Stolen Timber

[agg221]

I haven't posted on this thread, just watched the debate unfold. However, in the interests of good analysis (note I am a research scientist/engineer by training so I am reverting to type) I post the following from the bottom of the article, which indicates that it is not the work of the LSE. Nothing against its correct attribution:

 

Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of the British Politics and Policy blog, nor of the London School of Economics. Please read our comments policy before posting.

 

About the author

 

Kayleigh Garthwaite is a Postdoctoral Research Associate in the Department of Geography, Durham University. She is currently working on various projects related to health inequalities, health and wellbeing and employment for County Durham and Darlington Primary Care Trust.

[egnsean]

I haven't posted on this thread, just watched the debate unfold. However, in the interests of good analysis (note I am a research scientist/engineer by training so I am reverting to type) I post the following from the bottom of the article, which indicates that it is not the work of the LSE. Nothing against its correct attribution:

 

Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of the British Politics and Policy blog, nor of the London School of Economics. Please read our comments policy before posting.

 

About the author

 

Kayleigh Garthwaite is a Postdoctoral Research Associate in the Department of Geography, Durham University. She is currently working on various projects related to health inequalities, health and wellbeing and employment for County Durham and Darlington Primary Care Trust.

 

Fair enough, do you have a view on the actual topic?

[agg221]

Yes, on both the topics which are running in parallel on this thread.

 

On the more recent topic - which is effectively the motivation of those for whom benefits form their whole source of income. I don't think there is a simple answer. It's pretty apparent that there are those who view it as a lifestyle choice. There are others who are willing to work but cannot find employment (the 'deserving poor'?). The latter undoubtedly has a geographical skew - coincidentally I have a few people based at a subsidiary site in Middlesbrough, where the study was performed and go up once every month or so. It is nothing like the run down area it once was, but it is also not the most economically secure either.

 

There are, however, a whole load of other categories. There are those who are physically unable to work, and conversely those who society, and certainly any potential employer, would be better off if they didn't show up to 'work'. There is also an economic argument - for example if you have two children under 5 who would need childcare you are better off not working if your salary would be under about £22k, or higher if you have transport costs to consider, even if you don't claim any benefits.

 

There is also a whole emerging economic sub-class as a consequence of the combination of the extended poor economic climate (rising inflation, static wages), tax changes and societal change in respect of family units. This has, to a large extent, been concealed by the unprecedented low in interest rates. It relates to the issue of making calculations based on income rather than disposable income. What were perfectly reasonable commitments when made can rapidly become otherwise.

 

For example, as credible case (which isn't real, but is drawn from elements of some people I know), consider the circumstances of a man who got divorced leaving his wife caring for two children in, say, 2006. He moved in with a new partner with two children from a previous relationship. She works in the public sector as a senior nurse on £25k per annum, he now earns £60k per annum. He pays maintenance to his ex-wife at £8k per annum. He and his new partner have bought a house together with a mortgage of 2.5x joint income (after deductions) - so call it £180k, which gives repayments of £900 per month.

 

All the above is sensible and modest. However, tax changes and pensions changes will have cut their total household income by about £3k per annum, whilst their costs will have gone up 3.5% per annum on average. They are therefore now likely to be struggling. If mortgage rates double, to a modest 7% (we got 7.2% when we bought in 2000) they will be sunk. They could of course sell up in theory, but in many parts of the country they could not buy anything 3bed for much less. They also may have negative equity and hence have no choice.

 

The above does not excuse theft, but it is designed to illustrate that pressure is felt across the spectrum and people genuinely do end up in circumstances where on the face of it they should be 'well off' but in reality they are not when it comes to disposable income. It therefore may go some way to explaining the causes of the behaviour.

 

On the original point of the thread, everything belongs to someone. Some things are, in the eyes of their owner, rubbish. These things can often be taken away with the permission of the owner being gratefully given. Other things are wanted by their owner, it just isn't immediately obvious that this is the case. The only way to find out is to ask - you might be surprised who says yes.

 

Alec

[muldonach]

The fact it is on a main road side verge, would suggest council ownership I would have though. Also the removal only of the part that was obstructing the road would suggest either:

1. a team will be sent out later to clear up the rest at some point

2. it is to be left there permanently to rot

3. it will be left there permanently, in the hope that a 'good citizen' will 'harvest' it for there own use

 

So I pose this question. Would its removal represent a saving to the taxpayer and a public good?

 

 

peatff, I am rather ashamed of that spelling mistake tbh. My excuse is that some of the grammar/spelling round year don't read too good no how

 

Not having read this whole thread through I may be a bit at cross purposes. I do however own an area of woodland which borders a public road, the council very firmly take the view that the trees and any problems which arise from them are my problem to deal with. They will sort the problem if necessary but will invoice me accordingly.

 

Cheers

mac

[egnsean]

Yes, on both the topics which are running in parallel on this thread.

 

On the more recent topic - which is effectively the motivation of those for whom benefits form their whole source of income. I don't think there is a simple answer. It's pretty apparent that there are those who view it as a lifestyle choice. There are others who are willing to work but cannot find employment (the 'deserving poor'?). The latter undoubtedly has a geographical skew - coincidentally I have a few people based at a subsidiary site in Middlesbrough, where the study was performed and go up once every month or so. It is nothing like the run down area it once was, but it is also not the most economically secure either.

 

There are, however, a whole load of other categories. There are those who are physically unable to work, and conversely those who society, and certainly any potential employer, would be better off if they didn't show up to 'work'. There is also an economic argument - for example if you have two children under 5 who would need childcare you are better off not working if your salary would be under about £22k, or higher if you have transport costs to consider, even if you don't claim any benefits.

 

There is also a whole emerging economic sub-class as a consequence of the combination of the extended poor economic climate (rising inflation, static wages), tax changes and societal change in respect of family units. This has, to a large extent, been concealed by the unprecedented low in interest rates. It relates to the issue of making calculations based on income rather than disposable income. What were perfectly reasonable commitments when made can rapidly become otherwise.

 

For example, as credible case (which isn't real, but is drawn from elements of some people I know), consider the circumstances of a man who got divorced leaving his wife caring for two children in, say, 2006. He moved in with a new partner with two children from a previous relationship. She works in the public sector as a senior nurse on £25k per annum, he now earns £60k per annum. He pays maintenance to his ex-wife at £8k per annum. He and his new partner have bought a house together with a mortgage of 2.5x joint income (after deductions) - so call it £180k, which gives repayments of £900 per month.

 

All the above is sensible and modest. However, tax changes and pensions changes will have cut their total household income by about £3k per annum, whilst their costs will have gone up 3.5% per annum on average. They are therefore now likely to be struggling. If mortgage rates double, to a modest 7% (we got 7.2% when we bought in 2000) they will be sunk. They could of course sell up in theory, but in many parts of the country they could not buy anything 3bed for much less. They also may have negative equity and hence have no choice.

 

The above does not excuse theft, but it is designed to illustrate that pressure is felt across the spectrum and people genuinely do end up in circumstances where on the face of it they should be 'well off' but in reality they are not when it comes to disposable income. It therefore may go some way to explaining the causes of the behaviour.

 

On the original point of the thread, everything belongs to someone. Some things are, in the eyes of their owner, rubbish. These things can often be taken away with the permission of the owner being gratefully given. Other things are wanted by their owner, it just isn't immediately obvious that this is the case. The only way to find out is to ask - you might be surprised who says yes.

 

Alec

thanks Alec for the reply which i appreciate took some time and thought to put together

 

in point 1-You seem to be concentrating on peoples motivation to work ect

i.e the reasons why they would/wouldn't be better off working.

 

My point is a very large proportion of the unemployed are in their situation not because of a lack of motivation not because of lack effort but a LACK OF JOBs available and the Gov/Media smear campaign is just designed to deflect the blame from where it really should lie.

 

as for point 2- Theft is theft = wrong but in desperate time some will revert to desperate measures.

 

Sean.

[Forest2Furniture]

Wood Theft Update:

 

Having camped out from 6am last Sunday no one showed so I think putting new and extra barriers in place has seemed to have stopped the thieving gits taking from the stack.

 

However, I was there last Friday taking down a large hung-up and discovered tyre tracks on the main road where they are parking then walking into the wood and cutting down small dead trees, dragging them roadside and loading.

Someone must see them!

The tyre tracks are wide with low tread, like a tractor trailer. If any of you guys who walk the woods near there spot something please pm me.

 

My main concern is judging by the saw cuts they don't know how to take down or fell and that one day I'll walk into the wood and find someone dead under a tree. Them being dead under a tree for stealing isn't my concern it's the HSE investigation that'll cause the headaches!

 

The police are aware of the problems we're having.

A couple of months ago someone came in with a mini digger, dug 5 deep holes, cleared some brash and drove out again.

It was all very neat apart from leaving 5 holes.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

"If a tree (thief, dies screaming crushed under the timber he's attempting to steal) falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

[treequip]

Wood Theft Update:

 

Having camped out from 6am last Sunday no one showed so I think putting new and extra barriers in place has seemed to have stopped the thieving gits taking from the stack.

 

However, I was there last Friday taking down a large hung-up and discovered tyre tracks on the main road where they are parking then walking into the wood and cutting down small dead trees, dragging them roadside and loading.

Someone must see them!

The tyre tracks are wide with low tread, like a tractor trailer. If any of you guys who walk the woods near there spot something please pm me.

 

My main concern is judging by the saw cuts they don't know how to take down or fell and that one day I'll walk into the wood and find someone dead under a tree. Them being dead under a tree for stealing isn't my concern it's the HSE investigation that'll cause the headaches!

The police are aware of the problems we're having.

A couple of months ago someone came in with a mini digger, dug 5 deep holes, cleared some brash and drove out again.

It was all very neat apart from leaving 5 holes.

 

I wouldn't be too worried about that, a member of the public stealing timber is domestic and outside the HSE remit

[Python]

I had 27 tonnes of chestnut "re-appropriated" a few months ago, scary thing is I left site at 3:20 returned at 5:30 just over 2 hours later and everything had gone 6x 5m stems, cord, rings, even pegs and the gobs had gone

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk mobile app

[hardtop110]

A couple of months ago someone came in with a mini digger, dug 5 deep holes, cleared some brash and drove out again.

It was all very neat apart from leaving 5 holes.