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.

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.



Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"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 :-)

In article ,
Malcolm writes:
|
| Another fanciful scenario which would not happen. As I expected, you
| have decided to try and wriggle out of your previous claim that you
| could "be prosecuted for destroying a ruddy duck's nest, on which the
| Men From The Ministry have just shot the duck".

Do you REALLY not know the difference between "could be prosecuted" and
"would be prosecuted"?

That might explain a lot about your postings.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In message , Janet Baraclough
writes
The message
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:


Don't be intimidated by them. Three metres isn't high and if it's to their
north, as you say it's not blocking light.

How can you tell, without seeing it? It's perfectly possible for a
tree, (or wall, or shed) to block light from a nearby groundfloor
window, making rooms dark. North-facing rooms and windows are more, not
less, vulnerable to light loss.

Janet

My neighbour has just lopped of the top several feet of his cypresses (I
think they're Lawson, rather than Leyland), lying NNW of my property. I
was surprised how much more light this lets in.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

In article ,
"BAC" writes:
|
| 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. ...

No, you have missed the point. Twice.

The danger with such laws that rely on reasonable people not
enforcing them is that it gives arbitrary scope for bullying by
authority. If you ever read the newspapers, you will see almost
daily evidence of such abuse.

If such a case came to court, it would be the High Court that would
overturn the conviction - if the person concerned did not take it that
far, his conviction would stand. And he would have to pay for that,
and be classed as a criminal until then.

Remember that magistrates are not allowed to use the justification of
"de minimis non curat lex" to quash charges - judges are, though recent
changes mean that even they can be overruled. And that even a case
before the magistrates resulting in acquital is stress and expense,
and damaging to someone's reputation.

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

Well, yes, but I am thinking of the more likely scenario of a person
not grovelling appropriately to the Men From The Ministry or the police
and being prosecuted out of malice. That happens regrettably often with
our current "catch all" laws.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Stewart Robert Hinsley" wrote in message
...
In message , Janet Baraclough
writes
The message
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:


Don't be intimidated by them. Three metres isn't high and if it's to
their
north, as you say it's not blocking light.

How can you tell, without seeing it? It's perfectly possible for a
tree, (or wall, or shed) to block light from a nearby groundfloor
window, making rooms dark. North-facing rooms and windows are more, not
less, vulnerable to light loss.

Janet

My neighbour has just lopped of the top several feet of his cypresses (I
think they're Lawson, rather than Leyland), lying NNW of my property. I
was surprised how much more light this lets in.

I agree.

But rhe OP said, "citing that it's blocking their sunlight (I don't agree,
as it's to the
North of them - if anything, it blocks my sunlight).

Sunlight.

Mary

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"BAC" writes:
|
| 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. ...

No, you have missed the point. Twice.

The danger with such laws that rely on reasonable people not
enforcing them is that it gives arbitrary scope for bullying by
authority. If you ever read the newspapers, you will see almost
daily evidence of such abuse.

Perhaps so, but in the example you quoted, unless the onus of proof were
reversed, it seems unlikely that any malicious jack-in-office would have
sufficient evidence to have a realistic chance of a conviction.


If such a case came to court, it would be the High Court that would
overturn the conviction - if the person concerned did not take it that
far, his conviction would stand. And he would have to pay for that,
and be classed as a criminal until then.

In the extremely unlikely event he would be prosecuted/convicted in the
first place. If/when challenged over his actions, he responds, my actions
were authorised by the 'authorised person'. The 'authorised person' confirms
that was the case. No prosecution ensues, and if it does, the accused is
surely aquitted.


Remember that magistrates are not allowed to use the justification of
"de minimis non curat lex" to quash charges - judges are, though recent
changes mean that even they can be overruled. And that even a case
before the magistrates resulting in acquital is stress and expense,
and damaging to someone's reputation.

It's also embarassing and dangerous to reputation of jacks in office to be
seen to bring malicious prosecutions.


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

Well, yes, but I am thinking of the more likely scenario of a person
not grovelling appropriately to the Men From The Ministry or the police
and being prosecuted out of malice. That happens regrettably often with
our current "catch all" laws.


It may well happen, but I doubt it would in the circumstances you described,
because AFAIK, there is no requirement for the 'authorised person' to
authorise people to act on his behalf in writing or in public. Hence a
copper bottomed defence (prior verbal authorisation) is almost certainly
available, and prosecution would therefore seem very unlikely.

Jack in office would probably find a different charge with which to torment
his opponenet, e.g. cruelty in not disposing of chicks in nest in an
appropriately humane manner, or taking eggs with the intention to trade in
them.

In article ,
"BAC" writes:
|
| Perhaps so, but in the example you quoted, unless the onus of proof were
| reversed, it seems unlikely that any malicious jack-in-office would have
| sufficient evidence to have a realistic chance of a conviction.

Grrk. Maybe. But a lot of people HAVE been convicted on less evidence
recently, because they fell foul of the letter of a catch-all law. If
he ****es off the Men From The Ministry, he is likely to **** off the
police and magistrates, and get convicted.

That is what happened to the person who had his career destroyed because
he did a quick check to see if he had been trapped into using a Web-
based card number collector.

| In the extremely unlikely event he would be prosecuted/convicted in the
| first place. If/when challenged over his actions, he responds, my actions
| were authorised by the 'authorised person'. The 'authorised person' confirms
| that was the case. No prosecution ensues, and if it does, the accused is
| surely aquitted.

Fine. IF he realises is what is going on. What if they say to him:
Were you told to remove the nest after we killed the bird.
And he says:
No, but I am tidying up the mess you have made.

| It's also embarassing and dangerous to reputation of jacks in office to be
| seen to bring malicious prosecutions.

Only if their superiors get annoyed with them. A hell of a lot of the
artificial cases have been backed by their superiors - did you hear of
the woman fined 70 (?) quid for throwing a Cheerio onto a grass verge?

| It may well happen, but I doubt it would in the circumstances you described,
| because AFAIK, there is no requirement for the 'authorised person' to
| authorise people to act on his behalf in writing or in public. Hence a
| copper bottomed defence (prior verbal authorisation) is almost certainly
| available, and prosecution would therefore seem very unlikely.

Oh, yes, unless he had already annoyed them by not being sufficiently
obsequious, and they trapped him by a conversation like the above.

| Jack in office would probably find a different charge with which to torment
| his opponenet, e.g. cruelty in not disposing of chicks in nest in an
| appropriately humane manner, or taking eggs with the intention to trade in
| them.

True. But my point never was that this particular law was going to
lead to a stream of malicious convictions, so much as correcting
Malcolm Ogilvie's false claims.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"BAC" writes:
|
| Perhaps so, but in the example you quoted, unless the onus of proof
were
| reversed, it seems unlikely that any malicious jack-in-office would
have
| sufficient evidence to have a realistic chance of a conviction.

Grrk. Maybe. But a lot of people HAVE been convicted on less evidence
recently, because they fell foul of the letter of a catch-all law. If
he ****es off the Men From The Ministry, he is likely to **** off the
police and magistrates, and get convicted.

The sort of cases you have in mind, I think, are ones where either it cannot
(successfully) be denied that an illegal action was taken (e.g. when one is
observed dropping 'litter' by a council nark), or, worse in my opinion, when
any action becomes an offence if it is an offence in the opinion of a
policeman (e.g. taking a bite out of an apple whilst driving one's car
becomes driving without due care if a policeman sees you doing it and thinks
it is). In those cases, I agree, you are almost certainly stuffed, and the
more you complain, the more the control freaks who have victimised you will
like it.


That is what happened to the person who had his career destroyed because
he did a quick check to see if he had been trapped into using a Web-
based card number collector.

| In the extremely unlikely event he would be prosecuted/convicted in the
| first place. If/when challenged over his actions, he responds, my
actions
| were authorised by the 'authorised person'. The 'authorised person'
confirms
| that was the case. No prosecution ensues, and if it does, the accused
is
| surely aquitted.

Fine. IF he realises is what is going on. What if they say to him:
Were you told to remove the nest after we killed the bird.
And he says:
No, but I am tidying up the mess you have made.

That would mean nothing unless he had been cautioned, and, if he had been
cautioned, one would hope he had the commonsense to take advice before
saying anything at all.


| It's also embarassing and dangerous to reputation of jacks in office to
be
| seen to bring malicious prosecutions.

Only if their superiors get annoyed with them. A hell of a lot of the
artificial cases have been backed by their superiors - did you hear of
the woman fined 70 (?) quid for throwing a Cheerio onto a grass verge?

Yes, and people who have put out food for birds have also been prosecuted.
At least they weren't shot ...


| It may well happen, but I doubt it would in the circumstances you
described,
| because AFAIK, there is no requirement for the 'authorised person' to
| authorise people to act on his behalf in writing or in public. Hence a
| copper bottomed defence (prior verbal authorisation) is almost
certainly
| available, and prosecution would therefore seem very unlikely.

Oh, yes, unless he had already annoyed them by not being sufficiently
obsequious, and they trapped him by a conversation like the above.

I'll concede it is possible for a person to abuse power out of personal
spite - which of us has not experienced something similar? But this
'offence' requires proof, which, unless the intended victim is very unlucky,
or naive, or both, would be very difficult to obtain.


| Jack in office would probably find a different charge with which to
torment
| his opponenet, e.g. cruelty in not disposing of chicks in nest in an
| appropriately humane manner, or taking eggs with the intention to trade
in
| them.

True. But my point never was that this particular law was going to
lead to a stream of malicious convictions, so much as correcting
Malcolm Ogilvie's false claims.


I forgot that you and Malcolm had 'history' - I apologise to you both for
trespassing.

I thought you were implying it was likely that people assisting 'authorised
persons' might be prosecuted, a scenario which, although possible in
exceptional circumstances, strikes me as highly unlikely.

In article ,
"BAC" writes:
|
| Fine. IF he realises is what is going on. What if they say to him:
| Were you told to remove the nest after we killed the bird.
| And he says:
| No, but I am tidying up the mess you have made.
|
| That would mean nothing unless he had been cautioned, and, if he had been
| cautioned, one would hope he had the commonsense to take advice before
| saying anything at all.

Actually, no! That is true ONLY if those people were policemen - not
if they were not. Bizarre but true.

| I forgot that you and Malcolm had 'history' - I apologise to you both for
| trespassing.

Oh, please do. You have never deliberately misquoted me.

| I thought you were implying it was likely that people assisting 'authorised
| persons' might be prosecuted, a scenario which, although possible in
| exceptional circumstances, strikes me as highly unlikely.

No, I think that is really implausible, and they would have a pretty
solid defence.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

And just 'what' have the last 20 odd posts got to do with giving a sensible
answer to the original post??
Why not try arguing it out in a 'legal' NG.
--
ßôyþëtë

wrote:
I have a tree (Ok, Lleylandi sp?) I desperately need to trim the top
off. However, there is a birds nest about half way up it (way below
where I intend to chop). Nest appears to be vacant, but I cannot be
certain. I think the birds are starlings.

Is there any time I can safely assume the nest would be vacant in
order to perform the appropriate chopping of the tree?

My belief has always been that trees should be 'pruned' in autumn, when the
sap stops rising.
If you inform neighbour of this, plus you need to be sure nest is vacant,
surely he will understand?
If he doesn't, I expect it will take longer than that for him to get to
court........assuming he can find a solicitor who doesn't fall around
guffawing
--
ßôyþëtë

My thanks to all on this topic...

I'm a newbie to gardening, hence I did not know the optimal time for
pruning trees.
I acquired the tree's with the house, and whilst I'm not a fan, I don't
have any alternatives to hiding the fence behind them.

I've explained to the neighbour, and shown them the active nest, and
they are happy to leave it, until later in the year.

Ian


BoyPete wrote:
wrote:
I have a tree (Ok, Lleylandi sp?) I desperately need to trim the top
off. However, there is a birds nest about half way up it (way below
where I intend to chop). Nest appears to be vacant, but I cannot be
certain. I think the birds are starlings.

Is there any time I can safely assume the nest would be vacant in
order to perform the appropriate chopping of the tree?

My belief has always been that trees should be 'pruned' in autumn, when the
sap stops rising.
If you inform neighbour of this, plus you need to be sure nest is vacant,
surely he will understand?
If he doesn't, I expect it will take longer than that for him to get to
court........assuming he can find a solicitor who doesn't fall around
guffawing
--
ßôyþëtë

On 7/7/06 11:10, in article
,
" wrote:

My thanks to all on this topic...

I'm a newbie to gardening, hence I did not know the optimal time for
pruning trees.
I acquired the tree's with the house, and whilst I'm not a fan, I don't
have any alternatives to hiding the fence behind them.

I've explained to the neighbour, and shown them the active nest, and
they are happy to leave it, until later in the year.

Nonetheless, I'd be inclined to firmly and politely state that you intend to
keep the trees at whatever height you (reasonably) decide upon. Most fences
go to 6' and 9' is not unreasonable when it's not shading them! In fact,
you could point out to them that, in this instance, your privacy guarantees
theirs. I do think it would be a good idea to draw the boundaries firmly
and literally on this one while it's in discussion.
And, depending on where you live, this group could give you excellent
suggestions for evergreen hedging and flowering shrub planting which would
hide your fence if you tire of the leylandii and having to keep them clipped
back....... ;-)
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(email address on website)