I have a tree (Ok, Lleylandi sp?) I desperately need to trim the top
off. However, there is a birds nest about half way up it (way below
where I intend to chop). Nest appears to be vacant, but I cannot be
certain. I think the birds are starlings.

Is there any time I can safely assume the nest would be vacant in order
to perform the appropriate chopping of the tree?

<ijcornish [at] googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1151922322.329663.79010 [at] v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>I have a tree (Ok, Lleylandi sp?) I desperately need to trim the top
> off. However, there is a birds nest about half way up it (way below
> where I intend to chop). Nest appears to be vacant, but I cannot be
> certain. I think the birds are starlings.
>
> Is there any time I can safely assume the nest would be vacant in order
> to perform the appropriate chopping of the tree?

All starling chicks have flown the nest here (Leeds). All the nests in our
Leylandii are vacant now. I'd say it was a good time, bird-wise.

Mary
>

On 3/7/06 11:25, in article
1151922322.329663.79010 [at] v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com,
"ijcornish [at] googlemail.com" <ijcornish [at] googlemail.com> wrote:

> I have a tree (Ok, Lleylandi sp?) I desperately need to trim the top
> off. However, there is a birds nest about half way up it (way below
> where I intend to chop). Nest appears to be vacant, but I cannot be
> certain. I think the birds are starlings.
>
> Is there any time I can safely assume the nest would be vacant in order
> to perform the appropriate chopping of the tree?
>
Can you wait until September to be on the safe side? If it IS a starling's
nest, it may well be vacant by now but if not, well........starlings are on
the Red List.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(email address on website)

On 3/7/06 11:48, in article 44a8f610$0$906$4c56ba96 [at] master.news.zetnet.net,
"Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher [at] zetnet.co.uk> wrote:

>
> <ijcornish [at] googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:1151922322.329663.79010 [at] v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>> I have a tree (Ok, Lleylandi sp?) I desperately need to trim the top
>> off. However, there is a birds nest about half way up it (way below
>> where I intend to chop). Nest appears to be vacant, but I cannot be
>> certain. I think the birds are starlings.
>>
>> Is there any time I can safely assume the nest would be vacant in order
>> to perform the appropriate chopping of the tree?
>
> All starling chicks have flown the nest here (Leeds). All the nests in our
> Leylandii are vacant now. I'd say it was a good time, bird-wise.
>
You may well be right but I have looked on the RSPB web site and can't find
any details of when different birds nest, lay eggs, hatch, and fledge.
Perhaps I'm just not putting in the right questions.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(email address on website)

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

On 3/7/06 13:13, in article wyw2YUFznQqEFweb [at] indaal.demon.co.uk, "Malcolm"
<Malcolm [at] indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>
> In article <C0CEB7D8.33156%sacha [at] privacy.net>, Sacha <sacha [at] privacy.net>
> writes
>> On 3/7/06 11:25, in article
>> 1151922322.329663.79010 [at] v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com,
>> "ijcornish [at] googlemail.com" <ijcornish [at] googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have a tree (Ok, Lleylandi sp?) I desperately need to trim the top
>>> off. However, there is a birds nest about half way up it (way below
>>> where I intend to chop). Nest appears to be vacant, but I cannot be
>>> certain. I think the birds are starlings.
>>>
>>> Is there any time I can safely assume the nest would be vacant in order
>>> to perform the appropriate chopping of the tree?
>>>
>> Can you wait until September to be on the safe side? If it IS a starling's
>> nest, it may well be vacant by now but if not, well........starlings are on
>> the Red List.
>
> Their presence on the Red List doesn't affect things as it has no legal
> status.
<snip>

But the legal status, or otherwise, isn't the point. The point is:

"The UK's birds can be split in to three categories of conservation
importance - red, amber and green.
Red is the highest conservation priority, with species needing urgent
action. Amber is the next most critical group, followed by green. 
Please refer to our PDF download for the full list of red and amber
categorised species (see link). 
Birds in the red and amber lists will be subject to at least one of the
relevant factors listed below. Again, a full list of criteria can be found
in the PDF download (see link).
Red list criteria
€ Globally threatened
€ Historical population decline in UK during 1800-1995
€ Rapid (> or =50%) decline in UK breeding population over last 25
years
€ Rapid (> or =50%) contraction of UK breeding range over last 25
years"   
http://www.rspb.org.uk/birds/guide/status_explained.asp
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(email address on website)

Thanks to all info.

To answer Malcolm's specific comment... why the desperation... It's the
people behind me, who keep asking me to chop it, and this past weekend
they threatened me with legal action (It's less than 3metres tall)
citing that it's blocking their sunlight (I don't agree, as it's to the
North of them - if anything, it blocks my sunlight).

I'll dig the ladder out tonight and go climbing.

Thanks again,

Ian


Malcolm wrote:
> In article <1151922322.329663.79010 [at] v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
> "ijcornish [at] googlemail.com" <ijcornish [at] googlemail.com> writes
> >I have a tree (Ok, Lleylandi sp?) I desperately need to trim the top
> >off. However, there is a birds nest about half way up it (way below
> >where I intend to chop). Nest appears to be vacant, but I cannot be
> >certain. I think the birds are starlings.
> >
> >Is there any time I can safely assume the nest would be vacant in order
> >to perform the appropriate chopping of the tree?
> >
> They are unlikely to be starlings as that species nests in holes.
> Blackbird or Song or Mistle Thrush are more probable.
>
> If you are going to trim the top off, presumably you have a ladder so
> why not climb up and have a look? You won't do any harm if it is
> occupied. If it is, then with incubation and fledging periods both
> around a fortnight, you won't have long to wait. If you can't do that,
> then simple observation should confirm whether or not the nest is
> occupied. An incubating bird usually has its bill and tail sticking out
> over the edge of the nest. If young are being fed, the parents will be
> coming in at frequent intervals.
>
> But why the desperation to lop the tree? Wait until September and you
> will be past the breeding season of all three species. Blackbirds and
> Mistle Thrushes rarely have young in the nest after early July, Song
> Thrushes sometimes continue into August.
>
> --
> Malcolm

"Sacha" <sacha [at] privacy.net> wrote in message
news:C0CEB896.3315E%sacha [at] privacy.net...
> On 3/7/06 11:48, in article
> 44a8f610$0$906$4c56ba96 [at] master.news.zetnet.net,
> "Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher [at] zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> <ijcornish [at] googlemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1151922322.329663.79010 [at] v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>>> I have a tree (Ok, Lleylandi sp?) I desperately need to trim the top
>>> off. However, there is a birds nest about half way up it (way below
>>> where I intend to chop). Nest appears to be vacant, but I cannot be
>>> certain. I think the birds are starlings.
>>>
>>> Is there any time I can safely assume the nest would be vacant in order
>>> to perform the appropriate chopping of the tree?
>>
>> All starling chicks have flown the nest here (Leeds). All the nests in
>> our
>> Leylandii are vacant now. I'd say it was a good time, bird-wise.
>>
> You may well be right but I have looked on the RSPB web site and can't
> find
> any details of when different birds nest, lay eggs, hatch, and fledge.
> Perhaps I'm just not putting in the right questions.

It's just from observation of bird activity (a lot) in our very tall
Leylandi.

I wondered about the starling identification too because of the location,
our starlings nest in holes in the eaves. Perhaps it's a blackbird's nest -
they do sometimes have two (rarely here) or even (very rarely here) three
hatches.

It would certainly be a good idea to leave it until early autumn to be
sure - cooler too :-)

Mary

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

<ijcornish [at] googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1151931931.056086.177740 [at] v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks to all info.
>
> To answer Malcolm's specific comment... why the desperation... It's the
> people behind me, who keep asking me to chop it, and this past weekend
> they threatened me with legal action (It's less than 3metres tall)
> citing that it's blocking their sunlight (I don't agree, as it's to the
> North of them - if anything, it blocks my sunlight).

Don't be intimidated by them. Three metres isn't high and if it's to their
north, as you say it's not blocking light.

Nieghbours too often 'threaten' legal action to bully others to get what
they want. Once they've done it successfully they're going to win every
time. Stand against them.

If necessary play the conservation card to give you time to get professional
advice.

Mary

On 3/7/06 15:47, in article 44a92e14$0$912$4c56ba96 [at] master.news.zetnet.net,
"Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher [at] zetnet.co.uk> wrote:

>
> <ijcornish [at] googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:1151931931.056086.177740 [at] v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>> Thanks to all info.
>>
>> To answer Malcolm's specific comment... why the desperation... It's the
>> people behind me, who keep asking me to chop it, and this past weekend
>> they threatened me with legal action (It's less than 3metres tall)
>> citing that it's blocking their sunlight (I don't agree, as it's to the
>> North of them - if anything, it blocks my sunlight).
>
> Don't be intimidated by them. Three metres isn't high and if it's to their
> north, as you say it's not blocking light.
>
> Nieghbours too often 'threaten' legal action to bully others to get what
> they want. Once they've done it successfully they're going to win every
> time. Stand against them.
>
> If necessary play the conservation card to give you time to get professional
> advice.
>

A batty neighbour of mine once tried reporting me for chopping down a row of
horrible leylandii trees, complaining it was detrimental to the area, or
some such nonsense. The council official she spoke to nearly died laughing!
Not only is trying to preserve the potential safety of birds a hands down
winner, 9' of leylandii is not anti-social and it will cost the OP's
neighbour a lot of money to make a trivial complaint which will be ignored.
Three metres is quite high enough, IMO and should provide all the privacy
needed, so in his shoes, I'd keep it there and tell the neighbour that's
what is going to happen. My guess is that the neighbour is starting to
panic as he sees these trees leaping for the sky but it wasn't a good
neighbourly move to bring in the heavy brigade at this stage!
Of course, in due course, the OP may like to consider the problems he faces
with planting things beneath his hedge and indeed, the blocking of sunlight
already starting!
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(email address on website)

In article <wz7moaGfURqEFwuw [at] indaal.demon.co.uk>,
Malcolm <Malcolm [at] indaal.demon.co.uk> writes:
|>
|> Whether or not the species is judged to be globally threatened, in
|> decline or experiencing a rapid contraction of its UK range is
|> immaterial to whether or not he can legally destroy the nest.

I believe that you can be prosecuted for destroying a ruddy duck's
nest, on which the Men From The Ministry have just shot the duck.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Sacha wrote:
> On 3/7/06 15:47, in article 44a92e14$0$912$4c56ba96 [at] master.news.zetnet.net,
> "Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher [at] zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> <ijcornish [at] googlemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1151931931.056086.177740 [at] v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>>> Thanks to all info.
>>>
>>> To answer Malcolm's specific comment... why the desperation... It's the
>>> people behind me, who keep asking me to chop it, and this past weekend
>>> they threatened me with legal action (It's less than 3metres tall)
>>> citing that it's blocking their sunlight (I don't agree, as it's to the
>>> North of them - if anything, it blocks my sunlight).
>> Don't be intimidated by them. Three metres isn't high and if it's to their
>> north, as you say it's not blocking light.
>>
>> Nieghbours too often 'threaten' legal action to bully others to get what
>> they want. Once they've done it successfully they're going to win every
>> time. Stand against them.
>>
>> If necessary play the conservation card to give you time to get professional
>> advice.
>>
>
> A batty neighbour of mine once tried reporting me for chopping down a row of
> horrible leylandii trees, complaining it was detrimental to the area, or
> some such nonsense. The council official she spoke to nearly died laughing!
> Not only is trying to preserve the potential safety of birds a hands down
> winner, 9' of leylandii is not anti-social and it will cost the OP's
> neighbour a lot of money to make a trivial complaint which will be ignored.
> Three metres is quite high enough, IMO and should provide all the privacy
> needed, so in his shoes, I'd keep it there and tell the neighbour that's
> what is going to happen. My guess is that the neighbour is starting to
> panic as he sees these trees leaping for the sky but it wasn't a good
> neighbourly move to bring in the heavy brigade at this stage!
> Of course, in due course, the OP may like to consider the problems he faces
> with planting things beneath his hedge and indeed, the blocking of sunlight
> already starting!
I assume the same as a hedge, it is not recommended to prune before August.

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

"Sacha" <sacha [at] privacy.net> wrote in message
news:C0CEF894.331B2%sacha [at] privacy.net...
> On 3/7/06 15:47, in article
> 44a92e14$0$912$4c56ba96 [at] master.news.zetnet.net,
> "Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher [at] zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> <ijcornish [at] googlemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1151931931.056086.177740 [at] v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>>> Thanks to all info.
>>>
>>> To answer Malcolm's specific comment... why the desperation... It's the
>>> people behind me, who keep asking me to chop it, and this past weekend
>>> they threatened me with legal action (It's less than 3metres tall)
>>> citing that it's blocking their sunlight (I don't agree, as it's to the
>>> North of them - if anything, it blocks my sunlight).
>>
>> Don't be intimidated by them. Three metres isn't high and if it's to
>> their
>> north, as you say it's not blocking light.
>>
>> Nieghbours too often 'threaten' legal action to bully others to get what
>> they want. Once they've done it successfully they're going to win every
>> time. Stand against them.
>>
>> If necessary play the conservation card to give you time to get
>> professional
>> advice.
>>
>
> A batty neighbour of mine once tried reporting me for chopping down a row
> of
> horrible leylandii trees, complaining it was detrimental to the area, or
> some such nonsense. The council official she spoke to nearly died
> laughing!
> Not only is trying to preserve the potential safety of birds a hands down
> winner, 9' of leylandii is not anti-social and it will cost the OP's
> neighbour a lot of money to make a trivial complaint which will be
> ignored.
> Three metres is quite high enough, IMO and should provide all the privacy
> needed, so in his shoes, I'd keep it there and tell the neighbour that's
> what is going to happen. My guess is that the neighbour is starting to
> panic as he sees these trees leaping for the sky but it wasn't a good
> neighbourly move to bring in the heavy brigade at this stage!
> Of course, in due course, the OP may like to consider the problems he
> faces
> with planting things beneath his hedge and indeed, the blocking of
> sunlight
> already starting!

Indeed.

We have a VERY high Leylandii which is almost the only tree in the
neighbourhood which is home to nesting birds. Nobody has complained about it
and it does keep the underlying ground (only in our garden) very dry but
that's advantatgeous to our hens, who like to dig to Australia there and
have shelter when it rains. The only sunlight blocked is in our garden and
although the roots must be draining the surrounding ground of nutrients I am
growing (with reasonable sucess) runner beans and tomatoes in the ground
below. Last year I grew potatoes. I hope, gradually, to improve the quality
of the soil while keeping the tree (for the sake of the birds) but I do have
to water a lot. The hens do their bit towards fertilising it ...

Mary
> --
> Sacha
> www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
> South Devon
> (email address on website)
>

"Janet Baraclough" <janet.and.john [at] zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:313030303930323944A993DA11 [at] zetnet.co.uk...
> The message <44a92e14$0$912$4c56ba96 [at] master.news.zetnet.net>
> from "Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher [at] zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
>
>
>> Don't be intimidated by them. Three metres isn't high and if it's to
>> their
>> north, as you say it's not blocking light.
>
> How can you tell, without seeing it? It's perfectly possible for a
> tree, (or wall, or shed) to block light from a nearby groundfloor
> window, making rooms dark. North-facing rooms and windows are more, not
> less, vulnerable to light loss.

The poster said that it the neighbour said it was blocking SUNlight.

Mary

In article <gH+i1LPIQXqEFwP6 [at] indaal.demon.co.uk>,
Malcolm <Malcolm [at] indaal.demon.co.uk> writes:
|>
|> >I believe that you can be prosecuted for destroying a ruddy duck's
|> >nest, on which the Men From The Ministry have just shot the duck.
|> >
|> Your belief is wrong.

Well, that's not what the government says on its Web pages. I should
have to go to the UL to read the Act to see if it is telling porkies or
you are. See paragraph 5 (legislative background) of :

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/em2004/uksiem_20041487_en.pdf


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

In article <9ViFxMZ6sgqEFw97 [at] indaal.demon.co.uk>,
Malcolm <Malcolm [at] indaal.demon.co.uk> writes:
|>
|> > http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/em2004/uksiem_20041487_en.pdf
|> >
|> I've read para 5, and the rest of the document, but haven't found
|> anything relevant to whether to not a ruddy duck's nest can legally be
|> destroyed. What part do you think is relevant?

What is it about "Section 1 of the Act makes it an offence to ... take,
damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird" that you don't understand?

|> Your belief that it is illegal to do so is still wrong

As I said, possibly. But, when you have made such claims, and I have
checked them up, 2/3 of the time it is I that have been correct and
you that have been wrong. I am disinclined to read the 1981 Act and
subsequent legislation just to prove this yet again.

If you can provide any clear evidence for your statement, don't let
me stop you.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

In article <95tFKfhEoiqEFwfD [at] indaal.demon.co.uk>,
Malcolm <Malcolm [at] indaal.demon.co.uk> writes:
|>
|> >As I said, possibly. But, when you have made such claims, and I have
|> >checked them up, 2/3 of the time it is I that have been correct and
|> >you that have been wrong.
|>
|> Wow!!! Is this a first?? Nick McLaren admits he has been wrong :-)))

If you look it up, you will find that I usually do admit that I am wrong,
when I am. It might well, however, be a first for you.

|> I am happy to oblige. I know that you like to ridicule conservation and
|> conservation law, but on this occasion your attempt at doing so, by
|> claiming that "you can be prosecuted for destroying a ruddy duck's nest,
|> on which the Men From The Ministry have just shot the duck", has fallen
|> flat on its face.
|>
|> Have a look at:
|>
|> http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/ewd/ruddylicenc e.pdf
|>
|> and note that it has been extended annually since.

Thank you for providing evidence that I am correct.

If you are an employee, guest, relative or whatever of the owner/occupier,
the latter has authorised the Men From The Ministry to shoot the ruddy
duck, but has not explicitly authorised you to do the same, you escort
them there to do the job, and then remove the corpse and nest, you can
then be prosecuted.

Indeed, under English law, it is likely that this could happen even if
the owner/occupier attempts to authorise you retrospectively, as there is
a general principle that retrospective actions cannot cancel criminal
charges. That would have to be clarified in the High Court or above.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

This is a repost, because I had understated my response earlier.

In article <95tFKfhEoiqEFwfD [at] indaal.demon.co.uk>,
Malcolm <Malcolm [at] indaal.demon.co.uk> writes:
|>
|> >As I said, possibly. But, when you have made such claims, and I have
|> >checked them up, 2/3 of the time it is I that have been correct and
|> >you that have been wrong.
|>
|> Wow!!! Is this a first?? Nick McLaren admits he has been wrong :-)))

If you look it up, you will find that I usually do admit that I am wrong,
when I am. It might well, however, be a first for you.

|> I am happy to oblige. I know that you like to ridicule conservation and
|> conservation law, but on this occasion your attempt at doing so, by
|> claiming that "you can be prosecuted for destroying a ruddy duck's nest,
|> on which the Men From The Ministry have just shot the duck", has fallen
|> flat on its face.
|>
|> Have a look at:
|>
|> http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/ewd/ruddylicenc e.pdf
|>
|> and note that it has been extended annually since.

Thank you for providing evidence that I am correct.

If you the Men From The Ministry have a licence to shoot the ruddy
duck, but you have not, you escort them there to do the job, and then
remove the corpse and nest, you can then be prosecuted. As far as
this rule goes.

That does assume that it is a crime for the owner/occupier to destroy
a nest without a licence. If that is not the case (as it wasn't before
1981), then the following applies.

If you are an employee, guest, relative or whatever of the owner/occupier,
the latter has authorised the Men From The Ministry to shoot the ruddy
duck, but has not explicitly authorised you to do the same, you escort
them there to do the job, and then remove the corpse and nest, you can
then be prosecuted.

Indeed, under English law, it is likely that this could happen even if
the owner/occupier attempts to authorise you retrospectively, as there is
a general principle that retrospective actions cannot cancel criminal
charges. That would have to be clarified in the High Court or above.



Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

In article <Yo7cuqDdgrqEFwK8 [at] indaal.demon.co.uk>,
Malcolm <Malcolm [at] indaal.demon.co.uk> writes:
|>
|> Another fanciful scenario which would not happen. As I expected, you
|> have decided to try and wriggle out of your previous claim that you
|> could "be prosecuted for destroying a ruddy duck's nest, on which the
|> Men From The Ministry have just shot the duck".

Do you REALLY not know the difference between "could be prosecuted" and
"would be prosecuted"?

That might explain a lot about your postings.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Nick Maclaren" <nmm1 [at] cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:e8ebpo$ov1$1 [at] gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
> This is a repost, because I had understated my response earlier.
>
> In article <95tFKfhEoiqEFwfD [at] indaal.demon.co.uk>,
> Malcolm <Malcolm [at] indaal.demon.co.uk> writes:
> |>
> |> >As I said, possibly. But, when you have made such claims, and I have
> |> >checked them up, 2/3 of the time it is I that have been correct and
> |> >you that have been wrong.
> |>
> |> Wow!!! Is this a first?? Nick McLaren admits he has been wrong :-)))
>
> If you look it up, you will find that I usually do admit that I am wrong,
> when I am. It might well, however, be a first for you.
>
> |> I am happy to oblige. I know that you like to ridicule conservation and
> |> conservation law, but on this occasion your attempt at doing so, by
> |> claiming that "you can be prosecuted for destroying a ruddy duck's
nest,
> |> on which the Men From The Ministry have just shot the duck", has fallen
> |> flat on its face.
> |>
> |> Have a look at:
> |>
> |> http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/ewd/ruddylicenc e.pdf
> |>
> |> and note that it has been extended annually since.
>
> Thank you for providing evidence that I am correct.
>
> If you the Men From The Ministry have a licence to shoot the ruddy
> duck, but you have not, you escort them there to do the job, and then
> remove the corpse and nest, you can then be prosecuted. As far as
> this rule goes.
>
> That does assume that it is a crime for the owner/occupier to destroy
> a nest without a licence. If that is not the case (as it wasn't before
> 1981), then the following applies.
>
> If you are an employee, guest, relative or whatever of the owner/occupier,
> the latter has authorised the Men From The Ministry to shoot the ruddy
> duck, but has not explicitly authorised you to do the same, you escort
> them there to do the job, and then remove the corpse and nest, you can
> then be prosecuted.
>
> Indeed, under English law, it is likely that this could happen even if
> the owner/occupier attempts to authorise you retrospectively, as there is
> a general principle that retrospective actions cannot cancel criminal
> charges. That would have to be clarified in the High Court or above.
>
>

Hopefully, no-one would seek to waste the High Court's time over such a
matter. It would probably be reasonable to assume, in the circumstances
described, that the agent had the authorised person's consent, implicit or
explicit, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Why would an
authorised person wish his agent to accompany/guide the shooters to the cull
site, to kill the unfortunate ducks, but not to participate in the
removal/destruction of the nests/eggs?

Perhaps so he can trick him into being prosecuted and convicted and subject
to instant dismissal? A cunning stunt :-)

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

In message <313030303930323944A993DA11 [at] zetnet.co.uk>, Janet Baraclough
<janet.and.john [at] zetnet.co.uk> writes
>The message <44a92e14$0$912$4c56ba96 [at] master.news.zetnet.net>
>from "Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher [at] zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
>
>
>> Don't be intimidated by them. Three metres isn't high and if it's to their
>> north, as you say it's not blocking light.
>
> How can you tell, without seeing it? It's perfectly possible for a
>tree, (or wall, or shed) to block light from a nearby groundfloor
>window, making rooms dark. North-facing rooms and windows are more, not
>less, vulnerable to light loss.
>
> Janet
>
My neighbour has just lopped of the top several feet of his cypresses (I
think they're Lawson, rather than Leyland), lying NNW of my property. I
was surprised how much more light this lets in.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

In article <1152040453.9846.0 [at] proxy00.news.clara.net>,
"BAC" <casswalk [at] NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> writes:
|>
|> > Indeed, under English law, it is likely that this could happen even if
|> > the owner/occupier attempts to authorise you retrospectively, as there is
|> > a general principle that retrospective actions cannot cancel criminal
|> > charges. That would have to be clarified in the High Court or above.
|>
|> Hopefully, no-one would seek to waste the High Court's time over such a
|> matter. It would probably be reasonable to assume, in the circumstances
|> described, that the agent had the authorised person's consent, implicit or
|> explicit, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. ...

No, you have missed the point. Twice.

The danger with such laws that rely on reasonable people not
enforcing them is that it gives arbitrary scope for bullying by
authority. If you ever read the newspapers, you will see almost
daily evidence of such abuse.

If such a case came to court, it would be the High Court that would
overturn the conviction - if the person concerned did not take it that
far, his conviction would stand. And he would have to pay for that,
and be classed as a criminal until then.

Remember that magistrates are not allowed to use the justification of
"de minimis non curat lex" to quash charges - judges are, though recent
changes mean that even they can be overruled. And that even a case
before the magistrates resulting in acquital is stress and expense,
and damaging to someone's reputation.

|> Perhaps so he can trick him into being prosecuted and convicted and subject
|> to instant dismissal? A cunning stunt :-)

Well, yes, but I am thinking of the more likely scenario of a person
not grovelling appropriately to the Men From The Ministry or the police
and being prosecuted out of malice. That happens regrettably often with
our current "catch all" laws.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Stewart Robert Hinsley" <{$news$} [at] meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:LKlFqYcKjsqEFwat [at] meden.invalid...
> In message <313030303930323944A993DA11 [at] zetnet.co.uk>, Janet Baraclough
> <janet.and.john [at] zetnet.co.uk> writes
>>The message <44a92e14$0$912$4c56ba96 [at] master.news.zetnet.net>
>>from "Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher [at] zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
>>
>>
>>> Don't be intimidated by them. Three metres isn't high and if it's to
>>> their
>>> north, as you say it's not blocking light.
>>
>> How can you tell, without seeing it? It's perfectly possible for a
>>tree, (or wall, or shed) to block light from a nearby groundfloor
>>window, making rooms dark. North-facing rooms and windows are more, not
>>less, vulnerable to light loss.
>>
>> Janet
>>
> My neighbour has just lopped of the top several feet of his cypresses (I
> think they're Lawson, rather than Leyland), lying NNW of my property. I
> was surprised how much more light this lets in.

I agree.

But rhe OP said, "citing that it's blocking their sunlight (I don't agree,
as it's to the
North of them - if anything, it blocks my sunlight).

Sunlight.

Mary

> --
> Stewart Robert Hinsley

"Nick Maclaren" <nmm1 [at] cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:e8ejt1$b7a$1 [at] gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
> In article <1152040453.9846.0 [at] proxy00.news.clara.net>,
> "BAC" <casswalk [at] NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> writes:
> |>
> |> > Indeed, under English law, it is likely that this could happen even
if
> |> > the owner/occupier attempts to authorise you retrospectively, as
there is
> |> > a general principle that retrospective actions cannot cancel criminal
> |> > charges. That would have to be clarified in the High Court or above.
> |>
> |> Hopefully, no-one would seek to waste the High Court's time over such a
> |> matter. It would probably be reasonable to assume, in the circumstances
> |> described, that the agent had the authorised person's consent, implicit
or
> |> explicit, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. ...
>
> No, you have missed the point. Twice.
>
> The danger with such laws that rely on reasonable people not
> enforcing them is that it gives arbitrary scope for bullying by
> authority. If you ever read the newspapers, you will see almost
> daily evidence of such abuse.

Perhaps so, but in the example you quoted, unless the onus of proof were
reversed, it seems unlikely that any malicious jack-in-office would have
sufficient evidence to have a realistic chance of a conviction.

>
> If such a case came to court, it would be the High Court that would
> overturn the conviction - if the person concerned did not take it that
> far, his conviction would stand. And he would have to pay for that,
> and be classed as a criminal until then.

In the extremely unlikely event he would be prosecuted/convicted in the
first place. If/when challenged over his actions, he responds, my actions
were authorised by the 'authorised person'. The 'authorised person' confirms
that was the case. No prosecution ensues, and if it does, the accused is
surely aquitted.

>
> Remember that magistrates are not allowed to use the justification of
> "de minimis non curat lex" to quash charges - judges are, though recent
> changes mean that even they can be overruled. And that even a case
> before the magistrates resulting in acquital is stress and expense,
> and damaging to someone's reputation.

It's also embarassing and dangerous to reputation of jacks in office to be
seen to bring malicious prosecutions.

>
> |> Perhaps so he can trick him into being prosecuted and convicted and
subject
> |> to instant dismissal? A cunning stunt :-)
>
> Well, yes, but I am thinking of the more likely scenario of a person
> not grovelling appropriately to the Men From The Ministry or the police
> and being prosecuted out of malice. That happens regrettably often with
> our current "catch all" laws.
>

It may well happen, but I doubt it would in the circumstances you described,
because AFAIK, there is no requirement for the 'authorised person' to
authorise people to act on his behalf in writing or in public. Hence a
copper bottomed defence (prior verbal authorisation) is almost certainly
available, and prosecution would therefore seem very unlikely.

Jack in office would probably find a different charge with which to torment
his opponenet, e.g. cruelty in not disposing of chicks in nest in an
appropriately humane manner, or taking eggs with the intention to trade in
them.

In article <1152106714.767.0 [at] demeter.uk.clara.net>,
"BAC" <casswalk [at] NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> writes:
|>
|> Perhaps so, but in the example you quoted, unless the onus of proof were
|> reversed, it seems unlikely that any malicious jack-in-office would have
|> sufficient evidence to have a realistic chance of a conviction.

Grrk. Maybe. But a lot of people HAVE been convicted on less evidence
recently, because they fell foul of the letter of a catch-all law. If
he pisses off the Men From The Ministry, he is likely to piss off the
police and magistrates, and get convicted.

That is what happened to the person who had his career destroyed because
he did a quick check to see if he had been trapped into using a Web-
based card number collector.

|> In the extremely unlikely event he would be prosecuted/convicted in the
|> first place. If/when challenged over his actions, he responds, my actions
|> were authorised by the 'authorised person'. The 'authorised person' confirms
|> that was the case. No prosecution ensues, and if it does, the accused is
|> surely aquitted.

Fine. IF he realises is what is going on. What if they say to him:
Were you told to remove the nest after we killed the bird.
And he says:
No, but I am tidying up the mess you have made.

|> It's also embarassing and dangerous to reputation of jacks in office to be
|> seen to bring malicious prosecutions.

Only if their superiors get annoyed with them. A hell of a lot of the
artificial cases have been backed by their superiors - did you hear of
the woman fined 70 (?) quid for throwing a Cheerio onto a grass verge?

|> It may well happen, but I doubt it would in the circumstances you described,
|> because AFAIK, there is no requirement for the 'authorised person' to
|> authorise people to act on his behalf in writing or in public. Hence a
|> copper bottomed defence (prior verbal authorisation) is almost certainly
|> available, and prosecution would therefore seem very unlikely.

Oh, yes, unless he had already annoyed them by not being sufficiently
obsequious, and they trapped him by a conversation like the above.

|> Jack in office would probably find a different charge with which to torment
|> his opponenet, e.g. cruelty in not disposing of chicks in nest in an
|> appropriately humane manner, or taking eggs with the intention to trade in
|> them.

True. But my point never was that this particular law was going to
lead to a stream of malicious convictions, so much as correcting
Malcolm Ogilvie's false claims.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Nick Maclaren" <nmm1 [at] cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:e8gs3l$84c$1 [at] gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
> In article <1152106714.767.0 [at] demeter.uk.clara.net>,
> "BAC" <casswalk [at] NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> writes:
> |>
> |> Perhaps so, but in the example you quoted, unless the onus of proof
were
> |> reversed, it seems unlikely that any malicious jack-in-office would
have
> |> sufficient evidence to have a realistic chance of a conviction.
>
> Grrk. Maybe. But a lot of people HAVE been convicted on less evidence
> recently, because they fell foul of the letter of a catch-all law. If
> he pisses off the Men From The Ministry, he is likely to piss off the
> police and magistrates, and get convicted.

The sort of cases you have in mind, I think, are ones where either it cannot
(successfully) be denied that an illegal action was taken (e.g. when one is
observed dropping 'litter' by a council nark), or, worse in my opinion, when
any action becomes an offence if it is an offence in the opinion of a
policeman (e.g. taking a bite out of an apple whilst driving one's car
becomes driving without due care if a policeman sees you doing it and thinks
it is). In those cases, I agree, you are almost certainly stuffed, and the
more you complain, the more the control freaks who have victimised you will
like it.

>
> That is what happened to the person who had his career destroyed because
> he did a quick check to see if he had been trapped into using a Web-
> based card number collector.
>
> |> In the extremely unlikely event he would be prosecuted/convicted in the
> |> first place. If/when challenged over his actions, he responds, my
actions
> |> were authorised by the 'authorised person'. The 'authorised person'
confirms
> |> that was the case. No prosecution ensues, and if it does, the accused
is
> |> surely aquitted.
>
> Fine. IF he realises is what is going on. What if they say to him:
> Were you told to remove the nest after we killed the bird.
> And he says:
> No, but I am tidying up the mess you have made.

That would mean nothing unless he had been cautioned, and, if he had been
cautioned, one would hope he had the commonsense to take advice before
saying anything at all.

>
> |> It's also embarassing and dangerous to reputation of jacks in office to
be
> |> seen to bring malicious prosecutions.
>
> Only if their superiors get annoyed with them. A hell of a lot of the
> artificial cases have been backed by their superiors - did you hear of
> the woman fined 70 (?) quid for throwing a Cheerio onto a grass verge?

Yes, and people who have put out food for birds have also been prosecuted.
At least they weren't shot ...

>
> |> It may well happen, but I doubt it would in the circumstances you
described,
> |> because AFAIK, there is no requirement for the 'authorised person' to
> |> authorise people to act on his behalf in writing or in public. Hence a
> |> copper bottomed defence (prior verbal authorisation) is almost
certainly
> |> available, and prosecution would therefore seem very unlikely.
>
> Oh, yes, unless he had already annoyed them by not being sufficiently
> obsequious, and they trapped him by a conversation like the above.

I'll concede it is possible for a person to abuse power out of personal
spite - which of us has not experienced something similar? But this
'offence' requires proof, which, unless the intended victim is very unlucky,
or naive, or both, would be very difficult to obtain.

>
> |> Jack in office would probably find a different charge with which to
torment
> |> his opponenet, e.g. cruelty in not disposing of chicks in nest in an
> |> appropriately humane manner, or taking eggs with the intention to trade
in
> |> them.
>
> True. But my point never was that this particular law was going to
> lead to a stream of malicious convictions, so much as correcting
> Malcolm Ogilvie's false claims.
>

I forgot that you and Malcolm had 'history' - I apologise to you both for
trespassing.

I thought you were implying it was likely that people assisting 'authorised
persons' might be prosecuted, a scenario which, although possible in
exceptional circumstances, strikes me as highly unlikely.

In article <1152122789.88421.0 [at] despina.uk.clara.net>,
"BAC" <casswalk [at] NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> writes:
|>
|> > Fine. IF he realises is what is going on. What if they say to him:
|> > Were you told to remove the nest after we killed the bird.
|> > And he says:
|> > No, but I am tidying up the mess you have made.
|>
|> That would mean nothing unless he had been cautioned, and, if he had been
|> cautioned, one would hope he had the commonsense to take advice before
|> saying anything at all.

Actually, no! That is true ONLY if those people were policemen - not
if they were not. Bizarre but true.

|> I forgot that you and Malcolm had 'history' - I apologise to you both for
|> trespassing.

Oh, please do. You have never deliberately misquoted me.

|> I thought you were implying it was likely that people assisting 'authorised
|> persons' might be prosecuted, a scenario which, although possible in
|> exceptional circumstances, strikes me as highly unlikely.

No, I think that is really implausible, and they would have a pretty
solid defence.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

And just 'what' have the last 20 odd posts got to do with giving a sensible
answer to the original post??
Why not try arguing it out in a 'legal' NG.
--
ßôyþëtë

ijcornish [at] googlemail.com wrote:
> I have a tree (Ok, Lleylandi sp?) I desperately need to trim the top
> off. However, there is a birds nest about half way up it (way below
> where I intend to chop). Nest appears to be vacant, but I cannot be
> certain. I think the birds are starlings.
>
> Is there any time I can safely assume the nest would be vacant in
> order to perform the appropriate chopping of the tree?

My belief has always been that trees should be 'pruned' in autumn, when the
sap stops rising.
If you inform neighbour of this, plus you need to be sure nest is vacant,
surely he will understand?
If he doesn't, I expect it will take longer than that for him to get to
court........assuming he can find a solicitor who doesn't fall around
guffawing :)
--
ßôyþëtë

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)