Vicarious Liability (Scotland)

[Guest darren cantrill]

having read up on the new law concerning vicarious liability in scotland its a concern for me that this law maybe used against you,the SHU or RPRA please be careful its not yet in force in england as i understand at this moment in time obviously this is old news to some but generally it covers the employers landowners etc but on some inside information i have found the RSPB are actively seeking to use ANDorCHANGE this law to use against the unions when any pigeon enthusiast is caught concerning B.O.P for warned is for armed im looking at the connection between certain mps at the moment and the RSPB trolling isnt fun when its happening back to ya ive also got some bad news on that front im led to believe someone called chris or chrissie harper is using a pseudonym to troll the pigeon forums so please be careful obviously they are not going to use their own name so be careful what you put on here and i dont suppose they are the only ones regards darren p/s if you type in his/her?? name to your search engine you will understand the concern ATB

[peter pandy]

It could be chrissie harper "owls" as she is a member of Partner For Action Against Wildlife Crime. " PAW "

Well done Darren.

[Guest IB]

This Section of the Wildlife Act applies to an employer of a person convicted of a Wildlife crime, in the act of his employment, e.g. gamekeeper and landowner, if the gamekeeper commits a crime on the land, the landowner is also held responsible for that crime..

 

The pigeon Unions do not have that type of employment relationship with their members.

[THE FIFER]

This Section of the Wildlife Act applies to an employer of a person convicted of a Wildlife crime, in the act of his employment, e.g. gamekeeper and landowner, if the gamekeeper commits a crime on the land, the landowner is also held responsible for that crime..

 

The pigeon Unions do not have that type of employment relationship with their members.

 

 

agree on that one, but yes we must be very careful those days what we put up on the internet,thats why at times we have to remove material, so hope you understand, thats why pigeon fanciers and others are in the firing line,they speak up,

[Walter swanston]

The whole business of internet sites and chat lines with minority interests such as this is fraught with dangers which should be obvious and I have noticed with approval the ever increasing vigilance of the administrators of Pigeons Basics in quashing posts which could cause difficulties.I applaud their efforts. I hope this post does not sound too patronising as I do`nt mean it to be.

[Guest darren cantrill]

This Section of the Wildlife Act applies to an employer of a person convicted of a Wildlife crime, in the act of his employment, e.g. gamekeeper and landowner, if the gamekeeper commits a crime on the land, the landowner is also held responsible for that crime..

 

The pigeon Unions do not have that type of employment relationship with their members.

 

i agree thats the set out of the law in principal its the technical points of the law which are in doubt ive come across some information that there could be an adjustment to the law to cover a whole range of situations not only the rpra and the unions but other governed bodies that have rules and regulations in place i.e forcing the rpra or the unions to ban people caught or suspected of illegal activity concerning BOP which is the only real part of any of the wildlife act laws we come into contact with the part they are investigating is the way they can use the law against the rpra or the unions to force the unions or the rpra's hand concerning members acting in the interest of a governed body im finding the technicalities of it very hard work and i cant just download it if you get my meaning i understand the law its what precedent they can find justifying a legal standing that they can interpret the law to include more than landowners and employers confused haha i am but they are checking out the legalities of such a confrontation i think its more about going after us and getting the publicity than actually winning!!!!! you only have to look at what they did last week to see they are stepping up the intimidation ive also found some information concerning defra and the rspb and the possible reasons why we never got any where with the last goverment maybe nothing but the encryption on some of the files i try and look at has got me thinking oh well ive had enough for today regards darren

[Fair Play]

Maybe our union should be doing something for the fancier aka using all reasonable means to protect his investment in the sport

[Guest darren cantrill]

i b u sent me the wildlife act and im grateful dont know what happened but it just went lol im with it in terms of the law its the amendments the rspb are harrassing the goverment to impliment that will concern us i do apologise i think ive edited it when i cancelled my reply as im a dunce at times sorry and thanx again for posting the wild life act anychance u could pop it up again as i dont want it to look like i edited it thankyou

[Guest IB]

Darren, I’ve had a lot of bother trying to post this as some of the brackets have picked up forum Smiley codes. I’ve had to alter subsection numbers (but not the words ) to stop that happening - this is my 5th attempt so hopefully it comes up.

 

This is the bit that you have posted about, which alters the 1981 Wildlife Act in Scotland. I think it is pretty clear that this aimed at land owners on whose property a crime takes place. Nobody can twist it to suit their own purpose:-

 

Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011;

 

24 Liability in relation to certain offences by others

 

After section 18 of the 1981 Act insert—

 

“18A Vicarious liability for certain offences by employee or agent

 

1) This subsection applies where, on or in relation to any land, a person A commits a relevant offence while acting as the employee or agent of a person B who

- has a legal right to kill or take a wild bird on or over that land; or

- manages or controls the exercise of any such right.

2) Where subsection 1) applies, person B is also guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

[Guest darren cantrill]

Darren, I’ve had a lot of bother trying to post this as some of the brackets have picked up forum Smiley codes. I’ve had to alter subsection numbers (but not the words ) to stop that happening - this is my 5th attempt so hopefully it comes up.

 

This is the bit that you have posted about, which alters the 1981 Wildlife Act in Scotland. I think it is pretty clear that this aimed at land owners on whose property a crime takes place. Nobody can twist it to suit their own purpose:-

 

Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011;

 

24 Liability in relation to certain offences by others

 

After section 18 of the 1981 Act insert—

 

“18A Vicarious liability for certain offences by employee or agent

 

1) This subsection applies where, on or in relation to any land, a person A commits a relevant offence while acting as the employee or agent of a person B who

- has a legal right to kill or take a wild bird on or over that land; or

- manages or controls the exercise of any such right.

2) Where subsection 1) applies, person B is also guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

 

very grateful thankyou

[Guest darren cantrill]

Darren, I’ve had a lot of bother trying to post this as some of the brackets have picked up forum Smiley codes. I’ve had to alter subsection numbers (but not the words ) to stop that happening - this is my 5th attempt so hopefully it comes up.

 

This is the bit that you have posted about, which alters the 1981 Wildlife Act in Scotland. I think it is pretty clear that this aimed at land owners on whose property a crime takes place. Nobody can twist it to suit their own purpose:-

 

Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011;

 

24 Liability in relation to certain offences by others

 

After section 18 of the 1981 Act insert—

 

“18A Vicarious liability for certain offences by employee or agent

 

1) This subsection applies where, on or in relation to any land, a person A commits a relevant offence while acting as the employee or agent of a person B who

- has a legal right to kill or take a wild bird on or over that land; or

- manages or controls the exercise of any such right.

2) Where subsection 1) applies, person B is also guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

thankyou again for reposting i am very grateful the law as it stands now as of 01/01/12 is of no real significance to the pigeon flyer the point i was trying to make was with a little adjustment the law can be amended to include our sport or sit side by side with a new law of liability aimed at the racing pigeon sport vicarious liability is a law that has been slightly adjusted where necessary to fit the void in law.the rspb have in the past as with this law worked with the goverment to implement laws that they have championed and though i cant see it being implemented against us in its guise as vicarious liability but in some form of liability aimed at the unions associations and flyers i can. legally as it stands i have been corrected in its present form the law doesnt cover our sport! told you i was a dunce haha cheers IB for the nudge it was appreciated regards darren

[billt]

Expanding the topic, we know we have no control over the wild peregrine nests but the artificial ones set up in Cities, usually Council owned buildings, could these birds be construed as owned by the Council and recompense paid to owners of the many racing pigeons that we see being brought to the nests and for the many saddos that enjoy watching the live cams why not put cams in the local abattoir, sure to see many lambs and cattle killed every day

[Guest IB]

thankyou again for reposting i am very grateful the law as it stands now as of 01/01/12 is of no real significance to the pigeon flyer the point i was trying to make was with a little adjustment the law can be amended to include our sport or sit side by side with a new law of liability aimed at the racing pigeon sport vicarious liability is a law that has been slightly adjusted where necessary to fit the void in law.the rspb have in the past as with this law worked with the goverment to implement laws that they have championed and though i cant see it being implemented against us in its guise as vicarious liability but in some form of liability aimed at the unions associations and flyers i can. legally as it stands i have been corrected in its present form the law doesnt cover our sport! told you i was a dunce haha cheers IB for the nudge it was appreciated regards darren

 

Not so much ‘dunces’ Darren, nearer the truth to say ‘misled’ in this respect, but quite accurate on the other.

 

During 2010 I’d followed the Committee discussions on the proposed Scottish Act. I can confirm that members of the Committee declared that they were members of RSPB, and / or SNH. SNH is the Scottish Government Department that (now) issues Licenses. RSPB of course is a Charity. So you are right, RSPB does have a direct say in what the Law says. I did post on that during 2010.

 

After the Sparrowhawk trapping & relocating project, the Scottish Environment Minister told SHU she was fearful of granting us Licenses ‘because RSPB would mount a legal challenge’. SHU’s view is that amounts to RSPB dictating Government Policy. That was the main point of my contribution to the Westminster Government Red Tape - Wildlife e-petition “that in my view RSPB had too much influence on Government Policy, and in Scotland at least, dictated it by threatening legal action against anything with which it did not agree, using public money, which was a fundamental misuse of charity funding from Government sourcesâ€.

 

But in my case I was well & truly duped during 2010 by an intriguing new clause adding a new reason for granting a license. ‘for any other social, economic or environmental purpose’. I honestly thought that was changing the law to bring in what SHU had asked for as a result of the Sparrowhawk trapping & relocating project. I’d posted before that IMO the 1981 Act was very wordy, twisted and very misleading in places. This was a good example:-

 

 

18 Licences under the 1981 Act

 

1) The 1981 Act is amended as follows.

2) In section 16 (power to grant licences)—

a) in subsection 3)—

i) the word “or†immediately after paragraph (g) is repealed,

ii) after paragraph (h) insert “; or

 

I) for any other social, economic or environmental purpose,â€,

 

after subsection (3) insert—

 

“3A) The appropriate authority shall not grant a licence under subsection (3)(i) unless it is satisfied—

 

a) that undertaking the conduct authorised by the licence will give rise to, or contribute towards the achievement of, a significant social, economic or environmental benefit; and

 

that there is no other satisfactory solution.â€,

 

The catch is that none of it applies to birds. It’s only when you look at the 1981 Act that it becomes clear that Section 3) applies to Animals. Wildlife Law is a minefield for lay people like ourselves. But we have the right to ask why that applies to ‘nuisance’ Animals but not ‘nuisance’ Birds.

 

picking up smiley codes again.

[Guest darren cantrill]

thanks for the information im shocked i understand now why walter was trying to warn me on an earlier thread im grateful for the insight im half way through some notes concerning members of defra and the rspb concerning funding, positions of influence etc its quite interesting that the government does have a bias towards the rspb even in as much as letting them influence and amend the law and a link from grass roots all the way up to past and present defra ministers is there even on a social setting obviously policy interest is a bonding exercise!!!!!!! sneaky rats would sell their souls for influence corrupt is another word that comes to mind.and with the information you have given me your scottish enviroment minister sold you out my friend and i can see politically there isnt a way forward what is your thoughts on this IB what would be the next step????

[Walter swanston]

To make this affair as simple to understand as possible it is not that the Scottish Government is in anyway corrupt but like all politicians they have an almost supernatural abiltiy to sniff out where the votes are coming from.I have seen this in action at meetings of the countryside and wildlife committees of the Parliament where they are addressed by advocates acting on behalf of RSPB and other like associations.The pigeon fancier is given a hearing alright but you can see when you speak that you are addressing a bunch of stoney faces and closed minds and it is difficult to combat the skilled advocacy of a trained lawyer.Finally I would not worry too much about this vicarious liability business this law has been framed with landowners and gamekeepers in mind.

[just ask me]

great post lads some great info to be had

 

 

the only problem i have with relocation wont you just be putting the problem on some other fanciers door step

[Guest Tooshy Boy]

THEY ONLY INTERESTED IN FILLING THEY OWN POCKETS MATE .

[Walter swanston]

When this matter was discussed between the Minister and the SHU it was suggested that the sparrowhawks should be re-located somewhere in Scotland well away from existing pigeon lofts.As a relative of mine is very fond of saying "ABSOLUTELY CRAZY".But it ai`nt funny at all rest assured no govrernment official or politician will give the okay for the use of lethal force against these predators.

[Guest IB]

great post lads some great info to be had

 

 

the only problem i have with relocation wont you just be putting the problem on some other fanciers door step

 

I never got to see the full report of the Trial. But what I do remember being told was that the subject bird had to be targetting a loft, and had to have made a kill there which was used to bait the larsen trap, and it was trapped by that when it came back. It was then radio tagged by a trained handler who then released it at least 35 miles from the loft it had targetted. In the Trial, only 1 returned to the home area & original loft, where it made another kill, was trapped in the same way, again relocated and released for a second time. The same hawk was recorded several weeks later as having again returned to the 'home' area ; but not to the loft.

 

You will see from this the reason why some Scottish fanciers initially volunteered to take part in the Trial then withdrew when it was made clear that one of their pigeons was to be sacrificed. I don't think I'd be able to agree to that either.

 

I don't think relocating the hawk causes a problem for other fanciers. From what I have read on the forum, it is likely to have caused the hawk 'more' problems as it would likely be released into another BoP's territory - and end up being harried / targetted by the residents.

 

I think the hawk that returned only to be trapped and bundled off again might have been a little slow in learning the lesson, but the message appears to have got through the second time, because as far as I know, it never went back to the loft it had menaced. Trapping, bundling off to pastures new and being beaten up by the natives there might be the best deterrant we've ever tried, and one the Public should have no qualms with.

[just ask me]

I never got to see the full report of the Trial. But what I do remember being told was that the subject bird had to be targetting a loft, and had to have made a kill there which was used to bait the larsen trap, and it was trapped by that when it came back. It was then radio tagged by a trained handler who then released it at least 35 miles from the loft it had targetted. In the Trial, only 1 returned to the home area & original loft, where it made another kill, was trapped in the same way, again relocated and released for a second time. The same hawk was recorded several weeks later as having again returned to the 'home' area ; but not to the loft.

 

You will see from this the reason why some Scottish fanciers initially volunteered to take part in the Trial then withdrew when it was made clear that one of their pigeons was to be sacrificed. I don't think I'd be able to agree to that either.

 

I don't think relocating the hawk causes a problem for other fanciers. From what I have read on the forum, it is likely to have caused the hawk 'more' problems as it would likely be released into another BoP's territory - and end up being harried / targetted by the residents.

 

I think the hawk that returned only to be trapped and bundled off again might have been a little slow in learning the lesson, but the message appears to have got through the second time, because as far as I know, it never went back to the loft it had menaced. Trapping, bundling off to pastures new and being beaten up by the natives there might be the best deterrant we've ever tried, and one the Public should have no qualms with.

 

 

have seen 3 pairs of falcons breeding in the one quarry one pair not 100 yards apart from the other also seen a pair of sparrow hawks and falcons nesting in a very small quarry this was in the last few years never really seen this behavior years back is it the lack of quality breeding spots or will they live along side each other if food is in abundance im not sure but ive seen it to be quite common in recent years i also believe a lot of falcons roam the country and even further they are known as migratory birds a friend of mine reckons that some falcons in the uk and Ireland often migrate as far as Spain and come back for our summer i think myself they often travel from the uk Scotland etc to ireland and vice versa even in the search of food i know of one guy that found rings under one nest 4 of which came from his town this nest was 25 mile away did they catch the birds while the birds were out just flying or from race or i believe while they were loft flying but no way to prove that of course

 

 

i believe for any concrete results for these tests 50 or more birds would have to be used to get a true result

 

 

i still believe our best results may come from changing our race season we train and race our birds right when they need plenty of food in the sky the young get plenty of training and the young falcons that would not live in normal circumstances due to being bad hunters get plenty of practice as we fill the sky with lots of training and food

[preston powerblast]

But this wouldn't stop direct attacks on fanciers lofts.

Someone else has come up with another good idea, concerning wildlife crime.

Nest robbing and the illegal trading of bops.

So why not release the said bops to the custody of the BOP bird trade.

Obviously there would have to be a certain criteria for this.

But it could be another avenue to discuss.

[Guest IB]

....

 

 

i believe for any concrete results for these tests 50 or more birds would have to be used to get a true result

 

 

That was part of the problem: SHU attempted to get a trap from which the live pigeon could escape. SNH insisted the pigeon had to die in a previous hawk attack, and body used to bait the trap. That, and the delays starting the project, put off some fanciers who had initially agreed to take part. Didn't see the Report but it was said (by SNH?)that the sample was too small, and made the findings inconclusive. SHU felt that adopting this system could have helped those fanciers whose lofts are targetted daily by sparrowhawks.

 

....

 

i still believe our best results may come from changing our race season we train and race our birds right when they need plenty of food in the sky the young get plenty of training and the young falcons that would not live in normal circumstances due to being bad hunters get plenty of practice as we fill the sky with lots of training and food

 

That appeared some years ago in BHW, in a letter penned by a number of conservationist groups. Can't repeat the letter word-for-word, but they were quite open and said we bred at the wrong time of year, which helped hawks raise a round or three. If our youngsters weren't around to feed these pre-breeding / breeding pairs, not only would those hawks not raise young, they would be hard pressed to see the Spring too;

 

We were also told to start our racing season later - OBs late May, by which time the surviving Peregrines would be down on nest. By starting our youngsters race programme August / September, we'd also miss their family training attacks on YBs training & racing. The end result would be fewer hawks approaching winter, and even fewer after it.

 

We were also told to stay away from west coast of England , Wales & Scotland.

[preston powerblast]

https://www.facebook.com/groups/215373961868203/

A nice site full of old friends.

[just ask me]

https://www.facebook.com/groups/215373961868203/

A nice site full of old friends.

 

 

rumour is that someone from there is watching pigeon sites very closely

[peter pandy]

Just heard that their has been 20.000 visits to the site by unknown person in Falkirk District Council.