In article ,
Malcolm writes:
|
| As I said, possibly. But, when you have made such claims, and I have
| checked them up, 2/3 of the time it is I that have been correct and
| you that have been wrong.
|
| Wow!!! Is this a first?? Nick McLaren admits he has been wrong :-)))

If you look it up, you will find that I usually do admit that I am wrong,
when I am. It might well, however, be a first for you.

| I am happy to oblige. I know that you like to ridicule conservation and
| conservation law, but on this occasion your attempt at doing so, by
| claiming that "you can be prosecuted for destroying a ruddy duck's nest,
| on which the Men From The Ministry have just shot the duck", has fallen
| flat on its face.
|
| Have a look at:
|
| http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-cou...ddylicence.pdf
|
| and note that it has been extended annually since.

Thank you for providing evidence that I am correct.

If you are an employee, guest, relative or whatever of the owner/occupier,
the latter has authorised the Men From The Ministry to shoot the ruddy
duck, but has not explicitly authorised you to do the same, you escort
them there to do the job, and then remove the corpse and nest, you can
then be prosecuted.

Indeed, under English law, it is likely that this could happen even if
the owner/occupier attempts to authorise you retrospectively, as there is
a general principle that retrospective actions cannot cancel criminal
charges. That would have to be clarified in the High Court or above.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.