Can you take an ox to Oxford?(alexwlchan.net)
alexwlchan.net
Can you take an ox to Oxford?
https://alexwlchan.net/2025/ox-in-oxford/
72 comments
Sheep on the Town Moor would be a new one. The Freeman of the city have herbage rights for cattle, which are a frequent sight.
> "herbage right" means the full right and benefit of herbage vested in the resident freemen and widows to graze cows on the Town Moor;
Source: [Newcastle-upon-Tyne Town Moor Act 1988](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1988/31/pdfs/ukla_198800...)
> "herbage right" means the full right and benefit of herbage vested in the resident freemen and widows to graze cows on the Town Moor;
Source: [Newcastle-upon-Tyne Town Moor Act 1988](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1988/31/pdfs/ukla_198800...)
> (the bit that doesnt even "belong" to the crown )
This is a myth, incidentally.
This is a myth, incidentally.
Yeah the way this goes is before the monarch enters the city of London, the Lord Mayor of London presents them with a sword as an act of swearing fealty. This ritual has been turned by urban myth into the monarch having to ask permission to enter (which is not true- they don't have to ask permission and they don't ask permission). The crown also doesn't own most of the UK or even London. The monarch is the Duke of Lancaster[1] so if you die without a will in some areas of the North the crown can actually get all your stuff and they own a bunch of castles and estates etc. The Duke of Westminster is one of the UK's richest people as he really does own most of the real estate in Mayfair and Westminster so everyone in a building owned by "Grosvenor Estates" is paying rent to that dude.[2]
What is true is if you go to London you can see the boundaries of the city of London which are a set of cast iron dragon markers you see around and about on all streets marking the ancient boundary between Westminster and London.[3]
[1] Weirdly this was true even when Queen Elizabeth was the monarch. She was the Duke of Lancaster, not the Duchess. Apparently a female spouse of a Duke is a Duchess but if it's you and you're female then you're the Duke. I don't make the rules. https://www.duchyoflancaster.co.uk/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Grosvenor,_7th_Duke_of_We...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_boundary_mark
What is true is if you go to London you can see the boundaries of the city of London which are a set of cast iron dragon markers you see around and about on all streets marking the ancient boundary between Westminster and London.[3]
[1] Weirdly this was true even when Queen Elizabeth was the monarch. She was the Duke of Lancaster, not the Duchess. Apparently a female spouse of a Duke is a Duchess but if it's you and you're female then you're the Duke. I don't make the rules. https://www.duchyoflancaster.co.uk/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Grosvenor,_7th_Duke_of_We...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_boundary_mark
ok buddy.
"So the reality: it’s a hyper-powerful, weirdly structured local authority with its own capital pile and special roles in policing and court infrastructure, but it does not legally own the country’s wealth or sit outside UK jurisdiction."
"So the reality: it’s a hyper-powerful, weirdly structured local authority with its own capital pile and special roles in policing and court infrastructure, but it does not legally own the country’s wealth or sit outside UK jurisdiction."
Almost none of that is true (except maybe the 'weirdly structured' part). Conspiracy theories about the City of London have a surprising penetration amongst people who wouldn't usually fall for that sort of thing.
what is not true? i verified the statements
>hyper-powerful
Not true; no source given.
> weirdly structured local authority
It's true that the City of London Corporation is structured differently from other local authorities, for historical reasons.
> with its own capital pile
It's unclear what this means or why it's significant. The City of London Corporation certainly has money, but so what?
> special roles in policing
The City of London Police is a separate police force from the Metropolitan Police. Really this fact is no more remarkable than the fact that the Sussex Police is separate from the Greater Manchester Police. Different parts of the country are policed by different police forces. In any case, the UK doesn't have the same kind of localized police jurisdiction as the US. An officer of the City of London Police could arrest you outside the City of London, and an officer of the Metropolitan Police could arrest you inside the City of London. So there is no particular significance to the fact that the City of London Police exists as a separate entity. It enforces the same laws as any other police force and has the same powers.
> [special roles in] court infrastructure
I googled this, but all I could find was an article explaining that the City of London Corporation has funded some new court buildings and police headquarters. This does not seem unusual to me. Indeed, people might justly complain if the City of London Corporation didn't spend any of its substantial wealth on local infrastructure. What is the 'special role' that you are referring to here?
In short, your comment is just insinuation. The Corporation is 'weird' and has 'special roles', etc. etc., but you don't actually point to anything specific that's at all sinister.
Not true; no source given.
> weirdly structured local authority
It's true that the City of London Corporation is structured differently from other local authorities, for historical reasons.
> with its own capital pile
It's unclear what this means or why it's significant. The City of London Corporation certainly has money, but so what?
> special roles in policing
The City of London Police is a separate police force from the Metropolitan Police. Really this fact is no more remarkable than the fact that the Sussex Police is separate from the Greater Manchester Police. Different parts of the country are policed by different police forces. In any case, the UK doesn't have the same kind of localized police jurisdiction as the US. An officer of the City of London Police could arrest you outside the City of London, and an officer of the Metropolitan Police could arrest you inside the City of London. So there is no particular significance to the fact that the City of London Police exists as a separate entity. It enforces the same laws as any other police force and has the same powers.
> [special roles in] court infrastructure
I googled this, but all I could find was an article explaining that the City of London Corporation has funded some new court buildings and police headquarters. This does not seem unusual to me. Indeed, people might justly complain if the City of London Corporation didn't spend any of its substantial wealth on local infrastructure. What is the 'special role' that you are referring to here?
In short, your comment is just insinuation. The Corporation is 'weird' and has 'special roles', etc. etc., but you don't actually point to anything specific that's at all sinister.
> The order defines Class M1 vehicles as “those falling within class M1(a) and class M1(b) as specified in Schedule 1 of the Vehicle Classes Regulations, which refers to another bit of UK legislation.
> Oxford’s congestion charge is almost certainly enforced by cameras that scan your number plate. An ox-drawn cart doesn’t have a number plate, so it won’t be charged. Other vehicles like a Renault Twizy or Reliant Robin do have number plates, so they’ll be charged even though they’re technically exempt.
So there's not much to it: Plates are scanned -> the number is checked in the vehicle registration database -> not class M1(a) or class M1(b) -> no charge.
This goes for ox carts, Twizys and Reliant Robins.
> Oxford’s congestion charge is almost certainly enforced by cameras that scan your number plate. An ox-drawn cart doesn’t have a number plate, so it won’t be charged. Other vehicles like a Renault Twizy or Reliant Robin do have number plates, so they’ll be charged even though they’re technically exempt.
So there's not much to it: Plates are scanned -> the number is checked in the vehicle registration database -> not class M1(a) or class M1(b) -> no charge.
This goes for ox carts, Twizys and Reliant Robins.
But if a vehicle is required to have a number plate, and doesn't (potentially an ox-cart), then you won't be charged for the congestion charge, but you will get charged for something entirely different
I get that the article is light hearted, but given how easy it is to confirm that yes cameras reading number plates is indeed how the system works, I don’t understand taking the time to write that article and not bothering to go further than guessing “almost certainly enforced by cameras that scan your number plate”.
You probably can take an ox to Oxford, there's horses there so I don't see why oxen would be ruled out. What you probably can't do is get an ox through the traffic on Abingdon Road if you're taking it to work.
Right - but it is called Oxford, not Horseford. I think names need to own up to themselves from a legal point of view. Oxford must allow for oxes everywhere.
Well, the name only points to the fact that there was a ford (a crossing) on the River Thames where oxen used to cross.
Nothing suggests it would have been free — in fact, if I owned a ford (a shallow crossing point) running through my property, you can bet I would charge for it.
Nothing suggests it would have been free — in fact, if I owned a ford (a shallow crossing point) running through my property, you can bet I would charge for it.
An affordable fee I hope.
Except that it's called the Isis at that point, not the Thames.
This legal argument has been tried many times in Penistone
Did we ever find out who is/was the hero of Clitheroe?
Anyone who solves the Scunthorpe problem[1].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe_problem
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe_problem
Likewise in Fartown near Huddersfield.
I thought this article would be about freezing rights on either Godstow meadow or Christ Church meadow; both places where you can expect to see both horses and cows and places where it is not surprising to learn of medieval rules pertaining to the keeping of such...
Hmm I wonder if an Ox would be exempt from the new congestion cameras they've just set up. I can see some exemptions for commercial HGVs so maybe they might come under that.
> You probably can take an ox to Oxford
... but you can't make him drink, is what I thought you were going to say.
... but you can't make him drink, is what I thought you were going to say.
> Surprisingly, UK legislation doesn’t define “mechanically propelled”. Lawyers usually define everything, even words that seem obvious.
The terminology is self explanatory. Therefore it does not need any further explanation even for legal purposes. Also generally smart ass workarounds don't work with the magistrate and/or courts.
The terminology is self explanatory. Therefore it does not need any further explanation even for legal purposes. Also generally smart ass workarounds don't work with the magistrate and/or courts.
You say that, but "mechanically" in the dictionary gives "In a mechanical manner."
"Mechnical" gives "Of or relating to machines or tools."
"Machine" gives "A device consisting of fixed and moving parts that modifies mechanical energy and transmits it in a more useful form." and "A system or device for doing work, as an automobile or jackhammer, together with its power source and auxiliary equipment."
An ox & cart fits the bill for "machine" with that lens. Not sure it's a smart-alec workaround, any more than the likes of McVities arguing the biscuits vs cakes in court for Jaffa Cakes. Anything not defined is fair game.
"Mechnical" gives "Of or relating to machines or tools."
"Machine" gives "A device consisting of fixed and moving parts that modifies mechanical energy and transmits it in a more useful form." and "A system or device for doing work, as an automobile or jackhammer, together with its power source and auxiliary equipment."
An ox & cart fits the bill for "machine" with that lens. Not sure it's a smart-alec workaround, any more than the likes of McVities arguing the biscuits vs cakes in court for Jaffa Cakes. Anything not defined is fair game.
It is perfectly obvious to me and to the vast majority of people. That is why they didn't bother defining it further.
> An ox & cart fits the bill for "machine" with that lens
No it doesn't. I don't think you thought this through. The cart itself cannot do anything without something else acting on it. An ox is obviously not mechanical (it being an animal) which is what is propelling the cart. Therefore it is not mechanically propelled.
If it was a person a bicycle then would be more ambiguity. But it is commonly understood that a bicycle (excluding e-bikes which are mopeds) is not a "motor vehicle", because it is propelled by the rider.
> An ox & cart fits the bill for "machine" with that lens
No it doesn't. I don't think you thought this through. The cart itself cannot do anything without something else acting on it. An ox is obviously not mechanical (it being an animal) which is what is propelling the cart. Therefore it is not mechanically propelled.
If it was a person a bicycle then would be more ambiguity. But it is commonly understood that a bicycle (excluding e-bikes which are mopeds) is not a "motor vehicle", because it is propelled by the rider.
"Propelled" is the other term in that definition. A conveyance might be mechanical in the sense you describe without being propelled by a machine.
At the same time, an individual person being blown forward by a sufficiently large fan might meet the qualification of "mechanically propelled" without being in a mechanical conveyance per se.
But more generally, a vehicle plus a motor of some description would seem to meet the definition. ICE, steam, electric, spring-wound, whatevs.
At the same time, an individual person being blown forward by a sufficiently large fan might meet the qualification of "mechanically propelled" without being in a mechanical conveyance per se.
But more generally, a vehicle plus a motor of some description would seem to meet the definition. ICE, steam, electric, spring-wound, whatevs.
But can an ox still ford the Isis at Oxford?
As an Oxford native I'd advise that anyone attempting to do this checks Thames Water's sewage dumping schedule beforehand!
Does Oxford really dump
raw sewage into the river? No fancy treatment plants that make the water practically drinkable?
The water infrastructure isn't great in the UK (there's a lot of first-mover curses in UK infrastructure generally), specifically there's quite a lot of shared sewage and storm drains. As a result sometimes the local water monopolies end up dumping sewage in the waterways. It'd cost a lot to build enough infrastructure to prevent this, and even if the companies wanted to they tend to get opposed by NIMBYs at every turn.
Also you definitely wouldn't want to treat the Isis (or the wider Thames) because it's a full-blown ecosystem, I doubt the fish would appreciate us pumping it full of chemicals as well as sewage.
Also you definitely wouldn't want to treat the Isis (or the wider Thames) because it's a full-blown ecosystem, I doubt the fish would appreciate us pumping it full of chemicals as well as sewage.
I read the article, so I realize this is only relevant to the title… but others might find it amusing.
I recently found out that my state university has livestock stalls for rent for student use. My daughter is considering attended and asked if she could take her sow with her. She said they didn’t even react like it was an uncommon request!
I recently found out that my state university has livestock stalls for rent for student use. My daughter is considering attended and asked if she could take her sow with her. She said they didn’t even react like it was an uncommon request!
Oxford is heading straight back to the Middle Ages )) Soon we’ll have horse-drawn carriages at the city entrance (if they aren’t there already), shuttling people around instead of taxis. People still want to get from point A to point B quickly — that need isn’t going anywhere.
The last time I was in Ireland, you'd still occasionally encounter a horse-drawn sulky on the roads. I've no idea if that is also the case in the UK, but a horse is more practical than an ox.
I can only speak of London - it is very rare to see oxes there. In fact, in my various visits to this city, I actually never saw an ox on the streets. In Oxford I would expect some, though. Oxford is in Oxfordshire - look how many ox-names there are. It's actually not so far away from London.
Can confirm. Used to commute daily through Oxford Circus in the centre of London for work and don’t recall seeing a single ox even there.
Therefore since we know there are oxen and they are not in London (even in Oxford circus) they must be in Oxford.
Therefore since we know there are oxen and they are not in London (even in Oxford circus) they must be in Oxford.
West Oxfordshire District Council is currently trying to find a way to stop a certain demographic from racing ponies and traps on the A40 dual carriageway.
Calling them travellers and/or gypsies (I know they are technically different groups of people but generally the terms are often used interchangeably) is not in itself a slur.
It's not a slur, but naming them in an online discussion usually provokes an unproductive shitfight about whether they're as bad as their reputation.
And ostentatiously not naming them has a similar effect. You could have just said "people".
But almost anyone who lives in the UK would know who you were referring to. So you are just using a euphemism, which is arguably worse.
Clovelly in Cornwall still uses donkeys and sleighs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovelly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovelly
Meanwhile, Cambridge has, or at least had a few years ago, at least one combined pedestrian/cattle tunnel (there was a fence down the middle!) under a major road.
I was expecting this article to be about wading through the River Thames with an ox. In order words, making the ox ford the river.
The person didn’t actually ride an ox cart anywhere.
They looked at the law, saw “motor vehicle” and said that an ox cart doesn’t have a motor so should be fine.
They looked at the law, saw “motor vehicle” and said that an ox cart doesn’t have a motor so should be fine.
Must one personally be subject to a law in order to interpret it?
You must in order to know whether you can do something. The set of things you can do is rarely equal to the set of things the law says you can do.
There should be a legal right to this. After all it is part of the name: Oxford.
Careful. You'll make the residents of Cockermouth nervous.
Oxen are not zero emissions. If they were, we would still be using them.
They are circular though and with that should count as zero-emission:
1: steer calf is born from cow
2: calf gets his goolies cut off turning him into an ox
3: ox eats grass, burps and farts and shits it out on both ends. Some of his shit ends up as fertiliser for the grass he or one of his fellow bovines eat
4: eventually ox gets eaten
The input: grass -> cow -> oxen
The output: oxen -> shit -> grass
From grass they came, to grass they return. If someone were to be so kind as to shrink bovines down to, say, bumblebee-size it would be easy to do an experiment with that in one of those glass-sphere closed ecosystems. I'm pretty sure they'd thrive.
1: steer calf is born from cow
2: calf gets his goolies cut off turning him into an ox
3: ox eats grass, burps and farts and shits it out on both ends. Some of his shit ends up as fertiliser for the grass he or one of his fellow bovines eat
4: eventually ox gets eaten
The input: grass -> cow -> oxen
The output: oxen -> shit -> grass
From grass they came, to grass they return. If someone were to be so kind as to shrink bovines down to, say, bumblebee-size it would be easy to do an experiment with that in one of those glass-sphere closed ecosystems. I'm pretty sure they'd thrive.
The methane they burp/fart (output) is a massive greenhouse gas and isn't returned until 100 years after their death.
Bovines of all sorts have been (mostly) burping and (sometimes) farting methane since they decided to become ruminants. Imagine the methane produced by the massive herds of bison roaming the plains before they were decimated. Earth abides, still.
I think you lost the point that a mass adoption of bovine as transportation would accelate the greenhouse effect.
Amusingly enough, a text by J.R.R. Tolkien, (Oxford Don who wrote some books which the _hoi polloi_ seem fascinated with) which decries the industrialization of Oxford has just been published:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/232514895-the-bovadium-f...
which is a hoot, esp. when paired w/ his _Mr. Bliss_.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/232514895-the-bovadium-f...
which is a hoot, esp. when paired w/ his _Mr. Bliss_.
Someone should try pulling a ford with an Ox in OxFord.
I wonder about a Ford F-250 owned by an ox (an ox Ford).
“motor vehicle” implies having a motor ;)
The whole technically zero emissions bit is not really convincing. Cattle makes up a considerable part of global emissions, to the point that there are entire industries focused on bringing that down. Surely the same would apply here?
The thing is it depends on how you define your numbers. Personally I'm a fan of the carbon-above-ground accounting, where if you grow a tree it counts as 0 emissions, and if your burn the tree for fuel it also counts as 0 emissions since there wasn't any new carbon being dug up not was any carbon permanently sequestered.
Giving credit for the tree and taking it away when it is burnt is another choice. It shifts the focus to short term effects over long term ones. Which has both pros and cons.
Giving credit for the tree and taking it away when it is burnt is another choice. It shifts the focus to short term effects over long term ones. Which has both pros and cons.
> if your burn the tree for fuel it also counts as 0 emissions since there wasn't any new carbon being dug up not was any carbon permanently sequestered.
Ok but ... that definition makes not a whole lot of sense, right?
The only thing that should be considered is CO2 in the atmosphere / troposphere.
Ok but ... that definition makes not a whole lot of sense, right?
The only thing that should be considered is CO2 in the atmosphere / troposphere.
I think the idea is that the CO2 emitted from burning the tree is the same as is removed by the tree growing, so it cancels out. The tree is effectively a capacitor.
Fairly irrelevant when it comes to cattle though, as it's the methane that's the problem there.
Fairly irrelevant when it comes to cattle though, as it's the methane that's the problem there.
You're going to get the methane anyway, even if you let all the plant matter the cows eat sit and rot.
Eh. Except there's a huge industrial ag machine creating cow-food, that wouldn't be doing that without the cows.
No, methane is a human-originated problem, and hand-waving won't change that.
No, methane is a human-originated problem, and hand-waving won't change that.
Well, yes you would be doing that, unless everyone stops eating for example soya.
Soya's actually quite a good example because something like 80% of the mass of soya grown is only suitable for cattle feed, and we need to grow insane amounts of it for human food because it has basically no nutritional value for humans.
What are you going to do with all that? Pile it up and let it rot, emitting huge amounts of carbon dioxide and methane?
Soya's actually quite a good example because something like 80% of the mass of soya grown is only suitable for cattle feed, and we need to grow insane amounts of it for human food because it has basically no nutritional value for humans.
What are you going to do with all that? Pile it up and let it rot, emitting huge amounts of carbon dioxide and methane?
Confused. It doesn't grow itself. Stop growing it.
Right, but doesn't that industry capture carbon?
But when you run the 'captured carbon' through the cows, you create methane. SO it's a CO2 to methane conversion process.
Not the only emissions too. Faecal emissions (sorry if you're having your lunch) are locally polluting and unhygenic. It's not often recorded the mass rejoicing when cars replaced horses in cities. No longer having to step over/round piles of sh*t was a major improvement in everyone's life.
I remember some years ago waiting on my bike at some traffic lights behind a pair of police horses, which then proceeded to decorate the road in front of me with their emissions. No apologies from the officers, no attempt to clean it up. Disgusting stuff.
Apparently it doesn't count at littering.
Apparently it doesn't count at littering.
They don’t wear “diapers”? There’s quite a few horses in my city (used for tourist entertainment) but they all have bags strapped to their behinds catching all the “emissions”.
Good luck making it drink.
Also in Newcastle Upon Tyne I believe you are allowed to take yoru sheep to eat from the grassland in the city center too.