"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

This is a repost, because I had understated my response earlier.

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 the Men From The Ministry have a licence to shoot the ruddy
duck, but you have not, you escort them there to do the job, and then
remove the corpse and nest, you can then be prosecuted. As far as
this rule goes.

That does assume that it is a crime for the owner/occupier to destroy
a nest without a licence. If that is not the case (as it wasn't before
1981), then the following applies.

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.



Hopefully, no-one would seek to waste the High Court's time over such a
matter. It would probably be reasonable to assume, in the circumstances
described, that the agent had the authorised person's consent, implicit or
explicit, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Why would an
authorised person wish his agent to accompany/guide the shooters to the cull
site, to kill the unfortunate ducks, but not to participate in the
removal/destruction of the nests/eggs?

Perhaps so he can trick him into being prosecuted and convicted and subject
to instant dismissal? A cunning stunt :-)