TODAY'S DAILY STAR/ NO RACING

[Guest jason]

hyacinth I agree, I now have a folder containing the relevant info on pigeons and bird flu.

[Guest jason]

 

You were brave enough to take the first positive step, Jason.

 

I'd picked up last year that members were VERY afraid to speak to neighbours about pigeons and avian flu; even tried to get a discussion going on how we might best go about that. Also personally, took all sorts of flak on the main thread about 'me' being the cause of lofts being burned down; neighbours children falling ill being blamed on pigeons,  etc, etc, yet there was nobody willing to give an opinion on how an incident such as the one you found yourself in, might be best handled, or better still, prevented.

 

 

I think that if you go in 'heavy handed' things get worse, so if any fanciers are afraid to talk to there neighbours the should be alright with them and not start shouting and yelling at them, all my neighbours used to think of racing pigeons as street pigeons, but I have explained that we keep them disease free and they are bred to do a job and to think of them similar to race horses. this seems to do the job.

 

 

 

[Guest]

Bruno

 

I don't think my attitude was High Handed at all, I hope the Police in The UK still have the training and discipline to hear both sides of a story before making an judgement on a public order issue.

 

Jason had done nothing wrong and from what I read in his posting the Police told him to keep his birds in "to keep the neighbours quiet", totally one sided, would you not agree Bruno.

 

 

As you say Hyacinth, its a judgement call. The first point on 'total onesidedness' was that judgement was based on the law's point of view. And the judgement call in this case was how best to prevent things escalating into something nasty ...

 

The other point on 'onesidedness' is that Jason hasn't told us what the police said to the neighbours. Quite certain they were at least told to go to their own homes and, probably, warned to stay away from Jason's home.

 

And the last point on 'onesidedness' is that we all see this incident from OUR point of view ... as pigeon keepers. Not exactly a very SELFLESS or OBJECTIVE viewpoint and makes it harder (for some of us at least) to see the 'bigger picture'.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

Bruno

 

I don't think there is a valid point of law for the Police to call a Judgement on and I don't think there is any sort of precident, they could have used.  Maybe they just wanted to shut the complainers up and make their job a little easier.

[Keepsmilingqueen]

Hi i have e-mailed the daily star and added my 2 pennies worth  ;D

 

So far i have had no adverse reaction from the neighbours to my releasing the birds for exersize, both the old birds and youngsters have been out today as they do everyday (weather permitting) and i will continue to do so until informed otherwise.  

 

Sharron. Co Durham   :K)

[Guest jason]

I agree, sharron keep letting them out until defra or the goverment say other wise!

[Guest]

Bruno

 

I don't think there is a valid point of law for the Police to call a Judgement on and I don't think there is any sort of precident, they could have used.  Maybe they just wanted to shut the complainers up and make their job a little easier.

 

From the web: -

 

Breach of the peace (Common Law)

 

This is when a person disrupts, or does something which is likely to disrupt, the normal state of society.

 

Any person can conduct a citizen’s arrest for a breach of the peace.

 

Magistrates can order that a person is ‘bound over to keep the peace’. This is imposed to prevent any further breaches occurring.

 

 

As you can perhaps now appreciate, Jason AND the neighbours could quite easily have found themselves enjoying room & board at the Cop Shop and appearing before the Big Guy (what gets paid to wear a funny wig) next day, had the police not made the right call.

 

 

[Guest]

I thought this might be helpful : It is English Law, and Section 4 & 5 are the relevant ones..

 

Public Order Act 1986

 

Section 1 - Riot

 

(1) Where 12 or more persons who are present together use or threaten unlawful violence for a common purpose and the conduct of them (taken together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety, each of the persons using unlawful violence for the common purpose is guilty of riot.

 

(2) It is immaterial whether or not the 12 or more use or threaten unlawful violence simultaneously.

 

(3) The common purpose may be inferred from conduct.

 

(4) No person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be, present at the scene.

 

(5) Riot may be committed in private as well as in public places.

 

(6) A person guilty of riot is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or a fine, or both.  

 

Section 2 - Violent Disorder

 

(1) Where three or more persons who are present together use or threaten unlawful violence and the conduct of them (taken together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety, each of the persons using or threatening unlawful violence is guilty of violent disorder.

 

(2) It is immaterial whether or not the three or more use or threaten unlawful violence simultaneously.

 

(3) Same as Section 1

 

(4) Same as Section 1

 

(5) A person guilty of violent disorder is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine, or both, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.

 

Section 3 - Affray

 

(1) A person is guilty of affray if they use or threatens unlawful violence towards another and his conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety.

 

(2) Where two or more persons use or threaten the unlawful violence, it is the conduct of them taken together that must be considered for the purposes of subsection (1)

 

(3) For the purposes of this section words cannot be made by the use of words alone.

 

(4) Same as Section 1

 

(5) Same as Section 1

 

(6) A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing affray

 

(7) A person guilty of affray is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or a fine or both, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.

 

Section 4 - Fear or provocation of violence

 

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he -

 

a) uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or

 

distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be provoked

 

(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is distributed or displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.

 

(3) A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing on offence under this subsection

 

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 (Currently £5,000) on the standard scale or both.

 

Section 5 - Harassment, alarm or distress

 

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he -

 

a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour. or

 

displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby

 

(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.

 

(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove -

 

a) That he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or

 

That he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or

 

c) That his conduct was reasonable

 

(4) A constable may arrest without warrant if -

 

a) He engages in offensive conduct which the constable warns him to stop, and

 

He engages in further offensive conduct immediately or shortly after the warning

 

(5) In subsection (4) above 'offensive conduct' means conduct the constable reasonably suspects to constitute an offence under this section, and the conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) and the further conduct need not be of the same nature

 

(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

 

 

[jimmy white]

Bruno

 

I don't think my attitude was High Handed at all, I hope the Police in The UK still have the training and discipline to hear both sides of a story before making an judgement on a public order issue.

 

Jason had done nothing wrong and from what I read in his posting the Police told him to keep his birds in "to keep the neighbours quiet", totally one sided, would you not agree Bruno.

 

totally agree with you hyacinth, i think bruno was a little unfair quoting, half your post.

 

[Guest]

OK Bruno, you can copy things off thw Web, we all know what a breach of the peace is. I see from Jasons posting here to day, he is still flying his birds and will continue to do so until ordered not to by the Government or DEFRA, good for him.

 

You don't happen to be a copper do you by any chance ???????????????????

 

[Guest]

ok ok Bruni I totally give up, now I know what you do you're a barrack room Lawyer

[Guest]

'You don't happen to be a copper do you by any chance ???????????????????'

 

was just going to ask the same thing!! lol

[Guest]

Sorry Member, I lost it with Bruno's postings.

 

One thing Bruno will have to learn (I don't think he's been in the sport long enought to know already).

 

PIGEON FLYERS STICK TOGETHER AND BACK EACH OTHER UP THROUGH THICK AND THROUGH THIN

 

Jason nor anyone else have broken any laws by flying their pigeons, if the cops want to take a one sided approach without even given Jason a chance to explain himself and to present the evidence he has on file, I think The Chief Inspector should issue an apology to Jason.

 

BTW I got done once for a breach of the peace <VBG> waving my Union Jack, many years ago when a certain Conservative MP came to town.

[Guest]

Basically just about had enough.

 

Did not at any time infer Jason had or was about to break the law, nor that letting his birds out was breaking the law either. Simply put forward case that he made a really good job of things and tried to explain a bit of background, not from the web ... handy place to cut & paste from IF you know what you are talking about & looking for in the first place ... but from my own direct experiences from brushes with the law in a mispent, but thoroughly enjoyable youth, backed up by University studies which included amongst other things, funnily enough .... Law.

 

Not a policeman, not a barrack-room lawyer, simply someone trying to help pigeon people by passing on information, or trying to find it for them.

 

But think its time for a change now. In future I'll stick to peddling rumour & gossip and 'information' from newspapers ... which takes us nicely back to where all this started ...