Surface Pro (2017) vs Surface Pro 4
A bout of curiosity as overcome me, and I was thinking that forum members might have an opinion, possible answer or solution.
Going by some local council run schools and council used property recently, I noticed the increase of warning notices about these places being Private Property, and legal proceedings may well be taken against members of the public who 'ignore' the rules.
My question: I have always understood that the councils are actually public servants,and as such own nothing, but are accountable to the public and citizens. Yet why is it that Private appears more frequently used, and the Public are now being excluded?.
Even having 'elected' local councillor's seems to provide an increasing divide between Public and Private, and the way things are run.
to wander at will into schools, or other local authority-owned property.
Council land, and the buildings on it are owned by the council - they belong to the local authority in which they are situated, and in that sense they are private, just as some parts of a hospital are private - they are owned by the Health authority which runs them.
Local authorities have the power to sell land that they own if the sale price is less than £2 million without asking anyone's permission. Above that figure they have to seek consent from the deputy Prime Minister of the day.
As I mentioned, its generally buildings, and perhaps enclosed areas.
Believe it or not, travellers have more rights than you (unless you are a traveller) when it comes to 'illegal' camping. Councils have a legal right to provide 'sites' for travellers, hence the fact that most councils employ special officers to assist travellers and their contact with councils. Before any traveller encampment can be moved, they have to go through a process of 'evaluation of needs', if there are no covenants on the land in question.
Well, I wouldn't advise you to wander onto school premises, you're likely to get verbally abused, and possibly physically attacked. Ask any teacher.
Not quite sure where this one is going, or was intended to go?
I think the legislation/law, is worded to assist in the protection of children in council run properties, e.g schools, playgroups etc.
The premises are deemed to be private in that there is no right of access to all and sundry.
The secondary school I went to had, and still has, a public footpath, unfenced, straight across the middle of the site.
This is what I am finding strange, that the public are paying for the councils and the property, and in theory the public are stakeholders in said property or items. This would also include any other public property and perhaps anything else paid for by taxes. And that is what I find curious.
A few months ago, I was involved with our local council on certain decisions that they were making in my area, which unearthed some very strange and legally complicated findings.
This evening I was in further discussions with the council and local councillors.
There was a number of items on the agenda. One was about a large amount of land that was 'given' many years ago to the citizens of the city and county by the then landowners, and that the land would always remain free for the public pleasure. The council's whose responsibility is to maintain the land have introduced a car parking fee, without consultation, which is in total disagreement of the original terms of the gift.
Another point that as been raised is 'convenient land' being used as parks, which the council seemed to have ignored, as to how that land was to be used.
A third 'incident' was the building of property on public rights of way. It was only after a number of people started looking into the original maps of areas, that they found that public rights of way had been built on by planning consent given by the council, yet these public rights of way have never been legally closed. The council seems to say "Whoops we have made a terrible mistake here,we didn't know, but we are the council etc". It was only when it was pointed out that this was 'public property' that the council have had to have a rethink. According to legal advice, the public have a legal right to enter the houses or any buildings built on these right of ways?.
As i said earlier, it all seems strange that these sort of things 'belong to the public' either by legal entitlements, taxes or otherwise, yet the councils and perhaps other government bodies(public owned) tell the public " You don't own We do".
Who are 'We'?.
I am not stating that the public should commandeer such property, but doesn't it make things complicated, especially if you are being treated like a peasant!.
Thats another point in question.
Perhaps going a little further, and perhaps off subject slightly. I found that certain superstores are leaving themselves wide open regarding the legal rights about public access, yet some of these stores (and possibly some police) do not perhaps realise it.
The House of Commons is owned by the public, but I don't think you have much chance of a casual wander through.
Nor make a speech there or outside. Yet we keep hearing about democracy?.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.