From webstump at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Sun Jun 28 18:32:22 2026 Return-path: To: hex at ..seen.ac.am Subject: Re: Re: OT: It took 24 years ! References: <110gpep$22ujm$2@dont-email.me> <110pdck$22ujm$8@dont-email.me> <$LN0mGTmXUOqFA1F@perry.uk> <9daogmx1f.ln2@news.ducksburg.com> <947qgmxutm.ln2@news.ducksburg.com> <111g15u$2rf7v$1@dont-email.me> <2rb04ldgralmtkape8ek3cu6e0lmsmjjtq@4ax.com> In-Reply-To: Reply-To: matthewv+ulmtestmod at ..riolis.greenend.org.uk Errors-To: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk X-Webstump-Event: [178265569220571] reject notnew Message-Id: From: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2026 18:32:22 +0100 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected by a moderator. This post contains insufficient new material. Similar points have been made already in this discussion, which is in danger of becoming too repetitive. The group charter and moderation policy can be found at https://uklegal.weebly.com/ Disputed moderation decisions can be discussed in the newsgroup uk.net.news.moderation ============================================ Full text of your message follows > From webstump@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sun Jun 28 15:08:12 2026 > Return-path: > Envelope-to: webstump+?@slimy.greenend.org.uk > Authentication-Results: mailhub-cam-d.mythic-beasts.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=uni-berlin.de; dkim=pass header.d=uni-berlin.de header.s=fub01 header.a=rsa-sha256 > X-STUMP-Warning-0: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-1: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-2: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-3: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=uni-berlin.de; s=fub01; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Mime-Version:References:Message-ID:Date:Subject:From:To:From: Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:In-Reply-To: References; bh=H7f1cq7/cp+xxeXj28wSfm+/0th4RTNA0P/EtHflzpA=; t=1782655686; x=1783260486; b=aOFpi9W1I4hDj4wIxkXIU6CCzTzGdZwKecy5w9ubLGVbZu9NZAwfw3rSpFr2/ 9A0LbQ8h6bcZn/ > From: Norman Wells > Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated > Subject: Re: OT: It took 24 years ! > Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2026 15:08:03 +0100 > Message-ID: > References: <110gpep$22ujm$2@dont-email.me> > <110pdck$22ujm$8@dont-email.me> > <$LN0mGTmXUOqFA1F@perry.uk> > <9daogmx1f.ln2@news.ducksburg.com> > <947qgmxutm.ln2@news.ducksburg.com> > <111g15u$2rf7v$1@dont-email.me> <2rb04ldgralmtkape8ek3cu6e0lmsmjjtq@4ax.com> > > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > X-Orig-X-Trace: individual.net Nak6TT1VnQAAwdcOSRIRFgLHP04NDQx8QC9KILsDlos2+akhsx > Cancel-Lock: sha1:3GJwfpVGlcUEiMCiqvyjkzGqHyU= sha256:EBo1mpjc1Z+x6PeStr0ynuiIWyKD8wLX5wagVQB9JJo= > User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird > Content-Language: en-GB > X-Originating-IP: 130.133.4.5 > X-ZEDAT-Hint: RO > X-Mythic-Source-External: YES > X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 54 > X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.4 > Delivered-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-BlackCat-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-Mythic-Originator: uid-1081-on-lynx.mythic-beasts.com > X-STUMP-Warning-4: Unfolded headers Received: Received: Received: Received: Authentication-Results: Received: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: > > On 28/06/2026 11:48, Roland Perry wrote: > > In message , at 09:13:27 on Sun, 28 > > Jun 2026, Norman Wells remarked: > >> > >> Do you think any person has a right just to take what he wants, > >> unlimited by time, even over several years, simply because someone has > >> not told him he's got to pay? > >> > >> I don't.  I think it falls squarely within the definition of theft set > >> out in Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968. > > > > Not when the person has been making every effort to receive a bill. > > When you refer to the law that exists in black and white (as I have, in > accordance with what this group is about) and cite the provision that > you say entitles someone to take anything without paying and without > permission from its owner then I'll believe it is not theft. > > Until then, since the law appears perfectly clear to me, I'm sorry I > can't and won't. > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEfWu6wfyjzX88oocanSrwpvmn4x4FAmpBWqYACgkQnSrwpvmn 4x4Hjwf9Gt/or52hyoebRR2GBq6r1icNQaQPfJjxHi7Z0+7a53O1dEGPDNkY4vl0 /ohHcd/9bTEZp7n4ie/bNhQoWoReeUYoeLbVIhZlye4BC8nXrDglDniDPA/qTFHY s8T8ObCpBPeD8Rg9X2Xla/h5Rkf0bWwrdaHZzcf4RT0BUJvOlO4uye2Nc27QZ/nD BVqACp7/KXXqHf1b66Y/qozVZ/cO0nUob/wNa59mrH3pjVB9sXPLdYdXXZv+N0Zw inETyZ04QK9QtKaST1qpk0pgBWwngtLnvwCcjuz68DInu69qItT1H1ROBToWMEt6 cpyr8UTd0WhLyhmPTDMw98cO3cACig== =8SeQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----