Prosecution in Scotland fines land manager - vicarious liability succeeds! (1 Viewer)

Just reported: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-34976310
MJB

Define "success". The amount of the fine imposed for this act is in no way a deterrent to the other absurdly rich people who condone this on their land to protect their 'shooting rights' - an archaic concept in this supposedly environmentally enlightened country.

Ok - that should stir things up again. Love these sort of threads

Its a good start! The absurdly 'poor' here still condone hunting on their land. A young lad was out with his shotgun yesterday around the airport at Tarbes - shooting Skylark (although I would trust this lad with not shooting anything that came in range)....

It's the complete and utter denial of any knowledge of the offences by the land-owning toff at the end of the report that rankles with me. We can be pretty sure he profits from the aforesaid shooting.

Jon Turner said:

It's the complete and utter denial of any knowledge of the offences by the land-owning toff at the end of the report that rankles with me. We can be pretty sure he profits from the aforesaid shooting.

Click to expand...

So a land owner leases his land to a 'shooting' company cannot be then responsible for for illegal activity undertaken by an employee of said shooting company. It's too far removed. The game keeper yes the shooting company yes.

He profits in the sense that he has leased his land out.

That said if the shooting company is a shell company then that is a different argument.

I don't, personally, find the use of 'toffs' relevant to the argument. It creates a them and us. If we are to win this 'battle' this needs to be avoided - bear in mind that the vast majority working within the shooting industry in uk are below the bread line.

Whats more the vast majority that hunt, shoot, trap, eat birds, animals etc. throughout the world are so far removed from 'toffs' that I don't find the reference helpful...

It is not a good start; we have had "vicarious liability" for some time now and this is, I believe, only the second, successful prosecution. We are losing.

I am not sure that the word "toffs" isn't relevant; the majority of the recorded offences, in Scotland, have taken place on land owned by wealthy people. What other words would do; "landed gentry"? Rightly or wrongly there is a perception that these folk are above the law.

Egret said:

It is not a good start; we have had "vicarious liability" for some time now and this is, I believe, only the second, successful prosecution. We are losing.

I am not sure that the word "toffs" isn't relevant; the majority of the recorded offences, in Scotland, have taken place on land owned by wealthy people. What other words would do; "landed gentry"? Rightly or wrongly there is a perception that these folk are above the law.

Click to expand...

Surely the important thing is what is being done not how rich or poor the people doing it are. Would you find raptor persecution more acceptable if it was only working class shooters like me that did it?

Robifs is quite right is does nothing but further the problems by widening the gap between 'them and us', As a shooter every time I read any argument against shooting where someone starts using words like toff then I just stop taking any notice because its obvious that they are totally missing the point and under the very common misconception that shooting is just something for the rich and try and turn it into a class issue instead of focusing on the actual problems.