to think no one should own land and ignore a sign saying private woods

[mls3]

Ok o will probably get flamed here.

But there is a badly managed woods near me with am old broken sign that say private woods. Aibu to collect a few broken branches for the wood burner? I know it is stealing, but this woods is overgrown and I'm thinking how unethical it is for anyone to own land.

Land used to all be free, until someone carved it all up to hoard for themselves. If land was still free now maybe we wouldn't have to all be working such stupid hours wasting our lives doing a job we don't like.

"If land was still free now maybe we wouldn't have to all be working such stupid hours wasting our lives doing a job we don't like..."

How did I miss this particular nugget of fuckwittery?

mls3 - do you think it is possible to live off the land WITHOUT ANY EFFORT?

Raising crops is hard work - raising enough to nourish a family is bloody hard, unremitting work. And, of course, you would not be able to farm crops just for your family, because you wouldn't own the land you were farming, so anyone could just come and harvest the fruits of your hard labour - so you'd have to be hunter-gatherers - and it is even harder to nourish your family just by gathering food from the wild. If you are trying to live off the land, you must also remember seasonality - there are months of the year where there is very little by way of readily-gathered food.

You are fucking bonkers op.

You will have to nick loads of logs for this to be at all worth it. I just don't get the point of this? Isn't it easier to order some logs in? How many fires were you thinking of having? Have you checked your carbon footprint recently whilst your on such a social moral high horse?

*you're

Just hand it over to me Viva, I represent 'the people'.

'are you very rich?'

Turnip he has 'office PEOPLE` so I'm guessing he isn't counting his pocket change to check he can get the milk....

Ok... Where do you live? Yabu

"she has bifurcated her proposition."

I had to google that

I love that and will save it to use another day.

And hare wrote that when she was too tired for writing Bun

Sometimes on MN I have to fuzzy my eyes on certain posts and pretend they don't exist, rather than face up to the fact that I don't understand 30% of the words.

I was too busy collecting firewood to further my education beyond O levels.....

Who was it upthread who said that they'd saved to buy a little piece of woodland to protect it?

Best reason I've heard so far on this thread to respect woodland and not treat it all as our own stomping ground.

And the fact that where one person may just wish to take the time to stop and stare, the next may think that ripping through on a trail bike is their right.And they would -trust me.

It's a few bloody sticks of wood...

If property is theft, possession 9/10 of the law and ignorance of the law no excuse for breaking it, where does that leave OP?
The woods are privately owned. This is a fact regardless of the OPs political stance and ownership of land (and registration of those rights to land) is enshrined in law for hundreds of years. OP herself owns property but does not wish to respect the rights of other property owners.
Stating random untruths as "facts" does not advance her case, because it is not the case that 1% own 99% nor is it true that you can only own the surface of the land or that you cannot hold a title to minerals.
Yes, it is only a few bloody sticks at the moment but given the nonsense spouted by OP about landownership, most of which are totally false, it sounds like ther could be a much bigger agenda here. If all she wanted was a few bits of wood she wouldn't be posting at such length spouting all that nonsense about land when it is perfectly fine for her to own property. More than a little hypocritical.
OP if you are genuinely interested in land inequalities, I can recommend a book called The Poor Had No Lawyers by Andy Wightman, a well known land campaigner who was involved in the consultation for the 2012 land registration act (Scotland)

"If land was still free now maybe we wouldn't have to all be working such stupid hours wasting our lives doing a job we don't like..."

How did I miss this particular nugget of fuckwittery?

mls3 - do you think it is possible to live off the land WITHOUT ANY EFFORT?

Raising crops is hard work - raising enough to nourish a family is bloody hard, unremitting work. And, of course, you would not be able to farm crops just for your family, because you wouldn't own the land you were farming, so anyone could just come and harvest the fruits of your hard labour - so you'd have to be hunter-gatherers - and it is even harder to nourish your family just by gathering food from the wild. If you are trying to live off the land, you must also remember seasonality - there are months of the year where there is very little by way of readily-gathered food.

Well done on your inventive imagination, however I said nothing about living off the land. Was just talking about the high cost of land \ housing.

Anyway I'm a theif and took all of this.

you see, there you are again, making huge generalisations like "the high cost of land."
Have you looked at the price of land in crofting areas, for example? It is not the same as land in London. Some land is intrinsically worth more than other land for reason of location, mineral rights, capability to support grazing or fertile conditions for crop growing etc. It is a complex issue, and f you want to enter into any sort of reasonable debate about land ownership you'd do well to acquaint yourself with a few basic facts first. Likewise with forestry management before you declare this wood to be "badly managed".
I'm not at all surprised you took the wood - it was patently obvious from your first post that this was what you intended to do and were just trying to justify the action by spurious and inaccurate statements.
BTW - most people wouldn't actually have a problem with you taking the wood if you hadn't gone on about the wood being badly managed, how nobody should own land even though you own your house etc.

OK, then mls3 - explain how 'all the land being free' would mean no-one having to work stupid hours at a job they don't like'?

To be honest, that sounds like you have just dreamt up this notion, but have no idea how it would work in practical terms. Which is of a piece with your deep knowledge and understanding of rural matters.

Well done on your inventive imagination, however I said nothing about living off the land. Was just talking about the high cost of land \ housing.

So what do you proposed we do with all this land, once its free? There is no point it just sitting around without being used. So, turn all land over to 'the people' and then what??? I don't understand your point. You have indeed bifurcated your proposition, as someone clever said up thread. Do you even know what your argument is anymore?

Good point, MissPenelope. mls3 is very good at soundbite politics, but utterly crap less good at backing up what she says with practicalities and facts.

I think this is the argument in a nutshell:

It is a huge issue worldwide and has been for hundreds and thousands of years. When there were few humans on the planet we each had enough space to hunt and gather. Then we bred too much. Agriculture 10,000 years ago means most of us then started stunting our growth with lots of carbs, we didn't move as much, health declined, people started fighting more for land because once you grow crops you need ownership/my land etc.

Now we are as we are most of us and communism has universally failed to the extent that even in Cuba people can now buy properties and in China.

The FT had a good article recently about the erosion of property rights in Scotland by the way - much more right to roam, crofter's rights to their leased land and various other rights people have over your land. I finished reading it put off ever considering buying any land in Scotland ever...pause.. looked it up. I think it was this one www.ft.com/cms/s/2/c7c0e662-133a-11e4-8244-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3EVVALBeB Their new law even says even if a group of local owners do not want to buy local land and local council can propose a purchase.

"One man’s abandoned land could be another man’s wild flower meadow. And who is the community? That might seem an obvious question, but look to North Uist, where three councillors recently decided it would be a good idea to do a feasibility study for a buyout of the local estate. There was no willing seller, and of the 70 people who turned up to a public meeting only six voted for the study. The councillors decided to press on with a postal ballot anyway. Are the councillors the community? Are the people who attempted to vote them down the community? Then look to the security of the land – what if a landowner subject to a purchase order has borrowed against it? How might a risk-raising law such as this affect the lending practices of banks? If I could see that the law could make my borrower a forced seller, my interest rates might rise a bit. The issue is fraught with the uncertainty of unintended consequences. "

We do in England have certain rights to ramblers too.

Those who think there should be more rights to use the land of others would you be happy if brought my 5 children to camp in your living room whenever we chose? I thought not.

Hmm - not sure about the erosion of property rights in Scotland - for example the Abolition of Feudal Tenure Act 2000 swept away the archaic right for superiors to be able to enforce title conditions over property or to insist on large payments in order to waive those rights and ultra long leases are now converted into property tenure by the Long Leases Act, plus the classic neighbour problem of hedges is partly tackled by the High Hedges Act 2013.

OK, then mls3 - explain how 'all the land being free' would mean no-one having to work stupid hours at a job they don't like'?

Again making stuff up, I never said no one would not have to work. But if people had less debt in their mortgages then they would be able to work less.

Anyway I'm off its the same argument going around in circles. I've anwserd the same things over again, but most people here are determined to be an rude and unpleasant as possible.

Lots of you need to grow up and understand how do disagree with someone without being nasty.

There has been a huge loss of rights as squatting was made illegal. And the gov did try to sell off the forestry commission didn't they?

Lots of you need to grow up and understand how do disagree with someone without being nasty.

Such mean, vicious 'girls'. Tsk

Do you have to 'manage' woods? Don't the trees and squirrels just make their own arrangements?

The bush that my land backs on t I certainly seems able to go about its business without my assistance

Squatting was always illegal