Our Bop Plight

Ian McKay · August 7, 2016

A friend who has known about our plight has investigated this and come up with this interesting proposition.

The royal coat of arms of England, Wales and Ireland contains the statement â€œHoni soit qui mal y penseâ€, evil to those who evil think. The Scottish coat of arms states â€“â€œNemo me impune lacessitâ€, no one provokes me with impunity.

In these isles and with these peoples whether you are sovereign or pauper, a fundamental and inexorable tenet is that your home is your castle. Wherever these peoples have gone, whatever countries they have founded, whether more mighty or nay and whatever their differences, that tenet remains constant. The romans knew it as well:

Quid enim sanctius, quid omni religione munitius, quam domus uniusquisque civium?

What more sacred, what more strongly guarded by every holy feeling, than a man's own home?

Nothing is exempt from this right, including that most protected of all species, man himself.

This right has not come easy, it has been hard won and hard defended. Surely there can be no country or person with any doubt that when threatened either by evil or interference, these peoples have and always will defend these rights no matter what the cost to them.

What constitutes your home and its boundaries are well defined in law. How then is it possible to reconcile this tenet with the expectation that when your property is attacked and invaded by an animal that seeks only to kill that which you are legally obligated to protect, you are to do nothing? How then can you follow in the footsteps of your father, grandfather and those before them in a recreational sport both valued and legally recognised?

To be clear, I am not talking about the hunting or persecution of any protected animal. I am talking about the rights of a British citizen to protect their property inside the boundaries of their home, consistent with the norms, tenets and inalienable rights of that people.

Indeed in some countries, where there is a conflict between the exercising of this right, and an animal deemed so rare, so precious and so valued, a remedy is provided for loss. That you take your victim as you find him is equally established as a legal doctrine. There is a cost difference between the loss of a derby winner and a cart horse. The mechanisms for establishing the value of an individual racing pigeon are there, transparent and calculable. Of course should any government decide that this is not appropriate for protection against an animal that is neither endangered or rare and has now reached pest proportions, organisations such as the RSPB who seemingly and ironically feel so comfortable sacrificing the racing pigeon, can surely offer a remedy from their considerable coffers.

It seems to me that pigeon fanciers are either the object of a great and unexplainable injustice and have become 2nd class citizens in their own country, or this right exists and is not publicised. It must also be possible for the organisational bodies, RPRA, WHU, IHU, SHU and targeted groups to establish whether this right exists from qualified legal counsel.

If so and if necessary, to defend and clarify that right inside the legal system of the UK. If this requires a dedicated fund, so be it.

Kyleakin Lofts · August 7, 2016

Excellent information Ian. I have often felt this, as no doubt have others. The conflict in the law in regard to our duty to protect our livestock as against the protection of endangered species has been highlighted before, albeit not from this angle. There does exist a law which states that an animal owner has to provide care, housing and protection to that animal and we are currently prevented so to do by the protection afforded to BOP. The financial recompense has also previously been mentioned.

Perhaps, given previous knowledge of this legal conflict and this information about "our home being our castle", we should ensure that the matter is taken further.

I will raise it within the SHU at the next Delegates Meeting.

Ian McKay · August 7, 2016

Excellent information Ian. I have often felt this, as no doubt have others. The conflict in the law in regard to our duty to protect our livestock as against the protection of endangered species has been highlighted before, albeit not from this angle. There does exist a law which states that an animal owner has to provide care, housing and protection to that animal and we are currently prevented so to do by the protection afforded to BOP. The financial recompense has also previously been mentioned.
Perhaps, given previous knowledge of this legal conflict and this information about "our home being our castle", we should ensure that the matter is taken further.
I will raise it within the SHU at the next Delegates Meeting.

Hi Andy

I sent it to:

SHU

RPRA

WHU

Pigeon chat

I will be sending it to more when I find E-mails

Feel free to copy and paste to anyone that might be of use to us

Send it to your MP the more sent the more reason for them to look at it

Delboy · August 7, 2016

Well done Ian, good post

August 7, 2016

I think this law was tried out, and it was allowed that only one person per area was allowed to capture and re home birds of prey to another area as it was only sparrowhawk's that were being caught and where not enough of them getting. Trapped meant there was no need for a cull. Protecting you castle would be from sparrowhawk's, only and not sure if you have any case against cats as they have right away to enter any ones yard

xtccock · August 7, 2016

http://www.nationalgamekeepers.org.uk/news/fairness-in-wild-bird-licensing-as-keeper-wins-landmark-legal-battle

Gamekeeper high court victory against buzzards

peter dempsey · August 7, 2016

hi this is a top class postdo you mind if I share this??

Ian McKay · August 7, 2016

hi this is a top class postdo you mind if I share this??

Please do Peter send it to all that will listen

This has NEVER been tested the guy reckons it is law and binding

Valiant Fifer · August 7, 2016

Excellent detective work Ian well done. :emoticon-0137-clapping:

Roland · August 8, 2016

Good to see it Ian. Hope it is tried and carried forward.

Hope it doesn't get boo - hooed by the pigeon fraternity.

Ian McKay · August 10, 2016

A friend who has known about our plight has investigated this and come up with this interesting proposition.

The royal coat of arms of England, Wales and Ireland contains the statement â€œHoni soit qui mal y penseâ€, evil to those who evil think. The Scottish coat of arms states â€“â€œNemo me impune lacessitâ€, no one provokes me with impunity.
In these isles and with these peoples whether you are sovereign or pauper, a fundamental and inexorable tenet is that your home is your castle. Wherever these peoples have gone, whatever countries they have founded, whether more mighty or nay and whatever their differences, that tenet remains constant. The romans knew it as well:
Quid enim sanctius, quid omni religione munitius, quam domus uniusquisque civium?
What more sacred, what more strongly guarded by every holy feeling, than a man's own home?
Nothing is exempt from this right, including that most protected of all species, man himself.
This right has not come easy, it has been hard won and hard defended. Surely there can be no country or person with any doubt that when threatened either by evil or interference, these peoples have and always will defend these rights no matter what the cost to them.
What constitutes your home and its boundaries are well defined in law. How then is it possible to reconcile this tenet with the expectation that when your property is attacked and invaded by an animal that seeks only to kill that which you are legally obligated to protect, you are to do nothing? How then can you follow in the footsteps of your father, grandfather and those before them in a recreational sport both valued and legally recognised?
To be clear, I am not talking about the hunting or persecution of any protected animal. I am talking about the rights of a British citizen to protect their property inside the boundaries of their home, consistent with the norms, tenets and inalienable rights of that people.
Indeed in some countries, where there is a conflict between the exercising of this right, and an animal deemed so rare, so precious and so valued, a remedy is provided for loss. That you take your victim as you find him is equally established as a legal doctrine. There is a cost difference between the loss of a derby winner and a cart horse. The mechanisms for establishing the value of an individual racing pigeon are there, transparent and calculable. Of course should any government decide that this is not appropriate for protection against an animal that is neither endangered or rare and has now reached pest proportions, organisations such as the RSPB who seemingly and ironically feel so comfortable sacrificing the racing pigeon, can surely offer a remedy from their considerable coffers.
It seems to me that pigeon fanciers are either the object of a great and unexplainable injustice and have become 2nd class citizens in their own country, or this right exists and is not publicised. It must also be possible for the organisational bodies, RPRA, WHU, IHU, SHU and targeted groups to establish whether this right exists from qualified legal counsel.
If so and if necessary, to defend and clarify that right inside the legal system of the UK. If this requires a dedicated fund, so be it.

Reply from GM RPRA

Hi Ian

We thought similar so in the very early days of the Raptor Alliance we obtained definitive legal opinion - copy of which is attached.

We subsequently got this opinion double checked as well - it was found to be sound.

Not good reading I'm afraid and hence why the Raptor alliance worked so hard upon its submission to the law commission; lobbying MP's and all the press and publicity activity in support of the revised law contained within the Law commission recommendation.

We are awaiting DEFRA decision - due October/November - once we have this we will know the next stage.

Regard's

Stewart

Stewart Wardrop

General Manager

The Royal Pigeon Racing Association

Reddings House, The Reddings, Nr Cheltenham,Glos. GL51 6RN.

Office - 01452 713529 ; DD â€“ 01452 858240 ; Mobile â€“ 07842 582564

Attached was a copy of a legal submission from there Law firm

Ian McKay · August 10, 2016

Reply from GM RPRA

Hi Ian

We thought similar so in the very early days of the Raptor Alliance we obtained definitive legal opinion - copy of which is attached.
We subsequently got this opinion double checked as well - it was found to be sound.
Not good reading I'm afraid and hence why the Raptor alliance worked so hard upon its submission to the law commission; lobbying MP's and all the press and publicity activity in support of the revised law contained within the Law commission recommendation.
We are awaiting DEFRA decision - due October/November - once we have this we will know the next stage.
Regard's

Stewart
Stewart Wardrop
General Manager

The Royal Pigeon Racing Association
Reddings House, The Reddings, Nr Cheltenham,Glos. GL51 6RN.
Office - 01452 713529 ; DD â€“ 01452 858240 ; Mobile â€“ 07842 582564

Attached was a copy of a legal submission from there Law firm

My friends reply

Ian thanks for the feedback and also the info on the good work the raptor alliance is carrying out, in particular the submission on the 19th of November 2012 to the Law commission on behalf of pigeon Racing UK from their solicitors Knights & Co. of which a response is still being awaited. (http://www.pigeonracinguk.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/121119-SUBMISSION-TO-LAW-COMMISSION.pdf)

That submission is based on suggested amendments to the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 and the definition of livestock to include racing pigeons etc

However my suggestion below does not pertain to this issue but to the Animal welfare act 2006 and the right to protect your property an area that may be productive in exploring via legal counsel.

I believe clarification is necessary between the requirements of the Animal welfare act 2006 and its obligations on animal owners, it states as definition:

2 â€œProtected animalâ€

An animal is a â€œprotected animalâ€ for the purposes of this Act ifâ€”

(a) it is of a kind which is commonly domesticated in the British Islands,

( it is under the control of man whether on a permanent or temporary basis, or

And requires:

Prevention of harm

4 Unnecessary suffering

(1) A person commits an offence ifâ€”

(a) an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer,

( he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so,

(d) the suffering is unnecessary.

(2) A person commits an offence ifâ€”

(a) he is responsible for an animal,

( an act, or failure to act, of another person causes the animal to suffer,

(d) the suffering is unnecessary.

I also draw attention to that right which a person can claim in self-defence to avoid criminal or civil liabilities, commonly referred to as the castle doctrine.

Using Reasonable Force

A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of:

self-defence; or

defence of another; or

defence of property; or

prevention of crime; or

lawful arrest.

In its guidance the crown prosecution Service draws attention to the words of Lord Morris in (Palmer v R [1971] AC 814) which emphasise the difficulties often facing someone confronted by an intruder or defending himself against attack:

"If there has been an attack so that defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken..."

It also notes on Pre-emptive strikes

There is no rule in law to say that a person must wait to be struck first before they may defend themselves, (see R v Deana, 2 Cr App R 75).

These animals are particularly frail and when confronted by man, easily damaged mortally using only minimal force. Even flying into the wall inside the loft is enough. It must seem to all parties that it would be very difficult to proceed against any pigeon fancier in these circumstances on the basis of using unreasonable force

The submission on the wild life and countryside act 1981 is focussed mainly on the sparrowhawk. I contend that the animal welfare act and its obligations coupled with the rights of self-defence need no such distinction and therefore apply against any animal irrespective of its designation. A legal view obtained by the relevant bodies for all pigeon fanciers could be very useful on this area.

I would also suggest if that legal review is favourable, that it is recognised that the bricks and mortar of this sport and indeed the UK are working fanciers without the resources to defend themselves in a court of a law. This could be provided by a legal fund so that they may exercise their rights knowing they will be supported. Indeed if favourable it will not take many successful defences before the CPS refuse to proceed with more as they are not in the business of defending the indefensible.

Kyleakin Lofts · August 10, 2016

Nice to have friends with some knowledge.

Ian McKay · August 11, 2016

Ian,

Thanks for putting that up ,after reading it I think a brief summary might be useful for readability:

The contention is the following:

1. The racing pigeon is the property of its owner as defined in Law

2. It is a protected animal under the definition contained in the animal welfare act 2006

3. That ACT details the obligations on the owner of any protected animal, failure to comply is a potential breach and a criminal offence

4. There is a right of using reasonable force to protect your property if attacked and this includes your animals

5. That right of protection is against any animal, including man, which is attacking and destroying your property

Clarification is required on the following:

Â· Does the obligation to protect from harm etc contained in the Animal welfare act apply to attacks from those animals offered protection under other acts such WCA (this is not just a racing pigeon issue but all animals deemed protected under the AWA)

Â· Does the first party (govt) stipulate that the right to protect you and your legally held property by using reasonable force cannot be exercised on wildlife protected under the WCA?

Â· If so then the submission is that where such loss is attributable to the surrender of the second party's fundamental rights, the first party must surely offer a remedy for restitution for the consequential loss of the second party in a manner agreeable to both parties that fully compensates the second party for their loss?