[I]Local laws taking the piss
GaryN
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8357592.stm
I particularly loved the bit where her son could continue to feed the ducks
because he's too young to be fined! WTF?
It's illegal to feed the pigeons in Gloucester Green, Oxford but there's a
woman who does so every day. I've never seen her fined or even approached
by the private security monkeys.
gary
--
"History is written by the winners which is why French history books are
blank from cover to cover"
The Pub Landlord.
Lesley Weston
> Now this is really over the top.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8357592.stm
We have a picture somewhere of me standing under a sign prohibiting the
feeding of birds and throwing bird seed to a gaggle of delighted ducks,
pigeons and seagulls who are forming a carpet around my feet. This is a
regular pastime for us in winter, when the birds need extra food.
>
> I particularly loved the bit where her son could continue to feed the ducks
> because he's too young to be fined! WTF?
Like the toddler who beat another toddler with a car jack, hurting him
quite badly. The victim has just won compensation from the government
body that gives money to the victims of violent crimes, over the
strenuous objections of that body. Their argument seemed to be that a
three-year-old can't commit a crime, therefore no crime was committed,
therefore no compensation is required.
>
> It's illegal to feed the pigeons in Gloucester Green, Oxford but there's a
> woman who does so every day. I've never seen her fined or even approached
> by the private security monkeys.
We've had that law for quite a few years in Vancouver. SFAIK there
hasn't been a single prosecution under it.
--
Lesley Weston
The addy above is real, but I won't see anything posted to it for a long
time. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca, adjusting as necessary.
Chris Zakes
caused John Ewing <jo...@gelsalba.co.uk> to write:
>On 19 Nov 2009 15:07:29 GMT, GaryN <ga...@scaryriders.com> wrote:
>
>>Now this is really over the top.
>>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8357592.stm
>>
>>I particularly loved the bit where her son could continue to feed the ducks
>>because he's too young to be fined! WTF?
>>
>>It's illegal to feed the pigeons in Gloucester Green, Oxford but there's a
>>woman who does so every day. I've never seen her fined or even approached
>>by the private security monkeys.
>
>With the number of pigeons round here, I'd like to feed them _to_
>something.
>
>John
There's always this option:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz-DHBiYnrc
-Chris Zakes
Texas
The wise man does not seek enlightenment, he waits for it. So while I was
waiting, it occurred to me that seeking perplexity might be more fun.
-Lu-Tze in "Thief of Time" by Terry Pratchett
raymond larsson
jo...@gelsalba.co.uk says...
> With the number of pigeons round here, I'd like to feed them _to_
> something.
As long as it's not the ravens. The mess of feathers they leave drifting
around ...
SteveD
<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Like the toddler who beat another toddler with a car jack, hurting him
>quite badly. The victim has just won compensation from the government
>body that gives money to the victims of violent crimes, over the
>strenuous objections of that body. Their argument seemed to be that a
>three-year-old can't commit a crime, therefore no crime was committed,
>therefore no compensation is required.
Presumably it would be classified as an unfortunate accident, then?
-SteveD
Lesley Weston
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8357592.stm
>>
>> I particularly loved the bit where her son could continue to feed the ducks
>> because he's too young to be fined! WTF?
>>
>> It's illegal to feed the pigeons in Gloucester Green, Oxford but there's a
>> woman who does so every day. I've never seen her fined or even approached
>> by the private security monkeys.
>
> something.
Other than the local cats?
Lesley Weston
I think it was to be classified as anything that meant they didn't have
to pay out.
CCA
I would ask what happened to the parents or carers who were supposed
to be looking after the three-year-olds at the time
CCA
GaryN
news:1382a953-891c-4da3...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com:
These days it's difficult to tell who is guilty of what. Did you happen
to catch Panorama on BBC1 last night on the recent resurrection of the
300 year old "Joint Enterprise" law?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/
This law worries me in it's current interpretation and frankly I see it
as a way for coppers to get more points from a single crime (I'm
assuming that people know about the Police "Points make prizes" system
in the UK)
Take a real life 'For instance': If I'm working the bar for a bike club
and someone becomes violent 30 yards away, is restrained by other club
members and suffers a fatal heart attack does that make me guilty under
Joint Enterprise? (This did actually happen at one rally) After all -
I'm a member of the same 'gang'.
Lesley Weston
That's the first thing I thought, too, but the BBC article I read didn't
mention it. In Canada leaving such young children alone is a crime, so
the compensation could have been for that, but I don't know if the UK is
the same.
Lesley Weston
> CCA <sphir...@aol.com> wrote in
> news:1382a953-891c-4da3...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Nov 20, 11:38 am, SteveD <use...@vo.id.au> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:45:24 -0800, Lesley Weston
>>> <brightly_coloured_b...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Like the toddler who beat another toddler with a car jack, hurting
>>>> him quite badly. The victim has just won compensation from the
>>>> government body that gives money to the victims of violent crimes,
>>>> over the strenuous objections of that body. Their argument seemed to
>>>> be that a three-year-old can't commit a crime, therefore no crime
>>>> was committed, therefore no compensation is required.
>>> Presumably it would be classified as an unfortunate accident, then?
>> I would ask what happened to the parents or carers who were supposed
>> to be looking after the three-year-olds at the time
>>
>> CCA
>>
>
> These days it's difficult to tell who is guilty of what. Did you happen
> to catch Panorama on BBC1 last night on the recent resurrection of the
> 300 year old "Joint Enterprise" law?
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/
>
> This law worries me in it's current interpretation and frankly I see it
> as a way for coppers to get more points from a single crime (I'm
> assuming that people know about the Police "Points make prizes" system
> in the UK)
I can see what the intention is, and it seems OK to me. But, as you say,
if it's not very carefully worded it could be misused.
Nigel Stapley
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> These days it's difficult to tell who is guilty of what. Did you
> happen to catch Panorama on BBC1 last night on the recent resurrection
> of the 300 year old "Joint Enterprise" law?
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/
>
> This law worries me in it's current interpretation and frankly I see
> it as a way for coppers to get more points from a single crime (I'm
> assuming that people know about the Police "Points make prizes" system
> in the UK)
>
> Take a real life 'For instance': If I'm working the bar for a bike
> club and someone becomes violent 30 yards away, is restrained by other
> club members and suffers a fatal heart attack does that make me guilty
> under Joint Enterprise? (This did actually happen at one rally)
> After all - I'm a member of the same 'gang'.
The Wikipedia entry for "Joint Enterprise" redirects to "Common Purpose".
If it's right in calling this the same law, and I'm reading the entry
correctly, then it's a matter of intent and opportunity. So in your case
it wouldn't apply because you were 30 yards away, had not conspired with
them to restrain the man, and so on.
But judging from the Panorama piece, this law is different. The guy was
jailed even though he didn't have a weapon, and it sounds like he didn't
realise his associate did either[1]. The point of Common Purpose, I
think, is that it *could* have been you who commited the crime; it just
happened to be one of the others. Joint Enterprise sounds more like "If
you are involved in something, you're responsible in all conceivable
outcomes, whether you had any influence on them or not". And yes, that
strikes me as a bit worrying.
[1]From Wikipeda:
"Where one of the participants deliberately departs from the common
purpose by doing something that was not authorised or agreed upon, they
alone are liable for the consequences. In the situation exemplified in
Davies v DPP (1954) AC 378 a group comes together for a fight or to
commit a crime and either they know or do not know that one of their team
has a weapon. If they know that there is a weapon, it is foreseeable that
it might be used and the fact that the other participants do not instruct
the one carrying to leave it behind, means that its use must be within
the scope of their intention. But *if they do not know of the weapon*,
this is a deliberate departure from the common purpose and this breaks
the enterprise." (asterisks mine)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_purpose
--
Dave
"All those with psychokinesis, raise my hand."
The Room With No Doors, Kate Orman
Reader in Invisible Writings
programme, the intent of the law is that if you went somewhere with
other people to do something illegal, you carry some responsibility for
any bad thing that happens.
I'm surprised that it is considered new as it was mentioned in an
assault case last year as being a standard principal. In this case a
woman turned up at a house to 'have words' with another woman. She was
accompanied by two men who, when it turned nasty weighed in with a cosh
they just happened to have with them. Basically the view was that the
visiting woman had knowingly gone there armed with two (known to be
violent) men and could not absolve herself of their actions.
--
Reader in Invisible Writings.. Something to Ponder upon!
GaryN
news:hehkgf$psf$1...@mud.stack.nl:
No, No, No. This law is being interpreted as "If you went out with your
mates with no intention of anything other than a night out and then
something kicked off and one of your mates turns out to have a knife
that you knew nothing about you are guilty of murder"
Even the definition of 'murder' is uncertain in law. There is supposed
to be premeditation for it to be murder, acting on the moment is
manslaughter. Makes no difference to the victim.
> I'm surprised that it is considered new as it was mentioned in an
> assault case last year as being a standard principal. In this case a
> woman turned up at a house to 'have words' with another woman. She
> was accompanied by two men who, when it turned nasty weighed in with a
> cosh they just happened to have with them. Basically the view was
> that the visiting woman had knowingly gone there armed with two (known
> to be violent) men and could not absolve herself of their actions.
A different scenario.
GaryN
news:FY2dnRL9bZywjpHW...@brightview.co.uk:
> Lesley Weston wrote:
<snip>
>> I can see what the intention is, and it seems OK to me. But, as you
>> say, if it's not very carefully worded it could be misused.
>>
>
> It won't be and it will be.
>
A clearer and more concisely accurate summation of UK law in general will
never again be seen.
Thankyou Nigel.
Paul Jamison
"GaryN" <ga...@scaryriders.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CCEBC072588Ag...@212.23.3.119...
> Nigel Stapley <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote in
> news:FY2dnRL9bZywjpHW...@brightview.co.uk:
>
>> Lesley Weston wrote:
> <snip>
>>> I can see what the intention is, and it seems OK to me. But, as you
>>> say, if it's not very carefully worded it could be misused.
>>>
>>
>> It won't be and it will be.
>>
>
> A clearer and more concisely accurate summation of UK law in general will
> never again be seen.
>
> Thankyou Nigel.
>
but I tend to be cynical. Thank you kindly.
Paul
Andy Davison
No. Pigeons can be got rid of either by coating their roosting places
with fake explodable bird lime (which must look convincing because
pigeons know the difference) or by hitting them with rice puddings fired
from catapults. The ravens will be far too busy learning to fly under
water.
--
Andy Davison
andy [ at ] oiyou [ dot ] ukfsn [ dot ] org
Nigel Stapley
Yur, some of know too much :-)
Nigel Stapley
I take it they've already tried recordings of a female pigeon 'in
trouble' and of a female pigeon *not* 'in trouble'?
Large Dave
chatting up a (young) Barbara Windsor pigeon. She replies "Ooh! youre
just trying to get me into trouble" ....
And I'm sober :-)
--
Large Dave
This space accidentally left blank
GaryN
@localhost.localdomain:
The other (nasty) way to get rid of pigeons would be to feed them. Coming
from Kent I used to use the ferries a lot and a favourite amusement was to
throw lumps of baking soda to the gulls. Hits the stomach juices and then
expands - a lot. Would probably work with pigeons, or any other
indescriminately scavenging birds, as well.
Lesley Weston
> Andy Davison <andy...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:hekh76$89e$1
> @localhost.localdomain:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:52:45 -0600, raymond larsson wrote:
>>
>>> In article <u3ebg5t2h69g6js3s...@4ax.com>,
>>> jo...@gelsalba.co.uk says...
>>>
>>>> With the number of pigeons round here, I'd like to feed them _to_
>>>> something.
>>> As long as it's not the ravens. The mess of feathers they leave drifting
>>> around ...
>> No. Pigeons can be got rid of either by coating their roosting places
>> with fake explodable bird lime (which must look convincing because
>> pigeons know the difference) or by hitting them with rice puddings fired
>> from catapults. The ravens will be far too busy learning to fly under
>> water.
>>
>
> The other (nasty) way to get rid of pigeons would be to feed them. Coming
> from Kent I used to use the ferries a lot and a favourite amusement was to
> throw lumps of baking soda to the gulls. Hits the stomach juices and then
> expands - a lot. Would probably work with pigeons, or any other
> indescriminately scavenging birds, as well.
That's horrible. There's no way it could possibly be funny.
Stacie
> Nigel Stapley wrote:
> > Andy Davison wrote:
> >> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:52:45 -0600, raymond larsson wrote:
>
> >>> j...@gelsalba.co.uk says...
>
> >>>> With the number ofpigeonsround here, I'd like to feed them _to_
> >>>> something.
> >>> As long as it's not the ravens. The mess of feathers they leave drifting
> >>> around ...
>
> >> with fake explodable bird lime (which must look convincing because
> >> fired from catapults. The ravens will be far too busy learning to fly
> >> under water.
>
> > I take it they've already tried recordings of a female pigeon 'in
> > trouble' and of a female pigeon *not* 'in trouble'?
>
> That just generated a thought of a carry-on style Sid James pigeon
> chatting up a (young) Barbara Windsor pigeon. She replies "Ooh! youre
> just trying to get me into trouble" ....
>
> And I'm sober :-)
>
> --
> Large Dave
> This space accidentally left blank
My mind odd places, too. My first thought was, "What? Like, a female
pigeon threatening to demand child support or asking for rushed
nuptials?"
Nigel Stapley
You're both right in that sense. The references both I and Andy gave
were from "The Starlings", a radio play by Spike Milligan dating from 1954.
http://www.thegoonshow.co.uk/scripts/thestarlings.htm
Sabremeister Brian
opadnceRM8nEvIzW...@brightview.co.uk,
I thought it sounded like a Goon Show incident...
--
www.sabremeister.me.uk
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
"Reading is sometimes an ingenious device for avoiding thought."
- Sir Arthur Helps
Nigel Stapley
It was, in effect, a Goon Show (as it featured Milligna, Sellers,
Secombe and their then-announcer Andrew 'Tim' Timothy), but recorded at
BBC Newcastle without an audience, and treated as a 'serious' drama.
Hence Timothy's announcement at the end: "Any resemblance to a Goon Show
was due to the laxity of the producer, Peter Eton".
One of Milligoon's various beefs about the BBC was that they never put
it up for the Prix Italia.
Alec Cawley
> Even the definition of 'murder' is uncertain in law. There is supposed
> to be premeditation for it to be murder, acting on the moment is
> manslaughter. Makes no difference to the victim.
I don't think that is true. There has to be intent to harm (not
necessary to kill) for it to be murder. If it is premeditated, then
there was obviously intent. If you are acting on the moment, it is much
harder to prove intent to harm than, say, reflexive self defence. There
is much more room for reasonable doubt, which means a not guilty sentence.
GaryN
news:7niqq2F...@mid.individual.net:
A friend of mine was killed back in the '80's. He'd been arguing,
outside the house, with the husband of the woman he'd been sleeping
with. The other guy went into the house, picked up a large kitchen
knife, went back outside and stabbed my mate 13 times in the chest.
Murder or Manslaughter?
I would say that is pretty much a deliberate act rather than 'spur of
the moment'. If you happen to be, for whatever reason, carrying
something that can be used as a weapon (my walking stick with the metal
tip for instance) then that may not be prior intent if it is so used.
Going to fetch a weapon indicates intent.
The court and CPS felt differently, the guy got 3 years for Manslaughter
and was out in 2.
Coincidentally we went to see "Law Abiding Citizen" last night, which is
largely about the question of who is responsible for what and is it
right, as opposed to legal, for lawyers to do deals with criminals.
GaryN
news:Xns9CC899DB94BD6g...@212.23.3.119:
> Now this is really over the top.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8357592.stm
>
> I particularly loved the bit where her son could continue to feed the
> ducks because he's too young to be fined! WTF?
>
> It's illegal to feed the pigeons in Gloucester Green, Oxford but
> there's a woman who does so every day. I've never seen her fined or
> even approached by the private security monkeys.
>
> gary
>
I particularly liked this one on today's BBC news
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8388077.stm
Now you can't park on your own land!
GaryN
news:Xns9CD496EB8763g...@212.23.3.119:
> GaryN <ga...@scaryriders.com> wrote in
> news:Xns9CC899DB94BD6g...@212.23.3.119:
>
>> Now this is really over the top.
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8357592.stm
>>
>> I particularly loved the bit where her son could continue to feed the
>> ducks because he's too young to be fined! WTF?
>>
>> It's illegal to feed the pigeons in Gloucester Green, Oxford but
>> there's a woman who does so every day. I've never seen her fined or
>> even approached by the private security monkeys.
>>
>> gary
>>
>
> I particularly liked this one on today's BBC news
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8388077.stm
>
> Now you can't park on your own land!
>
> gary
>
Even better...
Gasp, shock, horror - I put this one up for most
incomprehensible/ridiculous headline of the week (so far) award. Who
has ever seen a skateboarding pigeon? Also the "Most Senseless Illegal
Prosecution" award (so far)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8388649.stm
Does this mean that I'm not allowed to go out shooting pigeons on the
farm? After all firing a 12 bore shotgun at a pigeon probably comes
under the description of "intentionally killing a wild bird" - well it
does if I'm firing it. Do reared pheasants, allowed to roam in the
woods once out of the rearing pens, count as "wild birds".
Pigeons, of all varieties, are classed as vermin and may be legally
killed by anyone, by whatever means, at any time; along with most
Corvids (not Jays, or the Ravens at the Tower) and also Starlings.
That's the law. I would frown upon someone killing a wild bird that
isn't on the list of vermin or agreed game species but a pigeon FCOL?
Plenty more where that came from.
Oh and it's also legal to shoot various kinds of duck, geese, snipe,
woodcock, grouse, capercaille and ptarmigan. All of which is
"intentionally killing a wild bird". Maybe the people passing judgement
are off for a drop of Pheasant shooting next weekend but hitting a
pigeon wiv yer skateboard isn't on Donchya Know
Richard Bos
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:45:24 -0800, Lesley Weston
>
> >Like the toddler who beat another toddler with a car jack, hurting him
> >quite badly. The victim has just won compensation from the government
> >body that gives money to the victims of violent crimes, over the
> >strenuous objections of that body. Their argument seemed to be that a
> >three-year-old can't commit a crime, therefore no crime was committed,
> >therefore no compensation is required.
>
> Presumably it would be classified as an unfortunate accident, then?
I'd think so. But that doesn't mean no compensation is required - at
least, not under sane law. After all, if you get bitten by a dog, don't
the dog's owners have to pay up? If you forget to put your car on the
parking brakes, then that's not a crime, but if it rolls off into your
neighbour's, you'll still have to pay the damages.
I would say that the same thing goes in this situation. It's obvious
that the toddler didn't mean to commit assault and battery with a
dangerous blunt instrument, but all the same his parents (or, casu quo,
carers in loco parentis) should pay for the damage he did. After all,
that's what one has damages insurance for.
Richard
Lesley Weston
They're not native to the UK.
>
> Pigeons, of all varieties, are classed as vermin and may be legally
> killed by anyone, by whatever means, at any time; along with most
> Corvids (not Jays, or the Ravens at the Tower) and also Starlings.
> That's the law. I would frown upon someone killing a wild bird that
> isn't on the list of vermin or agreed game species but a pigeon FCOL?
> Plenty more where that came from.
I've never eaten pigeons, but they're supposed to be pretty good. Crows,
not so much.
>
> Oh and it's also legal to shoot various kinds of duck, geese, snipe,
> woodcock, grouse, capercaille and ptarmigan. All of which is
> "intentionally killing a wild bird". Maybe the people passing judgement
> are off for a drop of Pheasant shooting next weekend but hitting a
> pigeon wiv yer skateboard isn't on Donchya Know
There's not much information in the story. Perhaps his crime was not so
much killing the pigeon as not killing it quickly enough; there are laws
against causing suffering to any animal, farmed, wild or pet, and so
there should be. Or perhaps it's just as loony as you say.
Lesley Weston
The money was paid (under protest) by some government body that exists
solely to pay money out to the victims of violent crime. No doubt they
then try to recover the money from the perpetrators, or in this case the
parents or guardians of the perpetrator. If things worked properly, then
the money should come from whoever was supposed to be looking after the
children and was so spectacularly derelict in their duty, if necessary
by garnisheeing their wages for the rest of their lives. Failing that,
it came from the taxpayers as usual.
GaryN
news:hf5vcs$187l$1...@mud.stack.nl:
Introduced by the Romans so technically not. However they are now so
prevalent that they are regarded as such. Native or not are they a wild
bird? If a Lesser Spotted Short Legged Long Beaked Dribbling Warbler on
it's migration from Iceland to Africa is shot by accident is it a wild bird
despite not being native?
>> Pigeons, of all varieties, are classed as vermin and may be legally
>> killed by anyone, by whatever means, at any time; along with most
>> Corvids (not Jays, or the Ravens at the Tower) and also Starlings.
>> That's the law. I would frown upon someone killing a wild bird that
>> isn't on the list of vermin or agreed game species but a pigeon FCOL?
>> Plenty more where that came from.
>
> I've never eaten pigeons, but they're supposed to be pretty good.
> Crows, not so much.
Pigeon (proper woodpigeons) casserole is excellent but don't bother with
all the tedious plucking and drawing. Two or three pigeons (preferably
dead) Just pluck enough so that you can see the breastbone, slice through
the skin straight down the line of the bone and then peel the skin back
from the breasts. Slice the breasts clear of the bone, dice, fry with
onions to seal, then chuck in a casserole dish with about a pint of stock,
1/2 pint cider and the root vegetables of your choice (carrots, leeks,
turnips and potatoes work for me). Cook for about an hour at about gas
mark 5 or whatever the colonial equivalent is.
Apologies that my recipies do not involve precise weights and measures but
that's just the way I do things. Anyone wanting more precise details than
"About that much" or "About that long" can go and buy a bloody cookery
book;-)
The book
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pigeon-Shooting-Archie-
Coats/dp/0233989331/ref=pd_sim_b_5
by possibly the best pigeon shooter in England, 500 in a day, contains a
whole section of tasty recipies.
It is possible to make a meal out of a crow (yes I have tried crow pie -
once only!) but I'd have to be bloody hungry!
>> Oh and it's also legal to shoot various kinds of duck, geese, snipe,
>> woodcock, grouse, capercaille and ptarmigan. All of which is
>> "intentionally killing a wild bird". Maybe the people passing
>> judgement are off for a drop of Pheasant shooting next weekend but
>> hitting a pigeon wiv yer skateboard isn't on Donchya Know
>
> There's not much information in the story. Perhaps his crime was not
> so much killing the pigeon as not killing it quickly enough; there are
> laws against causing suffering to any animal, farmed, wild or pet, and
> so there should be. Or perhaps it's just as loony as you say.
If it's anything to do with causing suffering then every bugger who goes
game shooting, including a lot of MPs and several members of the Royal
family, could be done for it. In general there is a 'runner' - a pheasant
that has been hit in the wing and can't fly but can still run, out of every
5 hits.
The article clearly states that he was accused of intentionally killing a
wild bird. Nothing about cruelty. The problem is in the definition of
"Wild Bird"[1]. Shooting a homing pigeon is illegal because it's classed
as a domestic animal[2], shooting a 'rat with wings' town pigeon (and for
C's sake don't cook one of those) is a public service.
If the law says that you can kill pigeons then you can kill pigeons. What
it doesn't say is "You are allowed to kill pigeons except by belting them
with a skateboard"
The laws about what one can and can't do get more ridiculous by the day.
I'm allowed to use a brishook or machete on the allotment but I'm not
allowed to carry them there, not even in a rucksack. Although it has to be
said that the PCSOs who tried to explain this to me decided that discretion
was the better part of valour when facing someone with large sharp bits of
metal and buggered off somewhere else.
gary
[1]The SO when she's had a bad day but I'm certainly not allowed to shoot
her.
[2]Really - I kid you not.
Lesley Weston
> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> news:hf5vcs$187l$1...@mud.stack.nl:
>
>> GaryN wrote:
<snip>
>>> Do reared pheasants, allowed to roam in
>>> the woods once out of the rearing pens, count as "wild birds".
>> They're not native to the UK.
>
> Introduced by the Romans so technically not. However they are now so
> prevalent that they are regarded as such. Native or not are they a wild
> bird? If a Lesser Spotted Short Legged Long Beaked Dribbling Warbler on
> it's migration from Iceland to Africa is shot by accident is it a wild bird
> despite not being native?
Yes, I suppose it might have more to do with the rearing pens than the
origins.
<snip>
>>> Oh and it's also legal to shoot various kinds of duck, geese, snipe,
>>> woodcock, grouse, capercaille and ptarmigan. All of which is
>>> "intentionally killing a wild bird". Maybe the people passing
>>> judgement are off for a drop of Pheasant shooting next weekend but
>>> hitting a pigeon wiv yer skateboard isn't on Donchya Know
>> There's not much information in the story. Perhaps his crime was not
>> so much killing the pigeon as not killing it quickly enough; there are
>> laws against causing suffering to any animal, farmed, wild or pet, and
>> so there should be. Or perhaps it's just as loony as you say.
>
> If it's anything to do with causing suffering then every bugger who goes
> game shooting, including a lot of MPs and several members of the Royal
> family, could be done for it. In general there is a 'runner' - a pheasant
> that has been hit in the wing and can't fly but can still run, out of every
> 5 hits.
Then they should be done for it. Especially MPs and the Royal Family,
who are supposed to be setting an example to us all (!). I didn't
realise that shooting skills had deteriorated to that extent.
>
> The article clearly states that he was accused of intentionally killing a
> wild bird. Nothing about cruelty. The problem is in the definition of
> "Wild Bird"[1]. Shooting a homing pigeon is illegal because it's classed
> as a domestic animal[2],
See Albert Haddock's case concerning the question of whether snails are
domestic or wild and savage animals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._P._Herbert#.22Misleading_Cases.22
> shooting a 'rat with wings' town pigeon (and for
> C's sake don't cook one of those) is a public service.
I can't agree. But we've done this before.
>
> If the law says that you can kill pigeons then you can kill pigeons. What
> it doesn't say is "You are allowed to kill pigeons except by belting them
> with a skateboard"
Oh quite! Which is why I wondered if there was something else involved,
such as the boy torturing the pigeon. If it's just that he was an oik,
then of course there's no justification for prosecuting him.
GaryN
> GaryN wrote:
>> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:hf5vcs$187l$1...@mud.stack.nl:
<snip>
>> If it's anything to do with causing suffering then every bugger who
>> goes game shooting, including a lot of MPs and several members of the
>> Royal family, could be done for it. In general there is a 'runner' -
>> a pheasant that has been hit in the wing and can't fly but can still
>> run, out of every 5 hits.
>
> Then they should be done for it. Especially MPs and the Royal Family,
> who are supposed to be setting an example to us all (!). I didn't
> realise that shooting skills had deteriorated to that extent.
Mostly not that bad but sometimes the right honourable whoever, invited
as a guest for some reason, is an idiot who has little experience with a
shotgun and also doesn't realise that during a shoot the Gamekeeper *IS*
God
<snip>
I've seen a well known politician ejected from a shoot because he fired
across the line[1] and nearly hit a longstop[2]. Keeper stopped the
drive, called all guns and beaters in, and *very* publicly dismantled
the idiot's gun before turning to the land manager and saying "I'm not
prepared to continue the shoot if he has a loaded weapon"
The guy left in disgrace.
On a shoot there are rules, and the most basic of them is that the
Keeper's word is law.
gary
[1]You don't do this.
[2]You *really* don't do this - shooting the staff is frowned upon.
Lesley Weston
> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> news:hf8l6q$2j7p$1...@mud.stack.nl:
>
>> GaryN wrote:
>>> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>>> news:hf5vcs$187l$1...@mud.stack.nl:
> <snip>
>>> If it's anything to do with causing suffering then every bugger who
>>> goes game shooting, including a lot of MPs and several members of the
>>> Royal family, could be done for it. In general there is a 'runner' -
>>> a pheasant that has been hit in the wing and can't fly but can still
>>> run, out of every 5 hits.
>> Then they should be done for it. Especially MPs and the Royal Family,
>> who are supposed to be setting an example to us all (!). I didn't
>> realise that shooting skills had deteriorated to that extent.
>
> Mostly not that bad but sometimes the right honourable whoever, invited
> as a guest for some reason, is an idiot who has little experience with a
> shotgun
Well of course! Now that the Wrong People are aping their betters [1],
such things are bound to happen. The last thing we need is barrow boys
with shotguns [1].
> and also doesn't realise that during a shoot the Gamekeeper *IS*
> God
Only during a shoot?
[1] Maybe I should put a smiley there...
Kevin Wells
GaryN <ga...@scaryriders.com> wrote:
>[2]You *really* don't do this - shooting the staff is frowned upon.
>
What if they deserve it.
--
Kev Wells http://riscos.kevsoft.co.uk/
http://kevsoft.co.uk/ http://kevsoft.co.uk/AleQuest/
ICQ 238580561
Useless Fact 02 In the artic the sun sometimes appears to be square.
Paul Jamison
>
> <snip>
>
> I've seen a well known politician ejected from a shoot because he fired
> across the line[1] and nearly hit a longstop[2]. Keeper stopped the
> drive, called all guns and beaters in, and *very* publicly dismantled
> the idiot's gun before turning to the land manager and saying "I'm not
> prepared to continue the shoot if he has a loaded weapon"
>
> The guy left in disgrace.
>
> On a shoot there are rules, and the most basic of them is that the
> Keeper's word is law.
>
> gary
>
> [1]You don't do this.
> [2]You *really* don't do this - shooting the staff is frowned upon.
>
then-vice president [1] shot a companion on a hunting trip and basically got
away with it.
Have any American politicos gone on a Hunt while in England? I hope not, for
your lot's sakes!
Paul
[1] I'm *damned* if I'll capitalize the title for the likes of him!
Bob Larter
<nods> I thought that the rice puddings were a giveaway.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Zakes
GaryN <ga...@scaryriders.com> to write:
What about shooting lawyers and campaign contributors?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/12/cheney/
-Chris Zakes
Texas
When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its
subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden
to know," the end result is tyranny and opression, no matter how holy the motives.
-John Lyle in "If This Goes On--" by Robert Heinlein
Daibhid Ceanaideach
What I always find amusing about that story is that he was hunting
*quail*.
It does inevitably lead to the thought "Sorry, I mistook you for one of
my predecessors!"
--
Dave
"All those with psychokinesis, raise my hand."
The Room With No Doors, Kate Orman
Andy Davison
> It was, in effect, a Goon Show (as it featured Milligna, Sellers,
> Secombe and their then-announcer Andrew 'Tim' Timothy), but recorded at
> BBC Newcastle without an audience, and treated as a 'serious' drama.
> Hence Timothy's announcement at the end: "Any resemblance to a Goon Show
> was due to the laxity of the producer, Peter Eton".
>
> One of Milligoon's various beefs about the BBC was that they never put
> it up for the Prix Italia.
Not surprising really as it nearly got the Goons banned as Peter Sellers'
character Winifred Duchess Boil de Spudswell sounded too much like the
Queen for the Beeb's liking (impersonations of Royals being a big no-no
at the time) and it took all of John Snagge's persuasive powers to keep
the show on the air. After that Sellers was banned from impersonating
Churchill as well although he did do so again as Churchill's voice on the
radio in the film The Man Who Never Was a couple of years later.
--
Andy Davison
andy [ at ] oiyou [ dot ] ukfsn [ dot ] org
GaryN
news:33cjh51c23vi9151s...@4ax.com:
Only if the keeper says you can, although I have to say I'm in
favour..:-)
What the hell is a 28 gauge shotgun? Ain't no such animal. In
descending order the calibers are Punt gun (mass slaughter of
unsuspecting waterfowl for the use of), 10 bore (wildfowling), 12 bore,
16 bore, 20 bore (game shooting), fourten (rabbiting, ratting etc).
There is an 8 bore but if you want to fire one make sure your health
insurance is up to date. The damn things have a 75% chance of either
breaking or dislocating your shoulder, the recoil is that heavy. One of
those weapons that is nearly as dangerous to the shooter as it is to the
target.
I suspect that the 28 bore is just a .410 for people who can't deal with
decimal points:-) Or possibly the idiot that I met/was unable to avoid
at a party the other day who insisted on telling me, repeatedly, how
successful he was as a Merchant Banker at the age of 28 - he left as a
successful broken-nosed, bleeding, merchant banker because I got pissed
off with him. He bored me and I wanted to try my luck with the tall
pneumatic redhead over at the next table.
As a question to the various USians here - what caliber is a 30/06
rifle? In proper measurement? Fractions of an inch are fine by me, go
for metric if you must. I know I could look it up but why bother when
several other people can do it for you and then argue about it.
Natural manager me.
gary
> -Chris Zakes
> Texas
>
> When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say
> to its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this
> you are forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and opression,
> no matter how holy the motives.
>
> -John Lyle in "If This Goes On--" by Robert Heinlein
>
--
Lesley Weston
> "GaryN" <ga...@scaryriders.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CD7A81C2FCECg...@212.23.3.119...
>> <snip>
>>
>> I've seen a well known politician ejected from a shoot because he fired
>> across the line[1] and nearly hit a longstop[2]. Keeper stopped the
>> drive, called all guns and beaters in, and *very* publicly dismantled
>> the idiot's gun before turning to the land manager and saying "I'm not
>> prepared to continue the shoot if he has a loaded weapon"
>>
>> The guy left in disgrace.
>>
>> On a shoot there are rules, and the most basic of them is that the
>> Keeper's word is law.
>>
>> gary
>>
>> [1]You don't do this.
>> [2]You *really* don't do this - shooting the staff is frowned upon.
>>
> I find this story interesting, considering I live in a country where the
> then-vice president [1] shot a companion on a hunting trip and basically got
> away with it.
It wasn't a member of the staff he shot but a colleague, which is
apparently perfectly all right.
>
> Have any American politicos gone on a Hunt while in England? I hope not, for
> your lot's sakes!
If they did, they wouldn't have been carrying guns or any other weapon,
so it would probably have been much safer to send them there (assuming
they could ride) than to let them loose to hunt in their own country.
However, they would have been breaking the law unless the hounds were
following aniseed or not present at all.
As to whether or not American politicians have been allowed to go
shootin' or fishin' in the UK, it wouldn't surprise me. Money talks
there as everywhere else.
>
> Paul
>
> [1] I'm *damned* if I'll capitalize the title for the likes of him!
>
>
Quite right!
Chris Zakes
GaryN <ga...@scaryriders.com> to write:
And your experience encompasses everything that is to be known in the
world?
http://www.shootingtimes.com/longgun_reviews/28gauge_073106/
http://www.gun-tests.com/performance/outgunned28gauge.html
and http://www.chuckhawks.com/28gauge.htm (among others)
say you're wrong.
And, FWIW, here's a "Junior Scientist" look at that particular
shooting incident. http://www.myscienceproject.org/shooting.html
Paul Jamison
"Daibhid Ceanaideach" <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CD86FFA09176da...@130.133.1.4...
Paul (Heeheeheehee...)
Sabremeister Brian
Xns9CD899C15AAB8g...@212.23.3.119,
According to my calculations, a 28-bore would have a calibre of
.55", or 13.97mm.
> There is an 8 bore but if you want to fire one make sure your
> health insurance is up to date. The damn things have a 75%
> chance of either breaking or dislocating your shoulder, the
> recoil is that heavy. One of those weapons that is nearly as
> dangerous to the shooter as it is to the target.
>
> I suspect that the 28 bore is just a .410 for people who can't
> deal with decimal points:-)
A .410 shotgun would be a 68-bore.
> Or possibly the idiot that I
> met/was unable to avoid at a party the other day who insisted
> on telling me, repeatedly, how successful he was as a Merchant
> Banker at the age of 28 - he left as a successful broken-nosed,
> bleeding, merchant banker because I got pissed off with him.
> He bored me and I wanted to try my luck with the tall pneumatic
> redhead over at the next table.
>
> As a question to the various USians here - what caliber is a
> 30/06 rifle? In proper measurement? Fractions of an inch are
> fine by me, go for metric if you must. I know I could look it
> up but why bother when several other people can do it for you
> and then argue about it.
I'm not a USian, but I understand that 30-06 is actually
ammunition, not a rifle. It's .30 calibre, and uses 6 grains of
propellant (I think), and was the standard ammunition for the M1
Garand (or possibly carbine version of same). BICBW.
--
www.sabremeister.me.uk
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
"I adore France! It's just the French who ruin it!"
- Jeremy Clarkson
John Duncan Yoyo
I remember a TV series which I think was from the UK called_ Crimes of
Passion_. IMS it was about a french law that would exonerate you if
you killed someone in the passion of the moment. I would have seen it
in the late seventies or early eighties.
steveski
[snip Local laws taking the piss]
> I remember a TV series which I think was from the UK called_ Crimes of
> Passion_. IMS it was about a french law that would exonerate you if
> you killed someone in the passion of the moment. I would have seen it
> in the late seventies or early eighties.
"Crime passionelle" (I think) is the term.
--
Steveski
raymond larsson
says...
> GaryN <ga...@scaryriders.com> said:
> > What the hell is a 28 gauge shotgun?
[snip]
> According to my calculations, a 28-bore would have a calibre of
> .55", or 13.97mm.
Yep. My uncle Gilbert owned one.
> > I suspect that the 28 bore is just a .410 for people who can't
> > deal with decimal points:-)
>
> A .410 shotgun would be a 68-bore.
67.5 :)
> > As a question to the various USians here - what caliber is a
> > 30/06 rifle? In proper measurement? Fractions of an inch are
> > fine by me, go for metric if you must. I know I could look it
> > up but why bother when several other people can do it for you
> > and then argue about it.
>
> I'm not a USian, but I understand that 30-06 is actually
> ammunition, not a rifle. It's .30 calibre, and uses 6 grains of
> propellant (I think), and was the standard ammunition for the M1
> Garand (or possibly carbine version of same). BICBW.
7.823 mm, .308 calibre or slightly smaller than the 303; adopted in
(19)06 C.E..
--
rgl wikipedia; my other uncle had a winchester 25-20 and
a 25-35
Sofia
Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > Pigeons, of all varieties, are classed as vermin and may be legally
> > killed by anyone, by whatever means, at any time; along with most
> > Corvids (not Jays, or the Ravens at the Tower) and also Starlings.
> > That's the law. I would frown upon someone killing a wild bird
> > that isn't on the list of vermin or agreed game species but a
> > pigeon FCOL? Plenty more where that came from.
>
> I've never eaten pigeons, but they're supposed to be pretty good.
> Crows, not so much.
This is true...I was in Cyprus on my auntie farm at 14, and her entire
family kiilled and had pigeon for dinner as a delicacy. After taking
them out of the oven, they just looked like little burn't mice and it
made me puke. I was assured they tasted exactly like Chicken, as they
kept trying to persuade me to eat them, but as a veggie, I missed out
on dinner that night!
I agree with Gary, pigeons are complete and utter vermin and I wish
they'd stop shitting all over hubby's car!!
Sofie
--
Please visit my deviantART page: http://sofen.deviantart.com/
Chris Hughes
<pinkmonste...@ALLCAPSyahoo.com> writes
Pigeon breast makes a very good starter, and has been eaten in England
(don't know about the rest of the country) for many centuries. Not the
feral pigeon (or rock dove) but usually the plumper wood pigeon, which
is welcome in my garden (or 'patch') any time.
I can't help thinking that we are the vermin, not they....
--
Chris Hughes
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC...
http://www.epicure.demon.co.uk
John Duncan Yoyo
Can a toddler even legally petition the body for compensation?
Lesley Weston
His mother did it on his behalf, which seems to be legal.