I think you're being disingenuous ... the estate agents know who owns the property ... as has been said over and over again, all you have to do is ask.
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
This is what I call thieving, from a similar kind of situation:-
When I saw this property for sale, it was empty, the previous owners had passed away, intestate. It was supposed to be sold partly furnished but the only item left was an American fridge freezer [they couldn't get it out]. They, in this case, were 3 local residents all of whom purloined anything they could get their hands on from the property. One of them had the keys as 'caretaker'. Even the t.v. aerial on the roof was gone.
All this occurred when it was still 'for sale', and not 'sold', not that this makes any difference. Plants in the garden, so I found out, were also taken, I know where they've gone too, and worst of all for me, an 8 x 6 greenhouse was taken down and resited in a neighbours garden not 100 yards from me - I see it every day. I had to spend £500 on a new one..
I'm friendly with all these people, they know I know, but it's never discussed. I heard about it from others.
Strangely, they all have one thing in common. They're all Church goers, every one of them. I see them toddling off to Church every Sunday. I am not a church goer and couldn't do what they did. If they also stole statuary or very large shrubs from the garden, I would also consider that thieving, but a few small alpines or shrublets - not something I would get worked up over to be honest.
The moral to this story is that morals soon go by the wayside when it suits.
Paul B3, the person who originally planted that garden, sounds like a plantswoman?... I'm sure she would be delighted to know they're gone to a good home..
What you say about churchgoers is absolutely typical ; most of those are unenlightened hypocrites anyway . When an old lady friend of my wifes died a few years ago , she had several colleagues who were infected with the brain-virus known as religion ; not a single one of them called to see her in hospital in her last days dying of cancer .
Marlorena :- Over 2000 views on this thread so far ; is that a record I ask ?
Definition of theft under UK law: A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.
It's interesting that people believe the law is black and white when most policemen I know - and I know a few - believe that there are shades of grey and passionately believe that there should be.
In this case the key point is "with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". If one takes cuttings or divisions of a plant, then the intention is not to permanently deprive the other of it. The "other's" enjoyment of it may in fact be increased by the removal if it improves the vigour of the plant in question. If one takes the whole plant, then it is clearly theft, but taking a part of it, the removal of which causes no detriment to the original - bit of a technicality there. But under the strict definition, it is in fact not theft. There isn't equivalence, legally, to taking the greenhouse. Or even a pane of glass from the greenhouse. The issue is not one of degree, or of value but of damages suffered. If there is no loss, it would be hard to show there had been theft.
It would be polite to ask permission of course. And in many of the 'what if' scenarios being offered as directly comparable, the crime committed would at least be of trespass. But Paul B3 has permission - has been invited in fact - to enter the property and carry out maintenance work there. Whether dividing a perennial plant is maintenance work is another grey shade - it could be construed as such.
Whereas paying cash in hand specifically in order to avoid paying tax is seeking to deprive another permanently of the tax payable on the transaction. It may not be fraud but by the legal definition it is theft. I very much doubt any court would find it as such unless the amount were very large. Shades of grey, matters of intent.
Discretion in the application of the law has always been wise. Many far worse crimes have been perpetrated by those who demanded their rights in a matter of justice.
Gardening on the edge of Exmoor, in Devon
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”
You're getting upset about a scenario that hasn't even happened. You're shouting that someone a "thief" that hasn't done more than ask a question. You're being nasty to someone because you have a "strong moral compass".
Posts
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
All this occurred when it was still 'for sale', and not 'sold', not that this makes any difference. Plants in the garden, so I found out, were also taken, I know where they've gone too, and worst of all for me, an 8 x 6 greenhouse was taken down and resited in a neighbours garden not 100 yards from me - I see it every day. I had to spend £500 on a new one..
When you don't even know who's in the team
S.Yorkshire/Derbyshire border
When an old lady friend of my wifes died a few years ago , she had several colleagues who were infected with the brain-virus known as religion ; not a single one of them called to see her in hospital in her last days dying of cancer .
Marlorena :- Over 2000 views on this thread so far ; is that a record I ask ?
What do you think the judiciary would say?
There is more to justice in the UK than the law itself.
”the bungalow is already on the market ” - the OP.
There are no new owners of the property, because it has not been sold.
The deceased has no family.
The OP spoke to the guy who arranged the funeral.
It's interesting that people believe the law is black and white when most policemen I know - and I know a few - believe that there are shades of grey and passionately believe that there should be.
In this case the key point is "with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". If one takes cuttings or divisions of a plant, then the intention is not to permanently deprive the other of it. The "other's" enjoyment of it may in fact be increased by the removal if it improves the vigour of the plant in question. If one takes the whole plant, then it is clearly theft, but taking a part of it, the removal of which causes no detriment to the original - bit of a technicality there. But under the strict definition, it is in fact not theft. There isn't equivalence, legally, to taking the greenhouse. Or even a pane of glass from the greenhouse. The issue is not one of degree, or of value but of damages suffered. If there is no loss, it would be hard to show there had been theft.
It would be polite to ask permission of course. And in many of the 'what if' scenarios being offered as directly comparable, the crime committed would at least be of trespass. But Paul B3 has permission - has been invited in fact - to enter the property and carry out maintenance work there. Whether dividing a perennial plant is maintenance work is another grey shade - it could be construed as such.
Whereas paying cash in hand specifically in order to avoid paying tax is seeking to deprive another permanently of the tax payable on the transaction. It may not be fraud but by the legal definition it is theft. I very much doubt any court would find it as such unless the amount were very large. Shades of grey, matters of intent.
Discretion in the application of the law has always been wise. Many far worse crimes have been perpetrated by those who demanded their rights in a matter of justice.
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”