 sj |
||
|
||
BS: ...this land is private property
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Mar 16 - 05:39 PM Just had the Dartmoor folk on our local news. They've been there for donkeys' years. Apparently they're spoiling the look and feel of the national park. Nothing like as nice as the MOD firing ranges then. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: GUEST Date: 04 Mar 16 - 11:12 PM Here in the PNW the Spotted Owl put a whole lot small timber companies out of business. Weyerhaeuser was happy to buy their holding of course |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Teribus Date: 05 Mar 16 - 02:15 AM "I don't think we need the land to be in the hands of large farmers, there should be a more equitable distribution." Who decides who gets what? Who defines what is "a more equitable distribution."? If the marked improvement in crop yields was "due to improved fertilisers and pesticides. And the start really was National Growmore, introduced in 1945. But available to large farmers, small farmers, smallholders and hobby gardeners alike." - Who was it that did most with that advance to feed a country that economically was on its knees? - The large farmer. You also forget the contribution made to more efficient farming brought about by the humble tractor - compare the numbers of those working on the land pre and post Second World War. MOD land and firing ranges have saved more of this country's "wild habitat" than they have destroyed, and oddly enough the vast majority of it is let out to farmers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Thompson Date: 05 Mar 16 - 02:48 AM This land is my land (rubs hands) This land is my land From California To the New York island… |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Teribus Date: 05 Mar 16 - 06:37 AM Then of course Thompson there is always the Ben Cartwright song which if memory serves me correctly starts off: "From the Halls of Montezuma To the shores of Tripoli The land is called the Ponderosa And it all belongs to me" Do I begrudge, or am I envious of, what others have and own? No I most certainly do not, to do so is pointless and idiotic, what others have does not affect me whatsoever, they are welcome to it. I can do as I wish, those born to an inheritance accompanied by stewardship are born with a millstone round their necks as they bear the responsibility to maintain what has been put in their hands. A more equitable distribution is recommended yet nobody can define what equitable means or who should be given this land. Shaw wants millions of smallholdings yet having been asked on an number of occasions cannot say who would take on and run these smallholdings - Cloud Cuckoo-land is what I would call it and a guaranteed recipe for disaster as far as the country would be concerned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Stu Date: 05 Mar 16 - 06:59 AM " those born to an inheritance accompanied by stewardship are born with a millstone round their necks as they bear the responsibility to maintain what has been put in their hands." Spoken like a true serf Tezza, a fine piece of cap doffing to your betters! The Bastard would be pleased to see the Norman Yoke was still in place and educating the peasants. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 05 Mar 16 - 07:01 AM How often do you replace your hat Teribus, it must get terribly worn out doffing it all the time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 05 Mar 16 - 07:19 AM Stu you beat me to it, apologises for cross posting the same thought. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Teribus Date: 05 Mar 16 - 07:23 AM Very pleased to say Stu and Raggy your posts say more about you than they do about me. Also extremely pleased that I do not live in your mean world of spite and envy. As to what you think about me? I couldn't care less. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 05 Mar 16 - 09:30 AM I hold land in Scotland Terriblossom, you can doff your cap next time I'm up visiting it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Mar 16 - 10:15 AM Not one of those square feet in Islay, Raggytash? ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Donuel Date: 05 Mar 16 - 12:10 PM The private property allowances by the USA is a wonderful thing. That is not the point. The point is that under the concentrated wealth policies there is no space for citizens but plenty for the 1% and corporations. We become trespassers in our own Nation. Well posted Joe offer complete with multiple links that show the 7th largest island to be private and not the 5th largest as I said. In fact Joe has formed a inflammatory pre conception of my posts that is not in keeping with reality. Joe, check your ideas about making/keeping federal land private. You are on the slippery slope of becoming a Texas and Oregon terrorist sympathizer. Joe Campin, you are a true hero. Your research seems stellar so far and raises many intriguing questions. like: Why try to virtually hide the data just now? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Donuel Date: 05 Mar 16 - 12:35 PM 47% of the Amazon Rain Forest is now destroyed in relation to its pristine state 100 years ago. It is the trees and vapor that creates low pressure that makes a global rain cycle. Without remediation, drought is the outcome everywhere. There is a scientist that has found that the planet Earth would need a 50% policy of a no human interference policy for the oceans and land for the planet to have a reasonable chance of healing itself from a runaway global heating event. If you think a private property takeover by a few is a hard problem to solve, think about a 50% solution conundrum. Few are informed and many are not. Doom awaits all but the rich who will lose the same Earth we all used to share. They simply will have a little more time in outlying areas. Or we could see the sense that visionaries are telling us how to save our Planet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 05 Mar 16 - 01:37 PM Steve, I've managed to lose your email address. Could you drop me a line. Ta Nick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Teribus Date: 05 Mar 16 - 03:38 PM Oooooh Raggy you "hold land in Scotland" do you? Now ask me the important question - Do I actually give a fuck? The answer is NO. Would this land that you "hold" be where you live and was IT equitably distributed? Tell me Raggy why should the fact that you "hold" something mean that anybody has to doff their cap to you? Is there some fundamental need of yours that needs filling? Do many people do it? I cannot ever remember doffing my cap to anyone and throughout the course of my life I have met the Duke of Edinburgh; Prince Charles, Princess Anne, the King of Norway, four First Sea Lords and I as I did not doff my cap to any of them I rather doubt that I would see the need to doff my cap to the likes of you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Teribus Date: 05 Mar 16 - 03:42 PM "47% of the Amazon Rain Forest is now destroyed in relation to its pristine state 100 years ago." So did they have it right 100 years ago? What is it that has changed over that 100 years? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: GUEST Date: 05 Mar 16 - 03:54 PM @Jack Campin "Financial Times investigations into global land issues, starting with near-genocide in Ethiopia" I think that is miss-representation of a well-written report about a complicated issue. Did you notice that not a single grain of rice has yet been exported? It seems to have gone into the local market to feed hungry mouths. Not mentioned in that report is that Indian firm that has had its contracts cancelled claimed lack of investement was due to government export restrictions on grain - sneaky that, but handy when the rains fail. Human Rights Watch also writes some excellent reports on Gambella, with more circumstantial 'evidence' carefully caveated. I think this is because they have a more legalistic approach and want to win their formal battles with authoritarion regimes. Of course, they can always rely on the lazy western press just picking up one aspect for a good headline. And mudcat commentators as well it would seem. Worse though, 'near genocide' is a very weasely term. Bad things happening, but in a complicated situation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: GUEST,achmelvich Date: 05 Mar 16 - 06:18 PM teribus - are you a very angry man? what's the matter? we are all friends (?) here . get it off your chest..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 05 Mar 16 - 06:34 PM " ... I have met the Duke of Edinburgh; Prince Charles, Princess Anne, the King of Norway, four First Sea Lords and I as I did not doff my cap to any of them ..." I bet, though, that you bowed and grovelled and curtsied like a simpering, grinning mad thing, didn't you Teribus? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Joe Offer Date: 05 Mar 16 - 07:43 PM Donuel says: Well posted Joe offer complete with multiple links that show the 7th largest island to be private and not the 5th largest as I said. In fact Joe has formed a inflammatory pre conception of my posts that is not in keeping with reality. Joe, check your ideas about making/keeping federal land private. You are on the slippery slope of becoming a Texas and Oregon terrorist sympathizer. Yes, Donuel, I confess I do have a preconception of your posts. Experience has shown me that the data you provide, which is almost almost undocumented, is almost always wrong. While I may question what you say and may ask for proof, I never attempt to refute your data unless I have documentation. I said, "I rather like the fact that the people of the U.S. own huge portions of land in the West." Maybe that isn't as clear as I thought it was. If I said "I rather like the fact that the people of the U.S. collectively own huge portions of land in the West," would that make more sense? Whatever the case, I like the fact that much of the Western U.S. is government land, managed for the common good instead of to serve the interests of a wealthy few. I spent the last week driving through huge expanses of government-owned desert. There were wildflowers everywhere, and very few buildings or electric wires. It was absolutely beautiful. But for miles and miles around Reno and Las Vegas and most desert cities, there are five-acre plots peppered with mobile homes and junk autos and other trash - and plastic grocery bags everywhere. If we were to break our nation into parcels and distribute it evenly to the public, the whole nation could become a dump. I think people should live in communities, and vast areas should be left open for all to enjoy. But the same thing can be accomplished by private ownership, if the owner is benevolent. The emerging land conservancies are doing a wonderful job of this. I have belonged to the Nature Conservancy for at least two decades. It has protected huge areas and preserved them for wildlife and nature. Here's an interesting article about Ted Turner and other large landowners: -Joe- P.S. By the way, I saw the 6th largest island in Hawaii. It wasn't very big. The four biggest ones are quite large. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: MGM·Lion Date: 06 Mar 16 - 01:19 AM Re hats: I always raise [or at least touch & ½-lift], mine to any female acquaintance I may chance to meet & greet, as gentlemen of my generation were brought up to do. It is likewise, I believe, regarded as a customary courtesy to bare one's head in the presence of royalty. I was once meeting some friends off a train at Ely (Cambridgeshire) Station when I found a crowd assembled round the entrance; and on enquiry learned that HM Queen was visiting the city for some ceremonial purpose, so joined the group. As she emerged, I instinctively took off my hat, and, as I was standing fairly far forward, was aware of a sort of sussuration behind me as other men did likewise. I regard that as one of the virtuously exemplary acts of my life. YMMV! ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 06 Mar 16 - 02:34 AM I took my hat off at a funeral the other day ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Teribus Date: 06 Mar 16 - 02:54 AM You'd have lost your bet GUEST,Shimrod - 05 Mar 16 - 06:34 PM, but there again Shimrod you could have absolutely no idea of the situation and circumstances under which I met them (Another one I met but missed out was the late Queen Mother - lovely lady, full of fun - didn't have to doff my hat to her either.). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: MGM·Lion Date: 06 Mar 16 - 02:56 AM But surely, Teribus, if you were wearing a hat you would have raised it [see my last post] to any lady you met, royal or not? ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: GUEST,Dave Date: 06 Mar 16 - 04:55 AM ""47% of the Amazon Rain Forest is now destroyed in relation to its pristine state 100 years ago." So did they have it right 100 years ago? What is it that has changed over that 100 years?" The clue is in the word pristine. Nature had it right. God had it right. Take your pick. Whats clear is that the change since then is a result of human intervention, which is not good. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Mar 16 - 06:20 AM Anyone who thinks that people who were born rich deserve having caps doffed to them requires a brain transplant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Teribus Date: 06 Mar 16 - 07:35 AM "Anyone who thinks that people who were born rich deserve having caps doffed to them requires a brain transplant." Take that up with Raggytash he clearly thinks that caps should be doffed when he goes by. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Mar 16 - 07:44 AM I already have done. 😂😂😂 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Stu Date: 06 Mar 16 - 07:58 AM "Also extremely pleased that I do not live in your mean world of spite and envy." It's world of wonder and discovery, tempered by the attitude of those whose sense of entitlement and self-worth who con the gullible and self-hating millions into servicing their unsustainable, selfish and uncaring sub-society. "Duke of Edinburgh; Prince Charles, Princess Anne, the King of Norway, four First Sea Lords" Blimey, what a shower. I wouldn't doff my cap to that lot either. Good on you Tezza, there's hope for you yet. I'd doff my cap to you though mate, no worries. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Mar 16 - 08:14 AM I wouldn't. I'd make bloody sure my cap was left at home if I ever suspected I might be in his vicinity. Come to think of it, I haven't had a cap since 1967. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 06 Mar 16 - 09:12 AM I've still got my school cap from 1966, never been worn, except in jest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Stu Date: 06 Mar 16 - 09:52 AM I wear a flat cap, Donegal tweed is my favourite. I've a cloth cap since school and will wear one until the day I die. Best. Hat. Ever. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: GUEST,H.H.H. jr. Date: 06 Mar 16 - 03:50 PM Re: Desert Folk, I'm getting a triplewide like Gov Huckbee's Mobile Mansion when I hit the Jackpot and the Junk Cars are for my Car Museum and the Other Trash well if you don't have anything nice to say... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: GUEST,Richard Bridge on the network Date: 07 Mar 16 - 04:06 AM MGM - you need to check English land law. The only allodial land in England is the Kennedy Memorial on Runnymede. All other land is held under (reformed) feudal tenures directly or indirectly of the Crown. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: MGM·Lion Date: 07 Mar 16 - 05:43 AM RB -- Regret have not the remotest inkling what of mine you refer to. But never mind, eh? ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: GUEST Date: 07 Mar 16 - 10:00 AM I suspect, MGM, that the esteemed MrB is referring to freehold & leasehold being both forms of tenure under the crown rather than of outright ownership. But as they say; IANAL. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Donuel Date: 07 Mar 16 - 01:01 PM Yes Joe Offer; My non existent sources and I am almost always wrong. I rely on audio memory more than not, while my hearing is below 50 %. I am not likely to find a cure for language dyslexia in this lifetime so do not expect improvement. Your posts on the other hand are always correct and at their best are eloquent sermons. With an IQ of 88 it should be apparent I am doing the best I can. If you wish to honor me by quoting me, plies include my commas |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Donuel Date: 07 Mar 16 - 01:11 PM Teribus, long ago I was under the impression you were an American and now I am not sure.. You already know about the burning of the rain forest. What is it that you want to say directly. Oblique messages go over my head. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: GUEST,Richard Bridge on the AMD quad core Date: 07 Mar 16 - 02:14 PM MGM, you said "Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: MGM·Lion Date: 01 Mar 16 - 07:19 AM ... But the fact remain that one can OWN land under our laws. It might not in your opinion be right that this should be the case; but such, alas for you, it is. You are rather reminding me of the famous yokel in the old joke, asked the way to somewhere, and replying "Well you can't start from here". ''' ≈M≈" Uncharacteristically for you, your grammar is awry as well as your law. You probably meant to say "the fact remains". Which it doesn't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Mar 16 - 08:02 PM Joe Offer has a "preconception" of Donuel's posts. That is a very bad idea. Donuel is the finest loose cannon on this board, often impenetrable, often not quite the ally you may wish for, apparently offbeat on occasion, but never less than intriguing. And he's a bloody liar when he says his IQ is 88. As if it matters anyway. Mine was 182 in the early 60s which was so good that I'm frightened of ever having it measured again. ;-) Eysenck was a bit of a fascist anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Mar 16 - 08:05 PM I tell a lie. It was 188. "Was" could well be the operative word. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: GUEST, Richard Bridge on the Intel quad-core Date: 07 Mar 16 - 08:59 PM AFAIK the highest possible IQ is 160 or 162. http://mentalfloss.com/article/73556/11-year-old-just-earned-highest-iq-score-possible |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Mar 16 - 09:07 PM Not so. Apparently, someone once scored 230. But listen. It's all bollocks. I got 188 when I was ten and I don't give a shite. It's a meaningless scale. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: MGM·Lion Date: 08 Mar 16 - 07:14 AM Thanks for elucidation, Mr RB. Appreciate your implied compliment as to my customary grammatical usage, which was indeed marred on this occasion by a typographical omission. Oooohh dearie·weary·me! Mea maxima culpa!···in ♠♠♠! Have generally understood that the concept of 'freehold' implies legal ownership to all practical intents & purposes. It is of course a truth universally acknowledged that lawyers would all starve if the wording of any law or act were ever actually to mean what it appears to mean. Would the thought of Mr RB's starving cause me any distress or concern? Hmmm -- glad someone asked that... ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: GUEST, Richard Bridge etc Date: 08 Mar 16 - 02:35 PM Being the charitable left winger that I am I hasten to assure Metro-Goldwyn that he need not concern himself, and indeed to suppress an uncharitable impulse towards him not least in his capacity as a doyen of philological fog and exhibitionism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: MGM·Lion Date: 08 Mar 16 - 04:44 PM He thinks 'Metro-Goldwyn' a joke, by the way, I take it, due to the coincidence of my initials. In fact -- (despite diffce in spelling — some of my cousins in US still spell it with an a in 2nd place; like my cousin Danny Mayer, who was a dancer in the sewer in Guys & Dolls, and whom I met when he was over here in Judy Garland's company the year she died) -- Louis B Mayer [the M part of Metro Goldwyn Mayer] was my paternal grandfather's first cousin, so my first-cousin-twice-removed; so the initials not so adventitious after all. Louis B was born in Minsk; my grandfather Morris Mayer in Bucharest, Romania: altho in different countries, they are only a couple of hundred km apart, as ref to google maps will show. ♫So starve on, starve on, Richard B Way up on your plinth...♫ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Joe Offer Date: 08 Mar 16 - 05:15 PM Donuel says: My non existent sources and I am almost always wrong. I rely on audio memory more than not, while my hearing is below 50 %. I am not likely to find a cure for language dyslexia in this lifetime so do not expect improvement. I'm sorry, Donuel, but I think that much of what you present as factual is incorrect. You and I often agree on the general ideas, but you do not help your case by presenting information that is consistently incorrect. This time, you started off by saying Hawaii had five islands, one of which was privately owned. Hawaii has well over 100 islands, so many that experts can't agree on how many. And while the 6th and 7th-largest islands (which are quite small) are over 90% privately owned, they have areas that are owned by the State of Hawaii. If you don't know something, why give us incorrect information under the guise of facts? I belong to a group that operates a homeless shelter, and I often speak at public meetings on behalf of the shelter. I make sure the information I give is accurate, even when it makes us look bad. We have a very well-intentioned supporter who also speaks in support of the shelter, but she invariably gives incorrect information. We all cringe whenever she gets up to speak, because her misinformation likely to harm our cause more than help it. Speak from what you know - don't manufacture information and issues. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: GUEST,Richard Bridge on the network Date: 08 Mar 16 - 05:20 PM Well, Metro, have you bothered to consult history to see how well your relative was generally regarded? You DO remember some of my back-story don't you? And my conscience is clear whereas your should trouble you. I don't suppose it will, but it should. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Joe Offer Date: 08 Mar 16 - 10:24 PM I made a circuit of the southern two-thirds of California over the last two weeks, and I went past the properties of a number of large landowners. I first went to Mission San Antonio, which is surrounded by property which was once owned by newspaperman William Randolph Hearst. Hearst sold off a huge portion of the estate to the U.S. Army in 1940, and that became Fort Hunter Liggett. The Hearst family still owns most of the land from the fort to the ocean, thirty-five miles away. The "Hearst Castle" near the ocean now belongs to the State of California; but most of the Hearst land is untouched and undeveloped, and provides great habitat for wildlife. The Army land is under consideration for transfer to the National Park Service. It includes the gorgeous "Hacienda Milpitas," which was built by Hearst as a hunting lodge. The Hearsts also own a large estate in Northern California, near Mount Shasta. It's supposed to be an architectural masterpiece, and I'd love to see it. Oilman J. Paul Getty owned land from the San Diego Freeway to the Malibu coast in the Los Angeles area, with a villa on the ocean that resembles a villa from Pompeii - it's now a museum for antiquities, and there's a new museum above the freeway that houses the bulk of the Getty collection. The estate, now owned by the Getty Foundation, preserves a huge amount of mountain wildlife habitat in the middle of the Los Angeles megalopolis. Land once owned by Howard Hughes also provides open space and wildlife habitat in the L.A. area. And then there's the Tejon Ranch, on the Interstate 5 Grapevine pass just north of Los Angeles. I think the property was once a Spanish Land Grant. It's still a working ranch, but it preserves a lot of valuable open space for the near-extinct California Condor. Can't say I know much about large, privately-owned land parcels outside of California and Hawaii, but I do know that in those two states, the huge private properties have served to preserve habitat for native fauna and flora. I'm sure there are landowners who have destroyed the land they own, but there are also many large landholdings that do a lot of good for all of us. I really like the idea of public land ownership, but many public lands in the U.S. are open for mining and oil drilling and cattle grazing and hunting and those damn four-wheel-drive vehicles. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Mar 16 - 06:37 AM Well if someone's stupid enough to think they own vast tracts of wilderness, that's fine with me as long as they maintain the roads and trails and allow unfettered access to all parts of it. By which I don't mean irresponsible access. I live in a country that has large areas I'm not supposed to go on in case I disturb pheasants, grouse and deer and whose gamekeepers routinely exterminate rare raptors, and I'm not allowed to fish the rivers because someone richer than me has claimed all the salmon and trout for himself. That man made neither the wilderness nor the rivers flowing through it. They're mine as much as his. And I think I might value the wildlife a damn sight more than he does, on the whole. |
