"alan.holmes" wrote in message
news:gKj6o.20935$7Z3.8363@hurricane...

"rbel" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:02:39 +0200, Ian B
wrote:

Mike Lyle wrote:
BAC wrote:
"Ian B" wrote in message
...
BAC wrote:
[...]

The prosecution was not for killing the squirrel, but for the means
employed. If someone were to be caught drowning captured rats, they
might well face prosecution, following the Rural Development
Service's 2006 advisory note on rat control, which states 'Drowning
is
not a humane method of dispatch and could result in
prosecution.'.

Is it reasonable to expect ordinary citizens to know that?


Probably not! How many of us know the ins and outs of every law on
the statute-books? None, I'd guess.

/All/ ordinary citizens should know by now that drowning isn't humane.
They've been telling us for over fifty years, after all.

And there's the problem, you see. There isn't actually a law that states
"ye
may not drown a squirrel". There is a law that says ye may not be
"inhumane", and then the definition of what is inhumane is arbitrarily
made
by others beyond the realm of democratic debate or control. And, it's
certainly not reasonable to expect every person to know even a
significant
fraction of the vast amount of these official opinions.

But the gardeners in Buckingham Palace used to drown the things frequently
for many years, until the Screws of the World got wind of it and made a
fuss, and they die in a VERY short time being drowned, the vermin that is!

Alan


Hm!...I thought you could only drown a squirrel once!

Bill