Legal rights on private property`

[darryl84]

I was at a train station the other day, a rather big one owned by southern railyways apparently, i had been standing waiting for someone for a while, and i was approched by someone who worked for southern railways.

He asked what i was doing standing where i was for several minutes, i said, something like 'why do i have to tell you?', eventually after a debate, we joked about it to be fair, he stated because it was private property owned by southern, he had the right to remove me fom the building if i didnt answer his questions. He showed me a lovely looking badge, not that mattered to me. However, because i am not sure on private law, i eventually told him, and stated id be looking into private law because i wasnt sure if i was required to tell him, and if he really was able to remove me from the property!

I wasnt in a good enough position, in terms of knowing the laws of that, and i was waiting to meet someone, so thought it best at the time not to test out how far he could go! lol :D

[darryl84]

Anyone have any insight into my query?

Thanks. :)

[darryl84]

Nothing nothing nothing, or are the answers so obvious that im already meant to know!? lol :D :)

[zarah]

Umm....Im only a first year law student and Im only theorising objectively, but if the company are offering a service to the public, then the public have certain rights to be on their property in order to access the service. However, as with any property which is owned by a private individual or company, the right to access can be restricted I would imagine.

Just thinking though, unless any signs stipulate this upon entrance you could reply on the fact that the requisite information hasn't been made available to you before the contract was formed (i.e. you buying a ticket with the ain of using their service

[dreamweaver]

I was at a train station the other day, a rather big one owned by southern railyways apparently, i had been standing waiting for someone for a while, and i was approched by someone who worked for southern railways.

He asked what i was doing standing where i was for several minutes, i said, something like 'why do i have to tell you?', eventually after a debate, we joked about it to be fair, he stated because it was private property owned by southern, he had the right to remove me fom the building if i didnt answer his questions. He showed me a lovely looking badge, not that mattered to me. However, because i am not sure on private law, i eventually told him, and stated id be looking into private law because i wasnt sure if i was required to tell him, and if he really was able to remove me from the property!

I wasnt in a good enough position, in terms of knowing the laws of that, and i was waiting to meet someone, so thought it best at the time not to test out how far he could go! lol :D

I've heard of this happening to someone else. She was even told it was because of the "terrorism" laws...

[samtak]

The only law I understand to apply to this situation is the loitering law. This guy with this badge, if you clearly had no business being in the train station, could have said something like, "move along sir" or whatever cop-cliche he chose to mimic, but until you became belligerent or violent, he couldn't do anything.

Edit - but that's a Canadian reality. Our citizens are still mostly allowed out of their houses without being constantly harassed.

[pleasuredome]

the station isnt private property, how can it be private when it is owned by a corporation? you are the private property there, and if he was to remove you he would be the one causing damage.

if anyone should ask this question just say that it is my private affair, and then walk away from them. if they persist then you can have them for harassment.

[scotfree]

I beg to differ, the station is private property, as is any/all property off the public highway.

[pleasuredome]

I beg to differ, the station is private property, as is any/all property off the public highway.

corporation does not own property, but only has rights to it. a corporation exists in the public, therefore property it has rights to is not private unless there is a true owner of it who operates in the private.

[dreamweaver]

corporation does not own property, but only has rights to it.

Cite?

[outelligent]

For example when you enter a public house,
While it is open to the public if the landlord / bouncers don't want you in there they can ask you to leave they don't need a reason.

I understand that there is no such thing as public property Just property that is owned by someone or not.

[pleasuredome]

Cite?

do you understand that corporations are legal fictions and dont exist in the real world? therefore if they dont exist, how can they own property, something that does exist? how can even a claim of right by a corporation be anything other than fraud anyway?

[spoonogsback]

To all those that may be interested ........ There is a very significant difference between the "Private" and the "Public"............... To fully comprehend the difference is to finally see how to gain freedom..............
If I were to tell you for example..............that miss piggy was sueing you for damages for a million quid...........would you take it seriously!!!!!!!

[adzboarder]

do you understand that corporations are legal fictions and dont exist in the real world? therefore if they dont exist, how can they own property, something that does exist? how can even a claim of right by a corporation be anything other than fraud anyway?

Ha cool this where I get boggled!

I'm learning though, that's an EXCELLENT point pleasuredome :D

[dreamweaver]

do you understand that corporations are legal fictions and dont exist in the real world? therefore if they dont exist, how can they own property, something that does exist? how can even a claim of right by a corporation be anything other than fraud anyway?

I'm well aware of the freeman argument, yes. But I can't see how saying "corporations are legal fictions and dont exist in the real world" will stand up in court without something more substantial than quotes from an American law dictionary to back it up.

I do know that coppers have been made to back off when presented with such arguments and I heard at the meeting at the Foundry pub that an artist who was arrested for non-payment after trying to pay his Tube fare with notes with "love" written on them persuaded a judge to find him not guilty. These are great victories and the news should be passed around.

But those are just individual battles, the war has not been won yet. It's hardly even started.

[spoonogsback]

Just to be clear the "freeman arguement" does not exist. Freemen do not argure they accept everything that is presented to them on a conditional basis that it will stand as truth and cannot be dismissed as a fiction. For one fact erasess all fiction instantly.
The truth of any matter can be established quite easily. If something is real then it can be pointed at. If something happened and caused damage the damage can be pointed at.
If a real man has been hurt by another they can point at the one that hurt them.
Do you see where this is going folks???
So we do not go to battle, we are not at war we are going to Peace. For trully Peace is what all sane men desire only a fool or a madman desires WAR.

[dreamweaver]

It is a battle of ideas. And if you don't recognise that fact, they've already won.

[pleasuredome]

I'm well aware of the freeman argument, yes. But I can't see how saying "corporations are legal fictions and dont exist in the real world" will stand up in court without something more substantial than quotes from an American law dictionary to back it up.

it wont stnad up cos the court is a fiction too, and so is the person they act upon.

I do know that coppers have been made to back off when presented with such arguments and I heard at the meeting at the Foundry pub that an artist who was arrested for non-payment after trying to pay his Tube fare with notes with "love" written on them persuaded a judge to find him not guilty. These are great victories and the news should be passed around.

hehe thats quality about the artist.

But those are just individual battles, the war has not been won yet. It's hardly even started.

freeman isnt about battles or wars, its about peace and harmony. maybe we might receive a few bruises, but we educate them along the way

[dreamweaver]

it wont stnad up cos the court is a fiction too, and so is the person they act upon.

Understood, but those legal fictions do have the power in this reality. I know your answer to this is that they only have this power if we let them. But how does that work practically? For example, in the case that you fail to persuade the station goons that it is not private property, then the British Transport Police come and arrest you and you then end up in a court.

If you get a district judge, then you're dealing with someone who at least has a brain and you might win the case like the artist did. But if you get a panel of JPs, they are generally clueless and just do what the clerk of the court tells them.

So what happens next? Do you then go through the appeals procedure to higher courts and use the same arguments about legal fictions? This is what I'm unclear about.