Own up, who has their fire lit?

[Athy]

 

When wood has already been chopped down by CRT contractors then you still need permission to take it; this would either be under the tort of trespass to chattels, or maybe the Theft Act.

How would theft be involved? Only, I would suggest, if you remove this wood from CART's property. By storing it or burning it on your boat whilst the boat is on a CART waterway, you are not doing this. Compare the situation with someone slipping, say, a bar of chocolate into their pocket in a Tesco supermarket: they have not committed theft until they leave the premises without paying for it.

[Pykebird]

I have been lighting mine at night, but then I have had one of my back doors open as well, so my dog can get back in if he wants(am on private mooring).

I am a southerner but at least I am a warm one.

[magnetman]

What about if you eat the chocolate in the shop then go and have a cr..

[sprog]

We had are fire going in the evening at the beginning of the week. I'd like to say it was just for our 17 month old boy but it really was a tad chilly.

 

If you've got it, burn it !

[valrene9600]

What about if you eat the chocolate in the shop then go and have a cr..

Not sure but doesn't the theft act say something about denying the owner. So even not leaving the shop you do this if eating in store and using the loo still does same.

As in lots of things in life personal choice comes in. If cold light a fire.

[bizzard]

Whilst sailing down the Stort, twice in the past, I've been told by contractor chaps cutting down trees on the towpath that I could take what I want. Two fellers hollered out to me the first time and tree fellers the second time.

[dor]

Indeed, and I am sure that works great.

 

But I have seen some pretty drastic cutting back of canal side stuff (with associated evidence of cutting up big pieces) and wondered who was responsible and what was the purpose and is it legal.

 

Not to mention stop planks and wooden bump rails... Definitely not legal! I'm pretty sure there is a sort of implicit permission to taking the piles of logs left on the offside by contractors, but not the lines of brash which are left for wildlife cover.

 

We were offered a load of stake tops by one contractor but declined as they were tanalised, which is treated with an arsenic compund.

[magnetman]

Whilst sailing down the Stort, twice in the past, I've been told by contractor chaps cutting down trees on the towpath that I could take what I want. Two fellers hollered out to me the first time and tree fellers the second time.

Did you log their position for later collection?

[Athy]

Whilst sailing down the Stort, twice in the past, I've been told by contractor chaps cutting down trees on the towpath that I could take what I want. Two fellers hollered out to me the first time and tree fellers the second time.

They were Irish, then?

Not sure but doesn't the theft act say something about denying the owner?

 

A very valid point - not one to which I know the answer, but it does make sense. I guess it depends of the owner can reasonably be expected to make some use of the items. For instance, we often pick wild flowers along the towpath (and, on one occasion this summer, from a lock gate) and put them in a vase in the boat. No one could complain about our doing so, as it is hardly likely that CART wanted to do anything with them.

[bizzard]

They were Irish, then?

A very valid point - not one to which I know the answer, but it does make sense. I guess it depends of the owner can reasonably be expected to make some use of the items. For instance, we often pick wild flowers along the towpath (and, on one occasion this summer, from a lock gate) and put them in a vase in the boat. No one could complain about our doing so, as it is hardly likely that CART wanted to do anything with them.

The first two didn't think they'd get the job when they applied for it because at first they thought the add meant tree fellers wanted and not two.

Edited September 13, 2015 by bizzard

[cariad]

Are these stacks of wood not ecopiles?https://www.pitchcare.com/magazine/ecopiles-seeing-the-trees-nomt-the-wood.html

 

only for use with Eco Fan

[Nightwatch]

Righty or wrongly, I have always thought that theft in some way means you had no intesion of returning the potentially stolen item(s).

[Rickent]

Not had any heat on at all yet. Bit chilly in the mornings but not cold enough for heating yet.

Can't put fire on yet as boatman won't be fitted till mid October when we get back from cyprus.

[system 4-50]

It is not cold at the moment. It is NOT cold at the moment. Repeats in the hope that I can be convinced...

 

[Can't light the stove because I'm grinding the paint off the chimney. This is taking way longer than I expected as it clogs the sandpaper. It has got to go to see if it is the cause of the nasty hot sealant smell I get when the stove is burning at anything more than a low level.]

[Woodsy]

Unfortunately it would appear that most of Sumatra have over here

 

http://www.haze.gov.sg/

[Psycloud]

Almost. Bought the coal this morning and was about to set it then the sun made a brief appearance and warmed us up to 19 degrees so I've put the idea on hold.

[Jerra]

How would theft be involved? Only, I would suggest, if you remove this wood from CART's property. By storing it or burning it on your boat whilst the boat is on a CART waterway, you are not doing this. Compare the situation with someone slipping, say, a bar of chocolate into their pocket in a Tesco supermarket: they have not committed theft until they leave the premises without paying for it.

I think you will find you are wrong.

 

From www.legislation.gov.uk

 

A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it;

 

Surely a person taking wood and burning it is permanently depriving the owner.

[Athy]

It's one for the lawyers, Jerra, but I'd say that if the wood is still on their property then you haven't deprived them of it.

[Jerra]

It's one for the lawyers, Jerra, but I'd say that if the wood is still on their property then you haven't deprived them of it.

If you have burned it you have surely! Coupled with as I read it it is the intent which makes it theft. If you intend to deprive them as you do when you intend to burn it it seems to me to be theft.

[magnetman]

Maybe if you put the ash back on the towpath you haven't stolen it ?

[Jerra]

Maybe if you put the ash back on the towpath you haven't stolen it ?

LOL

[Peter-Bullfinch]

Many old pictures of the cuttings and embankments show them clear of trees. Lots of trees now in these spots only seem to be a maximum of fifty years so I'm guessing that the policy might have changed in the late 60s or early 70s to not keep cuttings and embankments clear.

[Peter X]

Jerra's right, that's the crucial wording and its application is pretty clear in the question we're considering here. Let's assume for simplicity that there's no third party landowner in the equation (if there were, I doubt it would make a difference) and that the wood was found, already cut down and unattended, on CRT land. Once the wood is burnt this proves that the boater clearly had the intention of permanently depriving the owner of it, regardless of boat location. I think that the act of loading wood onto a boat and departing demonstrates that intention too, again regardless of boat location. However, as the wording says, it's only an offence if done dishonestly, so if you genuinely believe that CRT are happy for such wood to be taken, you are innocent; this particular point could of course be quite open to debate if such a case ever came to court, and would probably turn on what if anything CRT have ever said on the subject, and the precedent that people have taken such wood for years without any previous objection. The defendant would probably win.

 

The Tesco chocolate bar argument seems a bit different to me, as Tesco like any shopkeeper are offering an implied contract under which the goods must be paid for before leaving their premises, so there the intention is only shown when you walk out.

[bizzard]

You could also launch a home made hot air balloon from your stoves chimney which, if launched with the appropriate wind direction from where you are it will be carried merrily along on the breeze full of CART'S wood smoke in the direction of their offices in Leeds, containing a little note saying ''sorry but it's too late now''.

[magnetman]

, so if you genuinely believe that CRT are happy for such wood to be taken, you are innocent; this particular point could of course be quite open to debate if such a case ever came to court, and would probably turn on what if anything CRT have ever said on the subject, and the precedent that people have taken such wood for years without any previous objection. The defendant would probably win.

 

I suspect that in the absence of a permanent fixed storage for said wood, CRT would be much happier if it was continuously burning