Depends where you pick it from 

 

From a wild bush

 

It makes no difference where the bush is if all ownership is theft.

17 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

From a wild bush

 

It depends where the wild bush is doing its wild thing my man

As I have spent some time sat on a five bar gate chewing on various vegetation you can take it from me its not as simple as we would wish

Even hedgerows can be iffy when push comes to shove then of course there is ownership, trespass, bye- laws when posted common law and the thing that normally spoils a bit of berry picking human nature 

EDIT you are OK from inside your designated bit of  Public footpath

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

 

So if I pick a wild berry and eat it I am stealing?
 

 

In theory yes. Who said it was yours to take?  What if I wanted that same berry. You were there first, so it's yours. Is that the rule of ownership.  Who was there first? I don't think the theorists have much chance of beating the modem day system though so enjoy your berry. I'll pick another from a different tree. 

 

20 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

From a wild bush

 

It makes no difference where the bush is if all ownership is theft.

Common land no problem I do believe

In theory yes. Who said it was yours to take?  What if I wanted that same berry. You were there first, so it's yours. Is that the rule of ownership.  Who was there first? I don't think the theorists have much chance of beating the modem day system though so enjoy your berry. I'll pick another from a different tree. 
 

So much for the theory I guess.

3 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

So much for the theory I guess.

 

Yes,  I know.  Australian Natives aren't happy about it. After all their race were there first 

2 hours ago, stud858 said:

All the way up to the point if he doesn't receive any money from the insurance company you could use that same argument.  Intended actioned lying with the intent to gain money benefit is fraud.His intention was as clear as day and he began to action it

"All the way up to the point if he doesn't receive any money from the insurance company you could use that same argument"

No, I wouldn't use the same argument because that situation clearly would be fraud as he would have been trying to obtain money that he was not entitled to by submitting a false claim.  He did not do that!

 

"Intended actioned lying with the intent to gain money benefit is fraud".

It isn't, unless the plan is put into operation by submitting a false claim.  He didn't do that, there is no claim, so there can be no fraud.  Intention in isolation is not fraud.  All he did was make a false police report, that's an offence but it is not fraud.

The Samui news forum is not dedicated to dicuss insurance policies, try the insurance sub forum, closed.