Tim Worstall

Theft, Pure and Simple

We have a word for this:

This week, a Government agency called Natural England is expected
formally to propose to ministers that there should be a freely
accessible "corridor" at least 10 metres wide around the whole
2,500-mile coastline of England.
…
According to Natural England, the case against compensation is made by
"the strength and intensity of public interest in access along the
whole of the undeveloped coast". It adds: "There should be very few
instances where compensation might be payable, and the Government
should adopt a working presumption against paying compensation."

It’s called theft. Jail the bastards for even suggesting it.

In

6 responses

  1. Marcin Tustin Avatar
    Marcin Tustin

    And this is theft why, exactly?
    Tim adds: Taking without compensation.

    Reply
  2. Tristan Avatar
    Tristan

    Are they taking the land into ‘public ownership’ or forcing people to let others onto their land?
    I also wonder how you define where the 10m starts. High tide mark? I know places that would enter buildings or be up a cliff.
    Also, I’m sure we’ll see an increase in beach pollution as a result of this, not only more people, but a classic tragedy of the commons could occur.

    Reply
  3. Marcin Tustin Avatar
    Marcin Tustin

    Taking without compensation isn’t theft, because theft requires a right to possession in the first.
    In this case, the right to possession isn’t even being abrogated.
    You might as well call changes in the law onm patents theft. The ownership rights in land are entirely derived from the state, and are subject to change, as well as never being completely exclusive. There is at least one legal academic who denies that it is right to use the term “ownership” in relation to English land.

    Reply
  4. Henning Avatar
    Henning

    Welcome to Norway…
    We’ve had such a law since…, well long before I was born (’75).
    You still own the land but in a belt of up to 50 metres (I think)you can not deny access to the public. There are even restrictions on building close to the shore as this could very well be a ploy to block access for others. You can’t even put up a fence unless you have sheep or cattle grazing.
    But then I live in the last Soviet Republic(tm).

    Reply
  5. Ed Avatar
    Ed

    Surely the MOD will object to this at certain locations? What about other facilities with security or safety concerns e.g. nuclear power stations?

    Reply
  6. Geoff Avatar
    Geoff

    Maybe the people who own that strip of land along the coast called “Flood Defences” should have to pay for them as well?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading