presumption’, and where long history speaks to the possession of others, the legal fiction of a “lost modern grant” is applied.

 

[Anyone fancying their chances against the Crown Estate Commissioners these days needs to be well fortified with facts – they take this seriously. So far as I am aware, the CEC have been the only ones so far successful in rectifying theft of their land by BW; they are one body even BW couldn’t face down, and lesser individuals no matter how wealthy, have naturally been equally unsuccessful in claims against the Crown.]

 

There are two other principles of ownership that apply to this underlying concept; first is that ownership most properly applies to those who make productive use of the land in conscientious guardianship of it. Anyone who is so removed from using land to which they have title that they can be unaware of any others in occupation or possession, can lose it to those who do make productive use of it.

 

Second is the principle of relativity of title, which recognises that varying degrees of priority can exist – as for example, landlord and tenant, or even landlord and ‘squatter’. [The levels of priority have been reduced over the centuries, for example the once popular class of ownership termed ‘copyhold’ was abolished in 1926.]

 

It is these latter two principles that come into operation when such as the OP topic arises.

 

It is not, in other words, illegal to do as the Oxford boaters have done – and their declaration of intent to the world [which is what their signs are intended to convey], far from having no legal effect as the article suggests, have a perfectly powerful legal effect. Their entry into possession gives them “title good against all the world, save only the paper title holder.” So the lady with the stone-throwing daughter could legitimately be sued for trespass by the boaters if she entered the land without their permission.

 

Apparently, if the article can be relied upon, the boaters have been getting some very clever advice – and granting permission for members of the public to carry on using the land, subject to their respect for the property, ensures that any effective dispossession by members of the public would have to entail rather extreme criminal violation of the boaters’ persons and property.

 

The signs also serve to give notice to the paper title owner that if the owner wishes to protect his interests, he has [a limited] time within which to do so – and given recent reforms, that will be very easy to accomplish; the law as it now is, ensures that the land cannot be taken away surreptitiously. It would have to be a very absent landlord indeed who remained ignorant of what was happening to his property for a twelve year period, and in effect the law says that in such circumstances, if others have made good use of the land he cares nothing for, then they are more entitled to it than he is.

 

The other effect of the law on adverse possession, is of course that it [at least ostensibly] militates against dispossession by force - because the law permits the person in possession to appeal to the courts for their protection against those with lesser [or no] title, and criminal actions are discounted as valid acts of possession sufficient to usurp title.

 

Do you have any experience in gaining land by adverse possession?

[NigelMoore]

Yes

[Alan de Enfield]

Yes (well my father has)

[Steilsteven]

Thanks Nigel, excellent info as usual.

 

Keith

[peterboat]

Cheers Nigel explained it well

 

Peter