Read it here thisisnorthscotland
Last edited by a moderator:
Peregrinator said:I don't want people thinking I've 'hijacked' this thread unduly.
Peregrinator said:Oh Boy, I can see this thread is going to be lively. 500 pounds for contemplation? Seems a bit stiff as the guy said he didn't fire when he realized what the bird was. I'm sure this thread will take this turn eventually, so I might as well be the first one. If a generator is built in a protected area, do the generator owners, land owners that the wind generator is on, and all and sundry who had legal say in constructing said generators in a protected space now have to pay an even stiffer fine when a protected species is killed by a generator?
Edited:
I don't want people thinking I've 'hijacked' this thread unduly. My mind just leap to the windgenerator thing because I have been following those threads. My mind went where it went because:
a. The article comes from Scotland
b. The Scots, or people living there seem to take their raptors and protected birds seriously
c. Scotland and protection of raptors made me think of Windfarms
Touty said:I think the fine was for deliberate disturbance.
I don't think the fine was heavy handed. As this incident took place in an area where raptors are being illegaly persecuted what would you expect? Look at the cost to various organisations attempting to protect these birds. Surely when someone is caught then the punishment has to be enough to deter people from another attempt. Lets face it, if it wasn't for humans persecuting these birds they wouldn't be under threat( apart from the odd fox).Peregrinator said:Okay, sorry, I re-read the article. I see that:
Stonehaven Sheriff court was told that Colin Marshall had "contemplated" killing the protected bird, but made no attempt to do so.
I guess the fine was for:
Marshall admitted two charges - entering the Crannach Estate with a firearm and possessing a shotgun capable of being used to kill, injure or take a wild bird. Not guilty pleas to a further two charges, of attempting to kill, injure or take a hen harrier and of intentionally disturbing its young, were also accepted.
I can see a fine for taking a fire arm onto someones else's property. Still, the fine seems a bit heavy handed because nothing was harmed. I'm glad he didn't find any foxes.
valley boy said:I don't think the fine was heavy handed. As this incident took place in an area where raptors are being illegaly persecuted what would you expect? Look at the cost to various organisations attempting to protect these birds. Surely when someone is caught then the punishment has to be enough to deter people from another attempt. Lets face it, if it wasn't for humans persecuting these birds they wouldn't be under threat( apart from the odd fox).
If you go walking around with a gun in an area where persecution takes place then you are asking for trouble, which is exactly what he got. Open your eyes and get real. Why do you think he was there then ?Peregrinator said:Perhaps I need to read to article again, I don't recall that there was an 'incident'. I seem to remember that the guy pointed a gun, realized what he was pointing at, and lowered the gun.
from valley boy="Surely when someone is caught then the punishment has to be enough to deter people from another attempt." I guess I don't get it. I didn't think not shooting was actually an attempt. Shooting, and missing would be an attempt.
valley boy said:If you go walking around with a gun in an area where persecution takes place then you are asking for trouble, which is exactly what he got. Open your eyes and get real. Why do you think he was there then ?
Tim Allwood said:the man was convicted of 'entering the Crannach Estate with a firearm and possessing a shotgun capable of being used to kill, injure or take a wild bird.'
nothing more or less. He pleaded guilty to both charges.
regardless of our opinions, no one should be convicted without an offence being committed (it's hard to make it stand up in court you know!). Just being there with a gun might make you an idiot but not a criminal until an offence is committed.
QUOTE]
surely being there with a gun is a criminal offence or he wouldn't have been fined for pleading guilty to it
Tim Allwood said:the man was convicted of 'entering the Crannach Estate with a firearm and possessing a shotgun capable of being used to kill, injure or take a wild bird.'
nothing more or less. He pleaded guilty to both charges.
regardless of our opinions, no one should be convicted without an offence being committed (it's hard to make it stand up in court you know!). Just being there with a gun might make you an idiot but not a criminal until an offence is committed.
not.
the not is significantTim Allwood said:this is hard work
read the post again Paul
Tim