-1

The reasons for closing Why potentially guilty of theft if you pick wild mushrooms on someone’s land for reward, but not if to deprive land owner of opportunity to pick? feel unjust.

Does this answer your question? s 4(3) Theft Act 1968 — Why is picking wild produce on another person's land not theft? – Nij 2 days ago

Can Nij not read the questions? They're both based on the Theft Act 1968, but unmistakably different.

criminal law - Why potentially guilty of theft if you pick wild mushrooms on someone’s land for reward, but not if to deprive land owner of opportunity to pick? - Law Stack Exchange

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this question, is obviously, intended for a law student to work out themselfs. – Mark Johnson 2 days ago

But I want to know the answer, and I'm not a law student.

criminal law - Why potentially guilty of theft if you pick wild mushrooms on someone’s land for reward, but not if to deprive land owner of opportunity to pick? - Law Stack Exchange

@DaleM The first comment implied this, so no reason to go into details. The copy and paste question type is a sign of a homework assignment that others are expeded to answer seemed to me more important. criminal law - Why potentially guilty of theft if you pick wild mushrooms on someone’s land for reward, but not if to deprive land owner of opportunity to pick? - Law Stack Exchange Mark Johnson 2 days ago

Again, not a law student. I'm not a student at all — therefore no homework. I WAS a student of music.

I'm stunned a law website would close something with so little evidence. Mark Johnson — do you think that anyone who copies and pastes a law book or website is doing homework?

| |
  • If you have a problem with the closure, query that. You didn't mention the other four users who also voted to close your question. Similarly, you pick out Mark Johnson for their comment yet at least four people agreed with the sentiment. Provide real justification instead of attacking individual users, and you may find more success. – Nij Jan 13 at 2:28
4

Because it's not your question

As presented, it is a slab of text copied and pasted from a textbook with one (of a number) of what appears to be prompts by the author of that textbook intended to stimulate thinking and discussion, not ones that actually have right or wrong answers.

Specifically, the trivial answer to the question is because the law says one action is a crime and the other (very similar) action isn't. QED. However, the trivial answer is not the point of the question. A more complex answer is that society (through parliament) has decided that one action is more culpable than the other and while the reasons for that are no doubt interesting, they fall into the scope of politics rather than law.

As we are a Q&A site where there is meant to be a right, or, at least, a most right answer rather than a forum, we are ill-suited to examine what are invitations to discussions rather than actual questions.

If you had actually shared your thoughts that the question prompted and the problem that you (rather than the textbook's author) had with them and asked a question about that, you might have had an answerable question.

| |
2

The site uses proof of effort as an indicator. It helps potential answerers know what the asker has already tried or misunderstood. In this case, more engagement with the question might have helped those who have mixed feelings about copy/pastes of things that look like assignment questions.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .