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.

We own a small farm ourselves.

People walk over the land most days as we walk over theirs.

The trouble with that, though, Philoslothy, is that any land really does need to be properly managed - by someone and at a cost. It doesn't all look after itself, particularly if members of the public wander through, throwing litter and causing mayhem. Many farms and wooded areas have paths through them, public rights of way, etc. The problem is, some people abuse this and cause havoc, thereby, spoiling it for everyone else, those who choose to treat it with respect and appreciate it.

We have a wooded area near us, owned by the council, it is beautiful and appreciated by many. But some people abuse that land. They throw litter, allow their dogs to defecate all over the place (don't clear it up), light bonfires, fly-tip, etc.
Someone has to clear that up (at financial cost).
If only we could be allowed to enjoy our beautiful land, without fear of it being ruined by a few selfish people.

We have been lucky perhaps not to have those problems. We have a footpath that runs through our land and have never had an issue with it. I know of others who have paths going through their land and they remove signs or make it difficult to access the land.

Next to the path is the woodland that we own, we have signs up saying private but respectful visitors are welcome and we have never had problems.

I am genuinely interested in how land access works in Scotland.

We own a small strip of land, there are estates near here which block of huge swathes of countryside behind high walls. It makes me angry.

I also know of landowners who attempt to block access to their land, by sheer coincidence I often walk my dog there on paths I know I am allowed to use.

Owning chunks of our beautiful country is a privilege that comes with a responsibility to the land and the people.

I think we need to think of most fields as a factory floor. Even if they are standing fallow it doesn't mean that people should go stomping about all over them as they fancy.

I would like mls3 to explain properly (because she hasn't, yet) how land being free would mean some people wouldn't have to work stupid hours at jobs they hate.

I'm also fascinated to hear her explanation of how, if all the land is free, anyone will be able or willing to build shops, hospitals, factories, schools etc.

I not advocating traipsing all over fields, but walking along the edge of a farmer's field with a dog on a lead should not be a problem .

Philoslothy - I don't think anyone has said it is, have they?

I am not keen on the mess left by dogs. I would want the law to say no dogs allowed on any land ever except your own property. Any land which allows dogs on is dirty lad. They are dreadful around here. We certainly don't want more dogs on all land. Plenty of Councils ban dogs from beaches because dogs ruin them. Then there is the massive problem of dogs worrying or killing sheep on farmers' lands. Let us not get started on dogs.

There is a limited right to roam in England - not as broad as Scotland.

"Open access land

You can access certain land across Britain without having to use paths. This land is known as ‘open access land’ or ‘access land’. Your right to access this land is called the right, or freedom, to roam.

Access land includes mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land.

You can search for open access land on the Natural England website.

What you can and can’t do on access land

You can use access land for walking, running, watching wildlife and climbing.

There are some activities you can’t usually do on access land, called ‘general restrictions’. They include horse riding, cycling, fishing, camping, taking animals other than dogs onto the land, driving a vehicle and water sports.

However, you can do these things if:

the landowner allows it
there are existing rights or local traditions in place – eg an event that has taken place for many years
public bridleways or byways cross the land – horse riders and cyclists can ride along these

Excepted land

Access is not allowed on some land shown on maps as ‘access land’. This is to protect the privacy of people living and working there, or for public safety. This type of land is called ‘excepted land’.

You can still use any footpaths, bridleways, byways or other rights of way through excepted land.

Excepted land includes:

land less than 20 metres away from people’s homes
land that is being used to grow food
land used for railways or golf courses

Landowners can close off their land to the public for up to 28 days a year, or more if they need to for land management, fire prevention or public safety."
www.gov.uk/right-of-way-open-access-land/open-access-land

Dappegrey, I am not sure. I was just clarifying my position.

this thread has been a hoot!
Thank you for making me laugh.

Hahahahahaha. Thanks for the brilliant thread. Distracted me slightly from my urge to throw a cushion at Tess Daly. OP you are clearly nuts with no grasp of either the history of your country and the origins of land law or the responsibility that comes with owning land. But you did make me laugh!

I have some overgrown woodland. It is purposefully left like that to encourage habitats, wildlife and Oak saplings. There is no profit to be gained apart from knowing that animals and trees are free from human interference!

Nice goady thread, OP. I give it a 4 out of 10: reasonably stupid premise, no proper research, no properly constructed argument to make your point, plucking your statistics out of thin air.

My first year undergrads would do a much better job.

See me after class.

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.

Well that's a load of codswallop OP. Take it from me, I am a 7th generation farmer and I can tell you with considerable authority that if you were to mark yourself out a bit of wild, uncultivated land and live off it you would need to work a LOT more than 8 hours a day believe me.

Even with the benefit of modern machinery and farming methods my average day is about 12 hours and I am not counting tea breaks and lunchtime in that , I mean about 12 hours actual physical work.

It is generally reckoned that for an 'average' family to go more or less self sustaining requires 4-5 acres of land if you have good soil, really know what you are doing and can use it efficiently. Personally I think most non-farmers would need closer to 7 acres.

Do you even know what 7 acres looks like OP? When you clear that amount of land and look at how big it is, you realise just how much work it is.
You clearly have no concept of the hard graft every single day required to stop that amount of land turning into an unproductive, weed strew, pest infested jungle or you'd not make stupid comments such as the one I have quoted above.

8 hours a day... please!

I hope that isn't elder. It smells of pee when it burns.

HAH at this thread, I've seen it all now.

OP, if you want free firewood there are plenty of ways to get stuff much better than that, and recycling & keeping it out of landfill while you're at it. I know several people (including my dad) who get all their heat and hot water free this way , but it takes work. Post on Freecycle saying you'll take builders' timber leftovers. I got over a year's worth of wood in 2 weeks that way . You have to be prepared to sort through it and dispose of unuseable stuff eg anything that might have lead paint on it. If you're prepared to saw it up yourself, there's lots of stuff to be had, eg scavenging from skips . You can get fresh cut wood cheaply if you phone round tree surgeons - if they can't sell the wood quickly then they need to pay for storage or disposal. However, you'd need to store it for about 1 years for softwood, 18months for hardwood, to season it. You need well seasoned wood, which means most of the sap has evaporated from the cut ends. You can burn treated wood but need to do so at a high temperature to avoid vaporised timber treatments condensing as soot in your flue. If you're serious about running a stove efficiently, you'll need a wood moisture meter and a stove flue pipe thermometer - each about £12 from Amazon. Ideally you want the wood below 20% moisture, and the stove running very hot to get maximum efficiency.

This thread has just amused me for the best part of 20 minutes.

Think about the blood, sweat and tears that go into cultivation!!

Some people's heads are so far up their own arses its untrue!

Only 20 minutes? It entertained me for HOURS!

Short answer: yes you would.
Long answer: First and foremost, how is it unethical to own land? I'll presume you own a house, and also the land it stands on (any oil or precious metals belong to the government but other than that, it's yours) as well as a small amount of land around it. If it were truly unethical you would be living in a tent (perhaps in the woods of which you speak). Second, land has not ever been 'free'. Laws on land have been there since William the Conqueror's time and way back in the time of Australopithecus afarensis (some of our earliest ancestors and the first to walk upright who lived around 3.9-2.9 million years ago) and probably before that as well clans would've had territory and they would've killed anyone on it who had no place being there. Land has been 'owned' by people\groups of people pretty much since the time of the dinosaurs. Also if you owned land instead of working (and either farmed it or forced peasants to work on it for you and then taxing them in order to pay your bills as the medieval nobles did, not very ethical) then you would be working just as hard, only if you farmed it yourself it would be hard physical labour (and very expensive to set up) just to be able to quit that job you hate. By all means have a vegetable patch in the garden that you unethically own, but that won't last you very long. You say that if we all owned land we could leave jobs we hate as though it would be better, but you also say it's unethical to own land. Just sayin'.
It's also worth noting that all this 'it's unethical' and 'all land was free' is, quite apart from being utter nonsense, simply a smoke screen for the fact that you are attempting to justify breeching not only criminal law (by stealing from private land) but possibly also civil law (if you were to trespass on his\her land).

The Crown still owns all the foreshore in Scotland (managed by the Crown Estates Commission)

That is not correct. The Crown owns the majority of the foreshore but by no means all. Quite large parts of it are owned by private landowners.

True. What I should have posted is that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Crown owns the foreshore. any crown titles to the foreshore are not registered or recorded. However, the Crowns right to divest itself of ownership of the foreshore is subject to its duty to protect the rights of the public, principally those of recreation, navigation and right to catch certain kinds of fish. These are inalienable rights, where inalienable means to divest oneself of a right to land.

There have to be ways of dealing with land for which no owner can be found, and this is one of the principles behind an a non domino title to land, essentially a transfer of title to oneself, but without benefit of a previous title. However, this was found to be incompetent, as a deed by A to A does not effect a transfer of title.

You have misunderstood how a non domino titles worked. If done properly they were a conveyance from A to B. A conveyance A to A, whether a non domino or not , never worked as you can't convey something you already have.

They were not "conveyances to oneself" They were a conveyance by one party who knew he/she didn't have a title to another party.On the face of the deed it looked genuine. A conveyance by A to A is pointless.

A non domino conveyances in the format A to B worked until recently. The reason they no longer work is the Keeper of the Registers will not accept them as they were being used fraudulently rather than as previously to tidy up missing titles.