Not guilty!

[rogue with a running dog 22]

top work glad justice has been done

[Barrie 1,325]

Does anyone have a copy of the Countryfile program in question on removable media ie. either VHS tape or CD/DVD ?

 

Did anyone complain directly to the BBC re this program ?

 

If so could you please PM me before midday this coming Monday 25th July re either of the above.

 

Cheers - Barrie

Edited June 22, 2012 by Barrie

[gonetoearth 5,144]

Barrie I have wrote a letter to the board of directors / trustees. Of the the BBC on the advice. Of an old friend as on line complaint system at the bbc is not worth a blow on a ragmans bugle , he told me the are duty bound to reply let's see GTE

Edited June 22, 2012 by gonetoearth

[quentin 45]

well done boys i have been though the same thing it took a year to get to court they removed are dogs which some died while in the hands of the RSPCA(lie in bas**ds never got are terriers back just running dogs they were so run down they apologised for the bad condition ,7 day trail with a stipendiary judge at the chair due to the bad press, thing was the rspca and badger protection person had lied and made up evidence, thanks to them a quieted

[redcharge 378]

Barrie you talk alot of sense and seem to be alot more politically informed than the rest of us but I can see why GTE is getting frustrated, law abiding tax payers having their lives turned upside down, some of them losing there animals for months on end only to return an a state the you could only describe to be heart breaking, some of them losing them for good, families being effected mentally and also finacially some even losing their homes all because a public funded charity deems what they do to be illegal and will smash down doors with police backing at the drop of a hat.

 

This is becoming more and more frequent and although they are rarely successful as they have been proven to be lieing pieces of shit that will do and say anything they can to secure a prosecution, what is happening is wrong and im my opinion criminal.

 

Do you personally think there is a soloution?

[Barrie 1,325]

Barrie you talk alot of sense and seem to be alot more politically informed than the rest of us but I can see why GTE is getting frustrated, law abiding tax payers having their lives turned upside down, some of them losing there animals for months on end only to return an a state the you could only describe to be heart breaking, some of them losing them for good, families being effected mentally and also finacially some even losing their homes all because a public funded charity deems what they do to be illegal and will smash down doors with police backing at the drop of a hat.

 

This is becoming more and more frequent and although they are rarely successful as they have been proven to be lieing pieces of shit that will do and say anything they can to secure a prosecution, what is happening is wrong and im my opinion criminal.

 

Do you personally think there is a soloution?

 

Hi Red

 

It really is a tough one and my answer may take me a little while to put together, if for no other reason that someone might find themselves relying on it one day. But I do think there are some things we can do to help ourselves. I think it's a good point and a very useful thing to raise.

 

What I'll do is put a reply together and post it on this thread. Then I'll ask Tam our Vice Chair who's had a fair bit of experience of such cases of late to add his comments as well. Hopefully between us we'll come up with something which may be of some help. We did something very similar pre ban, I'm thinking we need to get that updated and should make that available too at some point. I'll be without internet access for a couple of weeks from Monday, so I'll do my utmost to put together my initial thoughts and post them within the next day or so. Please bear with me.

 

Kindest Regards - Barrie

[redcharge 378]

Thanks mate

[baldockbanks courser 598]

It sounds dramatic but every working dog man, bird keeper and many other enthusiasts that keep animals as part of a hoby should think like they are at war with the r.s.p.c.a because the end agenda is for no animals to be kept for any kind of work from racing pigeons to riding Ponys.

 

Twice in the case in question the defendants were compared to pedophiles by the prosecuting barrister because they admitted gaining enjoyment from viewing hunting and images of hunting.

 

As iv said this was a prosecution fetched by the police but This is the nonsense the r.s.p.c.a pedal to the public to demonise past times in exsistance long before the r.s.p.c.a we're thought about.

 

Every time you see a r.s.p.c.a officer tell him what you think of him and he's organisation, they need to know not every 1 thinks the sun shines out of there arse's!

[gonetoearth 5,144]

OH I DO BUD , people need to be aware the rspca are orchestrated by LACS

[Barrie 1,325]

Barrie you talk alot of sense and seem to be alot more politically informed than the rest of us but I can see why GTE is getting frustrated, law abiding tax payers having their lives turned upside down, some of them losing there animals for months on end only to return an a state the you could only describe to be heart breaking, some of them losing them for good, families being effected mentally and also finacially some even losing their homes all because a public funded charity deems what they do to be illegal and will smash down doors with police backing at the drop of a hat.

 

This is becoming more and more frequent and although they are rarely successful as they have been proven to be lieing pieces of shit that will do and say anything they can to secure a prosecution, what is happening is wrong and im my opinion criminal.

 

Do you personally think there is a soloution?

 

 

Hi Red

 

Believe me I share GTE’s frustrations just as much as anyone possibly could. I’ve sat through more of these types of court cases than I can actually remember and also given so called “expert” evidence on lots of other occasions (I hate the label “expert”, it makes me cringe).

 

I think the problem we have is at least fourfold….

 

1. In badger related cases, the law is very heavily weighted in favour of the prosecution. To the extent that if they can show sufficient circumstantial evidence that a crime may have been committed then the burden of proof automatically shifts to the defence who have to prove it was not. It's a very major difference, I always liken it to the fact that we all know that Father Christmas doesn’t exist, but of course proving it is an entirely different matter. This of course flies in the face of normal British justice. Murderers, rapists, phaedophiles and even terrorist bombers, all get a fairer crack at British justice than anyone accused of a badger related offence. Our opponents are fully aware of the law and use (for that read misuse) it to their best advantage. They’re not really there to see justice done, or concerned about the effect their actions might have on anyone or their families, all they want is a successful prosecution no matter what that involves.

 

2. In many instances the success or failure of a particular case hinges around the “expert evidence” which the Court receives. In theory expert witnesses are there to advise the Court and their evidence should be unbiased, but unfortunately that’s rarely the case. This is further compounded by the fact that the vast majority of such experts (very often academics and/or bunny huggers) are closely associated with our opponents.

 

3. You don’t have to look too far through this forum to realise that there are some people out there who don’t know too much about how properly terrierwork is carried out and even less about the laws surrounding it. Either that or they simply don’t care. In such a situation, you’re sure to run into problems eventually and bearing in mind the business about circumstantial evidence, if you’re breaking the law in one area then you’re likely to get as many charges thrown at you as possible, including badger related ones, in the hope that some if not all will stick.

 

4. Those who prosecute such cases, whether the CPS or RSPCA, typically have far greater funds at their disposal, than those defending them. This means that no expense is spared in order to obtain a successful prosecution in terms of obtaining expert witnesses and experienced lawyers.

 

There are a number of possible ways in which we can help ourselves, I’d suggest the following as a starting point

 

1. Familiarise yourself with the laws regarding terrierwork, get to know them inside out and always work well within them. If you don’t know the Highway Code, or don’t follow it then it won’t be long before you run into problems and it’s no different with terrierwork. Please get your legal information from a reliable source such as the NWTF website or DEFRA and definitely not from this forum as some of the nonsense I’ve read on here will one day give me a coronary.

 

2. Download the Written Permission Cards from the NWTF website and use them, they have a summary of the law on the reverse. It’s a legal requirement to carry written permission, in England and Wales, possibly NI (?) if the Hunting Act 2004 applies over there too. Carrying written permission is also a wise move in Scotland and ROI, it will normally allay any initial concerns a police officer might have, the RSPCA might take more convincing.

 

3. Bear in mind that if you’re seen to be acting either illegally, or irresponsibly, then it’s highly likely that once the opposition’s wheeled out their “expert witness” to declare your hole in the ground an active badger sett, this will used as circumstantial evidence in an attempt to shift the burden of proof and make your case more difficult to defend.

 

4. If you’re approached and have even the slightest suspicion that matters might progress further, take every possible step available to justify your claim that your hole in the ground was not part of an active badger sett and do so at the very earliest opportunity. You may need to prove it in Court at a later date. In order to speed things up I’ve reproduced our original pre ban notes at the bottom of this post, they do need updating but hopefully will suffice for now. Also bear in mind that charges can be laid at any point up until 6 months after the alleged offence and today's hole in the ground can suddenly become an active sett at any point during that time.

 

5. If your dogs are seized always get an independent veterinary report on them and on their general condition. If possible get plenty of photographs to back this up, dogs often get returned in a far worse condition than when seized.

 

6. Fortunately we are now starting to see a few reliable expert witnesses and lawyers who have experience in such cases and are fieldsports friendly, make use of them.

 

7. Lawyers, expert witnesses etc don’t come cheap, but could be crucial in winning your case so look into legal fees insurance. The most affordable of which I’m aware is that which forms part of the SACS membership scheme. I’m not recommending it simply because I don’t know enough about it, but I do know it has proved beneficial to a number of terriermen. I’m sure Tam will be able to provide more details.

 

That’s me done for starters, I apologise for the rough edges but time’s not really on my side at present, but I do hope it’s of some help.

 

Over to you Tam.

 

===========================================================================================================

 

THE PROTECTION OF BADGERS ACT (1992)

 

 

THE BADGERS ACT (1973) - Protected the badger and made it an offence to willfully kill, injure or take a badger or to attempt to do so, or to dig or to attempt to dig for a badger, or to possess (except in exceptional circumstances) a live or dead badger, or any parts of a badger.

 

 

 

THE WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT (1981) - In 1985 this was used to amend the 1973 Act so that if the Prosecution could convince magistrates they had strong circumstantial evidence that the Defendant was after a badger, it was then up to the Defendant to prove they were not.

 

 

 

THE BADGERS ACT (1991) - Extended the provisions of the 1973 Act to protect badger setts also. It created a new offence of "interfering with a badger sett" and defined this as any one of the following activities:

 

a. Damaging a badger sett or any part thereof.

 

b. Destroying a badger sett.

 

c. Obstructing access to or any entrance of a badger sett.

 

d. Causing a dog to enter a badger sett.

 

e. Disturbing a badger when it is occupying a badger sett.

 

The Act defines a badger sett as "any structure or place which displays signs indicating current use by a badger".

 

 

 

THE PROTECTION OF BADGERS ACT (1992) - Pulled together all of the above legislation into one single Act.

 

 

 

THE LIKELY PENALTIES - It is of equal importance to understand the nature of the sentences which are likely to be imposed as a result of a conviction under the above Act. Experience to date shows that, even if of good character, any person convicted under this Act is likely to face imprisonment for their first offence. We must view this as the likely outcome and exercise the utmost caution at all times.

 

 

 

SO WHAT CAN WE DO - The best way to avoid any problems is to leave alone anything that might be a live badger sett, learn the signs which a badger leaves around a live sett, and if you see them keep well away. However, should you still find yourself in the unfortunate position of being accused of digging for a badger, or any related offence, then there are a number of points to remember.

 

a. If challenged don't panic or run away, as this gives an immediate impression of guilt.

 

b. No matter how indignant you may feel or how provoked you are, under no

circumstances get aggressive or abusive. It cannot then be suggested at any later stage that you were anything but co-operative.

 

c. Explain what you are doing, why and with whose permission. eg. I am controlling foxes at the request of Mr Smith who is the landowner and has been losing chickens/lambs/etc, to foxes. This establishes you as a responsible person, who is engaged in a lawful activity and with proper authority.

 

d. Explain why you think a fox may down the hole, remember this is your field of expertise, so take the time to explain and make sure that it's understood that at least you know what you are talking about, eg. If you would like to bend down here you can smell fox, here are fox pad marks in and out, there is a tuft of fox hair on this briar, here is a feather from the hen that was taken etc. This will help allay any allegations of reckless behavior. Ensure such details are noted down by any police officer present so he doesn’t have to rely on memory at a later date.

 

e. The offence you are most likely to be accused of is that of interfering with a badger sett, it is important to remember that the 1991 Act defines a badger sett as "any structure or place which displays signs indicating current use by a badger". Point out this is the case, and that the signs one would expect to see around a badger sett in current use are:

• Badger tracks ie. pad marks.
  
• Signs of bedding near the sett entrances.
  
• Regular paths to dung pits.
  
• Scratches and claw marks at the base of nearby trees.
  
• Coarse grey hairs with black near the tip, often caught in barbed wire or trees near to the sett.
  
• Signs of excavations linked by well defined paths.
  

f. Explain that prior to entering your terrier you checked for these signs and none were present, if available produce a copy of the "Five Rules for the Terrierman" in order that the police can establish the signs for themselves. Most police officers will say that they have no knowledge of badgers or badger signs and will prefer to leave the inspection to some 'expert1 at a later date (when unfortunately you will not be present to assist). So be firm, but polite, and carefully explain all about the contents of the "Five Rules" and in particular the signs it describes. Ask to be shown where there are any such signs present and if this cannot be done, then ask it to be noted down that at the time you were accused "no signs of current use by a badger" could be found. However, if the police officer still refuses to look for the signs described, ask him to note down that you requested him to do so, made every reasonable effort to properly describe the relevant signs to him and assisted his investigations in every way possible. Ask him to sign the "Five Rules" and include his badge number, retain this as evidence. Take details (badge number and name) of any police officers present as you may require them to verify the above facts in your defence.

 

g. It is also worth bearing in mind that should a badger take up residence at some time in the future, you may find these accusations are resurrected. So for your own safety you may wish to gather any evidence which could be used in your future defence and retain it for a period of at least six months. Video film or photographs may prove of benefit, these should ideally be corroborated by an independent person of good character, who preferably should also have a good working knowledge of badgers and badger signs. When taking video film/photographs always include a ruler or measuring instrument in order that the size and shape of entrance holes, tunnels and spoil heaps can be accurately determined at a later date. Ensure the exact location of the features you record can easily be established eg. If photographs are taken, also number and record each feature on a sketch map. With a video film, take a panoramic view of the alleged sett and separately identify each of the features before you film them in close up. Ensure that you retain the master tapes and negatives, as they may also need to be produced in Court.

 

h. If you are a member of the Countryside Alliance you have free access to a "Legal Helpline" service, make use of it.

 

i. Terrier club officers and representatives are there to help or advise and they have access to National Working Terrier Federation (N.W.T.F.) personnel who will also assist.

 

j. If you feel that there is any risk of a prosecution being pursued or you are cautioned by a Police Officer then there is no substitute for a proper site inspection which will need to be carried out by a 'professional' Expert Witness. This must take place at the earliest opportunity, it could be expensive, but there are insurance policies on the market which provide cover for such cases and have in the past proved extremely useful.

 

k. Finally should you find yourself charged with an offence under the Badgers Act, get the best possible legal representation you can. A Solicitor or Barrister with a "sporting background" will already have a certain amount of detailed knowledge in this area. Both the sporting press and Countryside Alliance member's handbook contain details of individuals and firms specializing in this type of work.

 

That is the Law and the badger is now the best protected non-endangered species in the world, regardless of present or future population levels it is unlikely to be relaxed.

Edited June 23, 2012 by Barrie

[gonetoearth 5,144]

Barrie you talk alot of sense and seem to be alot more politically informed than the rest of us but I can see why GTE is getting frustrated, law abiding tax payers having their lives turned upside down, some of them losing there animals for months on end only to return an a state the you could only describe to be heart breaking, some of them losing them for good, families being effected mentally and also finacially some even losing their homes all because a public funded charity deems what they do to be illegal and will smash down doors with police backing at the drop of a hat.

 

This is becoming more and more frequent and although they are rarely successful as they have been proven to be lieing pieces of shit that will do and say anything they can to secure a prosecution, what is happening is wrong and im my opinion criminal.

 

Do you personally think there is a soloution?

 

 

Hi Red

 

Believe me I share GTE’s frustrations just as much as anyone possibly could. I’ve sat through more of these types of court cases than I can actually remember and also given so called “expert” evidence on lots of other occasions (I hate the label “expert”, it makes me cringe).

 

I think the problem we have is at least fourfold….

 

1. In badger related cases, the law is very heavily weighted in favour of the prosecution. To the extent that if they can show circumstantial evidence that a crime may have been committed then the burden of proof shifts to the defence and they have to prove it was not. Which is a lot more difficult than it sounds, I always liken it to the fact that we all know that Father Christmas doesn’t exist, but proving it is an entirely different matter. This of course flies in the face of normal British justice. Murderers, rapists and phaedophiles, to name just a few, all get a fairer crack at British justice than anyone accused of a badger related crime. Our opponents are fully aware of the law and use (for that read misuse) it to their best advantage. They’re not really there to see justice done, or concerned about the effect their actions might have on anyone or their families, all they want is a successful prosecution no matter what that involves.

 

2. In many instances the success or failure of a particular case hinges around the “expert evidence” which the Court receives. In theory expert witnesses are there to advise the Court and their evidence should be unbiased, but unfortunately that’s rarely the case. This is further compounded by the fact that the vast majority of such experts (very often academics and/or bunny huggers) are closely associated with our opponents.

 

3. You don’t have to look too far through this forum to realise that there are some people out there who don’t know too much about how properly terrierwork is carried out and even less about the laws surrounding it. Either that or they simply don’t care. In such a situation, you’re sure to run into problems eventually and bearing in mind the business about circumstantial evidence, if you’re breaking the law in one area then you’re likely to get as many charges thrown at you as possible, including badger related ones, in the hope that some if not all will stick.

 

4. Those who prosecute such cases, whether the CPS or RSPCA, typically have far greater funds at their disposal, than those defending them. This means that no expense is spared in order to obtain a successful prosecution in terms of obtaining expert witnesses and experienced lawyers.

 

There are a number of possible ways in which we can help ourselves, I’d suggest the following as a starting point

 

1. Familiarise yourself with the laws regarding terrierwork, get to know them inside out and always work well within them. If you don’t know the Highway Code, or don’t follow it then it won’t be long before you run into problems and it’s no different with terrierwork. Please get your legal information from a reliable source such as the NWTF website or DEFRA and definitely not from this forum as some of the nonsense I’ve read on here will one day give me a coronary.

 

2. Download the Written Permission Cards from the NWTF website and use them, they have a summary of the law on the reverse. It’s a legal requirement to carry written permission, in England and Wales, possibly NI (?) if the Hunting Act 2004 applies over there too. Carrying written permission is also a wise move in Scotland and ROI, it will normally allay any initial concerns a police officer might have, the RSPCA might take more convincing.

 

3. Bear in mind that if you’re seen to be acting either illegally, or irresponsibly, then it’s highly likely that once the opposition’s wheeled out their “expert witness” to declare your hole in the ground an active badger sett, this will used as circumstantial evidence in an attempt to shift the burden of proof and make your case more difficult to defend.

 

4. If you’re approached and have even the slightest suspicion that matters might progress further, take every possible step available to justify your claim that your hole in the ground was not part of an active badger sett and do so at the very earliest opportunity. You may need to prove it in Court at a later date. In order to speed things up I’ve reproduced our original pre ban notes at the bottom of this post, they do need updating but hopefully will suffice for now. Also bear in mind that charges can be laid at any point up until 6 months after the alleged offence and today's hole in the ground can suddenly become an active sett at any point during that time.

 

5. If your dogs are seized always get an independent veterinary report on them and on their general condition. If possible get plenty of photographs to back this up, dogs often get returned in a far worse condition than when seized.

 

6. Fortunately we are now starting to see a few reliable expert witnesses and lawyers who have experience in such cases and are fieldsports friendly, make use of them.

 

7. Lawyers, expert witnesses etc don’t come cheap, but could be crucial in winning your case so look into legal fees insurance. The most affordable of which I’m aware is that which forms part of the SACS membership scheme. I’m not recommending it simply because I don’t know enough about it, but I do know it has proved beneficial to a number of terriermen. I’m sure Tam will be able to provide more details.

 

That’s me done for starters, I apologise for the rough edges but time’s not really on my side at present, but I do hope it’s of some help.

 

Over to you Tam.

 

===========================================================================================================

 

THE PROTECTION OF BADGERS ACT (1992)

 

 

THE BADGERS ACT (1973) - Protected the badger and made it an offence to willfully kill, injure or take a badger or to attempt to do so, or to dig or to attempt to dig for a badger, or to possess (except in exceptional circumstances) a live or dead badger, or any parts of a badger.

 

 

 

THE WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT (1981) - In 1985 this was used to amend the 1973 Act so that if the Prosecution could convince magistrates they had strong circumstantial evidence that the Defendant was after a badger, it was then up to the Defendant to prove they were not.

 

 

 

THE BADGERS ACT (1991) - Extended the provisions of the 1973 Act to protect badger setts also. It created a new offence of "interfering with a badger sett" and defined this as any one of the following activities:

 

a) Damaging a badger sett or any part thereof.

 

Destroying a badger sett.

 

c) Obstructing access to or any entrance of a badger sett.

 

d) Causing a dog to enter a badger sett.

 

e) Disturbing a badger when it is occupying a badger sett.

 

The Act defines a badger sett as "any structure or place which displays signs indicating current use by a badger".

 

 

 

THE PROTECTION OF BADGERS ACT (1992) - Pulled together all of the above legislation into one single Act.

 

 

 

THE LIKELY PENALTIES - It is of equal importance to understand the nature of the sentences which are likely to be imposed as a result of a conviction under the above Act. Experience to date shows that, even if of good character, any person convicted under this Act is likely to face imprisonment for their first offence. We must view this as the likely outcome and exercise the utmost caution at all times.

 

 

 

SO WHAT CAN WE DO - The best way to avoid any problems is to leave alone anything that might be a live badger sett, learn the signs which a badger leaves around a live sett, and if you see them keep well away. However, should you still find yourself in the unfortunate position of being accused of digging for a badger, or any related offence, then there are a number of points to remember.

 

a. If challenged don't panic or run away, as this gives an immediate impression of guilt.

 

b. No matter how indignant you may feel or how provoked you are, under no

circumstances get aggressive or abusive. It cannot then be suggested at any later stage that you were anything but co-operative.

 

c. Explain what you are doing, why and with whose permission. eg. I am controlling foxes at the request of Mr Smith who is the landowner and has been losing chickens/lambs/etc, to foxes. This establishes you as a responsible person, who is engaged in a lawful activity and with proper authority.

 

d. Explain why you think a fox may down the hole, remember this is your field of expertise, so take the time to explain and make sure that it's understood that at least you know what you are talking about, eg. If you would like to bend down here you can smell fox, here are fox pad marks in and out, there is a tuft of fox hair on this briar, here is a feather from the hen that was taken etc. This will help allay any allegations of reckless behavior. Ensure such details are noted down by any police officer present so he doesn’t have to rely on memory at a later date.

 

e. The offence you are most likely to be accused of is that of interfering with a badger sett, it is important to remember that the 1991 Act defines a badger sett as "any structure or place which displays signs indicating current use by a badger". Point out this is the case, and that the signs one would expect to see around a badger sett in current use are:

• Badger tracks ie. pad marks.
  
• Signs of bedding near the sett entrances.
  
• Regular paths to dung pits.
  
• Scratches and claw marks at the base of nearby trees.
  
• Coarse grey hairs with black near the tip, often caught in barbed wire or trees near to the sett.
  
• Signs of excavations linked by well defined paths.
  

f. Explain that prior to entering your terrier you checked for these signs and none were present, if available produce a copy of the "Five Rules for the Terrierman" in order that the police can establish the signs for themselves. Most police officers will say that they have no knowledge of badgers or badger signs and will prefer to leave the inspection to some 'expert1 at a later date (when unfortunately you will not be present to assist). So be firm, but polite, and carefully explain all about the contents of the "Five Rules" and in particular the signs it describes. Ask to be shown where there are any such signs present and if this cannot be done, then ask it to be noted down that at the time you were accused "no signs of current use by a badger" could be found. However, if the police officer still refuses to look for the signs described, ask him to note down that you requested him to do so, made every reasonable effort to properly describe the relevant signs to him and assisted his investigations in every way possible. Ask him to sign the "Five Rules" and include his badge number, retain this as evidence. Take details (badge number and name) of any police officers present as you may require them to verify the above facts in your defence.

 

g. It is also worth bearing in mind that should a badger take up residence at some time in the future, you may find these accusations are resurrected. So for your own safety you may wish to gather any evidence which could be used in your future defence and retain it for a period of at least six months. Video film or photographs may prove of benefit, these should ideally be corroborated by an independent person of good character, who preferably should also have a good working knowledge of badgers and badger signs. When taking video film/photographs always include a ruler or measuring instrument in order that the size and shape of entrance holes, tunnels and spoil heaps can be accurately determined at a later date. Ensure the exact location of the features you record can easily be established eg. If photographs are taken, also number and record each feature on a sketch map. With a video film, take a panoramic view of the alleged sett and separately identify each of the features before you film them in close up. Ensure that you retain the master tapes and negatives, as they may also need to be produced in Court.

 

h. If you are a member of the Countryside Alliance you have free access to a "Legal Helpline" service, make use of it.

 

i. Terrier club officers and representatives are there to help or advise and they have access to National Working Terrier Federation (N.W.T.F.) personnel who will also assist.

 

j. If you feel that there is any risk of a prosecution being pursued or you are cautioned by a Police Officer then there is no substitute for a proper site inspection which will need to be carried out by a 'professional' Expert Witness. This must take place at the earliest opportunity, it could be expensive, but there are insurance policies on the market which provide cover for such cases and have in the past proved extremely useful.

 

k. Finally should you find yourself charged with an offence under the Badgers Act, get the best possible legal representation you can. A Solicitor or Barrister with a "sporting background" will already have a certain amount of detailed knowledge in this area. Both the sporting press and Countryside Alliance member's handbook contain details of individuals and firms specializing in this type of work.

 

That is the Law and the badger is now the best protected non-endangered species in the world, regardless of present or future population levels it is unlikely to be relaxed.

 

hear endeth the lesson pin this asap

[Barrie 1,325]

It sounds dramatic but every working dog man, bird keeper and many other enthusiasts that keep animals as part of a hoby should think like they are at war with the r.s.p.c.a because the end agenda is for no animals to be kept for any kind of work from racing pigeons to riding Ponys.

 

Twice in the case in question the defendants were compared to pedophiles by the prosecuting barrister because they admitted gaining enjoyment from viewing hunting and images of hunting.

 

As iv said this was a prosecution fetched by the police but This is the nonsense the r.s.p.c.a pedal to the public to demonise past times in exsistance long before the r.s.p.c.a we're thought about.

 

Every time you see a r.s.p.c.a officer tell him what you think of him and he's organisation, they need to know not every 1 thinks the sun shines out of there arse's!

 

 

Hi BC

 

No you’re not being dramatic….. LACS, RSPCA, ALF, PETA and countless others organisations all share a common agenda and it’s one of animal rights NOT animal welfare. They’re all separate organisations, but all are closely entwined, the main differences in approach being the degree of subtlety with which they pursue that common agenda and their level of acceptability/credibility with the general public. At one end of the spectrum you have what is widely recognised as a terrorist organisation (ALF) with zero credibility and the other what is generally recognised as an established and well respected “animal welfare” organisation (RSPCA). But to put it crudely they all pee in the same pot !!!

 

And it's not just not confined to the UK, substitute RSPCA with SSPCA in Scotland, USPCA in Ireland and HSUS in America and anywhere else in the world They're all teamed up with the same groups and all up to very much the same things, it's a global movement and they are making a great deal of money out of it. Animal "charities" are some of the richest in the world. It's a pity someone doesn't take a body count of all the animals they kill just to see what they actually achieve in real terms.

 

Regards - B

Edited June 23, 2012 by Barrie

[gonetoearth 5,144]

Barrie and i were brought up in a differant age , like it or not we have to

abide by the law OF THE DAY , we are judged some times by the actions of others.

the recent court case was a success BUT PLEASE DO NOT THINK

this is now a time to take chances the law is the law , LADS

IF IN DOUPT PULL OUT , EVERY MAN WHO WORKS TERRIERS

PRINT OUT BARRIES POST ABOVE READ IT AND READ IT AGAIN

PASS IT ON , the bager act was brought in a differant time and no matter

what you or i think its the law and i can never see it being changed ,

we have legal terrier work lets be thankfull of that and proceed ,

join the fmwtc and or the nwtf , carry you permission card when out

pass on the correct ways to youngsters , and lets secure are terriers

future remmember they dont know the law you are incharge of their

destiny , , take care and be aware and ALLWAYS REMMEMBER YOUR TERRIERS GTE

[events co-ordinator 353]

My old man got a text from Barrie re this thread I'm putting down some more advice after initial contact. MY old man says 1/ if you are cautioned by the police until you have spoken to a specialist lawyer you must give a no comment interview that means say nothing at all. Remember theat AS SOON as the police suspect you of comiting an offence they MUST caution you at THAT point or under the CADDER ruling any info gathered CANNOT be used as EVIDENCE. 2/ Do not answer any Questions from any RSPCA personell speak only to the poloice and again only on the advice of your lawyer. 3/ The RSPCA/SSPCA will tell you They are conducting an interview under caution it Does'nt matter tell them absolutelly nothing they will come back later for a friendly chat and say we are not after you give us the names of the real villains etc "we'll drop the charges" "give our dogs back etc)( pish ) they are just trying to get you to incriminate more people. A caution from them means absolutelly nothing thy do'nt have the legal authority to caution you as they're prosecutions are private prosecutions unless they can get a tame cop to put it to the fiscal/cps. 4/ In Scotland they will also try and have you charged under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (scotland and the various charges can be made stick if YOU DON'T HAVE LEGAL PERMISSION TO BE ON THAT LAND. While Barrie is unavailable my old man will answer any queries regarding this subject BUT we don't want arguments we are all on the same side and as I've already stated he has umpteen cases on the go just now Pm me if you need confidential advice re lawyers etc. Jo For TAM.

[events co-ordinator 353]

Barrie and i were brought up in a differant age , like it or not we have to

abide by the law OF THE DAY , we are judged some times by the actions of others.

the recent court case was a success BUT PLEASE DO NOT THINK

this is now a time to take chances the law is the law , LADS

IF IN DOUPT PULL OUT , EVERY MAN WHO WORKS TERRIERS

PRINT OUT BARRIES POST ABOVE READ IT AND READ IT AGAIN

PASS IT ON , the bager act was brought in a differant time and no matter

what you or i think its the law and i can never see it being changed ,

we have legal terrier work lets be thankfull of that and proceed ,

join the fmwtc and or the nwtf , carry you permission card when out

pass on the correct ways to youngsters , and lets secure are terriers

future remmember they dont know the law you are incharge of their

destiny , , take care and be aware and ALLWAYS REMMEMBER YOUR TERRIERS GTE

My old man was over in N.I. recently and the biggest threat to the continuation of Terrierwork as a legal and efficient form of pest control over there and over here Is EEJITS with terriers that think they are above the law and take photos of ILEGAL activities on mobile phones etc. Now we can put forward a LEGITIMATE argument in court but if the prosecution has excplicit photographs of people setting dogs on captive domestic pets how can my old man stand up in court and defend that? he would have NO credability as a witness if he did'nt decry that. These people that do these things have no place in fieldsports now We know the RSPCA make up a lot of things but if they catch people doing stuff like that we can have nothing to do with them. He will defend anyone carrying out ANY legal Pest control BUT there is a line beyond which certain activities are indefensible.