25 comments on “Erm, what?

  1. Basically, if you have one pig, or 10,000 pigs, the rules are the same. They’re considered agricultural livestock and fall under the same rules, whether kept as pets or a commercial concern. Hence all the rules linked to above, including getting a holding number and a having a herd number and having to tag them as well. If you investigated the regulations on commercial pig keeping further there would be specifications as to how they were transported too.

  2. My sister-in-law has a smallholding in Wales where she raises pigs and lambs each year. When she takes them for slaughter the only thing necessary is that each animal is tagged or tattooed with its ID number, there’s no licence required. As for putting the pigs in her car, they go in OK when she gets them as piglets, but they’re way too big to fit when they’ve grown so she uses a trailer.

  3. “Basically, if you have one pig, or 10,000 pigs, the rules are the same”

    We have sunk that far. Ecks, we’re going to need a bigger army.

  4. JuliaM- and if those don’t put you off..

    I used to live in a house with an easement proscribing keeping pigs, apparently according to the solicitor a lot of properties have this.

  5. Henry Crun- ha. . rush lights only for you then. (this rot’s bread and butter for the lawyers isn’t it?)

  6. Edward Lud, I could dig out the original deeds but they are in storage at the mo. I kept them as the house was built in 1865 and the deeds made for an interesting read. The house was built by a local businessman so whether it was an easement or some other condition, I don’t know, IANAL. But the condition is in the deeds that the manufacture of tallow candles was prohibited on the property. I imagine it had something to do with the smell.

  7. The point that His Nibs Lud QC is making is that an easement is a right to do something – say, cross a piece of land – and a restrictive covenant is a ban on your being able to do summat or other with the property. Not being able to make tallow candles would be a restrictive covenant, not an easement.

    In other words, the lawyer is being a pendant, not unusual around here….

  8. Tim’s right, it’s restrictive covenants we’re talking about. My first house had originally been Church Commission property and had a restrictive covenant forbidding doing anything immoral on the premises. Apart from selling alcohol or running a brothel, what was or wasn’t immoral was left to one’s imagination.

  9. easement
    The deeds of chez Bison incorporate an easement covering a soak-away into a neighbour’s field. There is also a covenant in there which stipulates that no business can be conducted here which sounds more like the term for the type of constraint that Henry Crun lives under.

  10. Our house is subject to a covenant forbidding having more than one residential building on the site.

    Some years ago the Council wrote to us to draw our attention to the national policy of wanting to build more houses on big gardens like ours.

    And it’s not even all that big a property. And it’s effectively smaller than it appears to be because the selfsame Council has put a Tree Preservation Order on a couple of our trees.

    Still, I suppose Corbyn will confiscate it anyway, or at least the garden. Maybe I should claim it’s an allotment let out to our neighbour? And I’ll rent a little allotment from him.

  11. I was involved in somebody approaching the council to build on my land, which has a covenent on it preventing building on it, created when I bought the land from the council!

  12. @Hallowed Be November 8, 2019 at 11:08 am

    Yep. A friend was buying a Victorian property in Glasgow. Deeds included similar covenants: No livestock, fowl, pigs… Also: No prostitution / brothel

  13. m’Lud, I feared at first that you were taking issue with a redundant hyphen but as it is I am gratified to be able to confirm that the modest effluvia of the humble messuage require the said easement on account of the latifundia being otherwise on a gradient uphill from the lowly cattle shed which passes for home.

  14. To Lud et al. … My bad a bit rusty. i’m in two minds whether this site’s pendantry makes one more careful or less. We’re all pals here aren’t we?

  15. Hallowed Be: We’re all pals here aren’t we?

    Of course, with exceptions only among those who identify themselves as such.

    At this point I have to say that I am remarkably braced by having enjoyed The Book of Mormon at the Prince of Wales Theatre, Coventry Street (for country cousins like me, that’s one of the expensive yellow ones on the Monopoly board) on Thursday evening in a packed theatre by an audience who had a sense of fun and little appetite for po-faced acceptable norms of speech and protected identities.

  16. Various places have covenants – mine has a restriction on not using the house for a business except as a lawyer or accountant. I thought “screw that” – I am (well, I was at the time) an Actuary: so anything something crawling out from under a stone can do, I can. No-one has queried in twenty-odd years.
    As long as you don’t upset your neighbours, the restrictive covenants are just a piece of paper.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.