"John Morgan" wrote in message
...
Oz wrote in message
...
John Morgan writes

As I'm sure you're
aware, it's not your land you are farming, it belongs to your
children and mine.

Er, no, actually it belongs to Jim.
It belongs to anyone else about as much as your house belongs
to someone
else. Jim may, or may not, run it with children in mind (or
even the
rest of the population), but that's another matter.

He no doubt has a Land Certificate that guarantees ownership of
the land. I had one for a parcel of land that the government
wanted to build a road on. It turned out not to be worth the
paper it was printed on. If the state wants your land, for any
reason whatsoever, it's as good as gone. THAT'S how much it
belongs to him.

that has always happened, but even states are not eternal. There has been
trouble caused by the collapse of states in Eastern Europe and the land
being returned to its previous owners.
In any argument between the citizen and the state, the rights or the citizen
are easily over ridden, but the ease of over riding them doesn't in itself
nullify the rights, it merely shows that without power, rights aren't worth
a great deal

But then we always knew that

[...]
No realistic amount of money would make me plant any more
trees, for
example. Simply because once planted they can in effect never
be removed
due to legislation.

I find that difficult to believe. Plantation trees are a crop as
much as wheat or sheep. Seems your government has screwed up
somewhere and needs to have the error of its ways pointed out to
it.

It is absolutely true. Indeed I know of cases where farmers have loaned
fields to local cricket clubs etc on a casual, rent free basis, only to have
them suddenly taken using compulsory purchase powers by the local authority
who were worried that the local people might lose 'a significant amenity' if
the farmer changed his mind

Jim Webster