Jump to content

PeterHenry

Members
  • Posts

    328
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

1,474 profile views
  1. Cheers, that looked like a bargin - shame its sold. I'll trying contacting Yorkshire Gun Room and see what they have đź‘Ť
  2. Hi All, I'm part way though purchasing (more or less by accident) the second gun that makes up a pair of AYA no.2's with 26 inch barrels. I'm looking for a case for them - in the past, for my other guns I've either tracked down contemporary cases or bought canvas Brady ones. Unfortunatly, Brady dont seem to have made any double cases that I can see. With the market being what it is right now, the AYA's were something of a bargain, so dont want to go and spend a fortune on a case. I've been looking at the Guardian Viscount range, which as far as I can tell is made from real leather, as opposed to canvas or PU leather. I'm still not totaly sold on the quality from what I have read though. Idealy, what I would like is a double canvas AYA case for a pair of 26" guns like the one I let slip though my fingers about a year ago..... Any ideas or sugestions appreciated.
  3. I'd say it was to keep fair weather pigeon shooters out - which seems sensible if the club is going to stay on the good side of the farmers who's fields they shoot over.
  4. To / from a certian sort of person, that's absolutly withering.
  5. Just thought I'd resurrect this thread to say that I've got my hands on a nice bright orange 'olympic 6' and its works a treat. Pigeons were getting up for fields around - for anyone who's concerned about the genreal licences, I wouldent hesitate to recommend one.
  6. Its Peter that retired - John still runs the shop and does the work on the guns. They were always shut Mondays and Tuesdays, even before Peter retired - certainly for the 15 or so years I've been going. I couldn't recommend them enough - they (John) do all the work on my guns and I'm fusy as hell. They have had three generations of my familys custom now - I cant given them any higher praise than that.
  7. I'm willing to concede that you and CharlieT are right. I've looked at it again, I've searched the list of secondary legislation and I cant find that the genreal licences are included. I still say that if the GL's were secondary legislation, they would grant a further right under certain circumstances as I outlined. But as far as I can now tell, they are just licence's granted by the Secretary of State under the powers of the Wlidlife and Countryside Act, as opposed to statutory instruments, or other secondry legislation, bought into being under the powers of the Act. Hands up - I got it wrong. I'd ask the mods to consider if they want to keep this topic up, or delete it in case of any potential confusion it may cause anyone who happens to come across it - or if it was only me who was confused from the start.
  8. Sorry, crossed wires - that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the general licence (gl42) as a piece of secondary legislation seems to grant occupiers as defined by the Wildlife and Countryside Act the right to allow pigeon shooting, in the instance that they have an agricultural tenancy under the agricultural holdings act, that relies solely upon the statutory terms and so is therefore silent on the subject of shooting. I'm not saying gl42 grants occupiers the right to allow pigeon shooting when the tennency expressly forbids is - only in the case where there is a vacuum in the agreement (most probably) due to it relying on the infered terms of the agricultural holdings act. I think that's potentially a fairly substantial grey area.
  9. That's a bit like saying your going to get your profesional acquaintance who's a photographer to photograph your wedding. Or your freindly acquaintance who is a brick layer to put up the extension to your house. The answer is probably going to be yes, but you will pay for the privillage. If you are happy with your arrangements, that's fine by me. But as we were all caught off guard by the general licence fiasco, its hardly a disservice to bring to pepoles attention potentially shakey ground - especially if they are planning to shoot over it.
  10. Regardless of my legal hat being amateur or not, which is a debatable matter in itself.... Under a statutory tenancy with only the basic statutory terms under the Agricultural Holdings Act (as mentioned before) there is no right to designate pigeon shooting by default for the purpose of the Act. It has to be done in writing. A lot of these tennency agreements were effectively fallen into - because if you let a field to a farmer, it automatically fell under the statutory terms during a certain time period. So - that leaves us in the possition of a strong and reasonable piece of primary legislation that spells out the rights and wrongs. However, the general licences (as far as I can tell) are statutory instruments issued by the relevent security of state - this makes them secondary legislation. Now, I would be inclined to think (as I can vaguely remember being taught when I studied law) that there is an order to things - and in this case it may well be that (as I seem to remember) more recent legislation trumps older legislation. If this was the case, the secondry legislation created by virtue of the wildlife and countryside act (gl42 for present purposes) would trump the agricultual holdings act. This would (if true) be supported by virtue of the licences being reissued (now) every year. However, there is a serious democratic deficit in the system if secondry legislation (made by a government minister and not put to a vote) upspurs primarily legislation (made by parliament as a whole). That aside, because for the purposes of the present conversation whether or not something is democratic is irrelevant, I would be tempted to think, on the balance of things that the general licenses (probably unintentionally) override the agricultural holdings act. I personally think this feels wrong, but my feelings are by the by. However, if that is the case then an argument could be happily made that the Agricultual Holdings Act overrides in part the Ground Game Act of 1880.... but yet pepole still qoute that as good law.... Such things are court cases made of Hahaha, I would never think of the citizens of pigeon watch poor and uneducated. Although - as I am sure you (and everyone will) also feel - occasionally someone will post something that on a personal level we feel is utter dross - this forum remains a relative bastion of good sense and helpful individuals. Although I dont post a great deal, I spend a significant amount of my time browsing and for the most part am taken back by the lucidity of the place compared to other forums. My point is that in certain situations there may well be a significant ambiguity as to whether you have the right to shoot somewhere. And I, for one (especially in this day and age), like to know I am on firm legal ground when I'm holding a gun in my hands.
  11. I'm not - I'm concerned regarding the apparent contradiction between two pieces of legislation. This is footnote 4 of the current GL42 - 'Authorised person’ is defined in section 27(1) of the 1981 Act. It includes the owner or occupier of the land on which action authorised by this licence is to be taken, or any person authorised by the owner or occupier.' Reading that, it seems to me to be an explicit licence to the owner or occupier of the land, subject to whatever clauses are contained in the licence and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. ------- Section 27(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to which the above refers - '27 Interpretation of Part I.E+W (1) In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires— (...) “authorised person” means— (a) the owner or occupier, or any person authorised by the owner or occupier, of the land on which the action authorised is taken; (b) any person authorised in writing by the local authority for the area within which the action authorised is taken; (...)' That does not sit in any comfortable way with Section 20 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1985 that only mentions a right to compensation in the event the occupier does not have written permission to shoot.
  12. I agree - it would be a strange owner who wished that the farmer had no protection for his crops - but in the case of tenant who lives miles away, and an owner who lives on the doorstep and runs a shoot over the land, you could see why they would wish to prevent too many people shooting over the land. Also, largely in agreement, see below - So, the nature of an agricultural tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1985 effectivly means it can be inferred, and does not require a written agreement to form a tenancy protected by statute. These can span generations and as such landowners can be locked into them through no doing of their own. They are also not as uncommon as you would think - when the act was fully in force, you could literally fall into them and some of the more unscrupulous farmers (god bless them) used this to their advantage. The 1985 Act contains the below, in the case of the tennency being unwritten, or not covering what you could broadly call sporting rights (inclusive of pigeon shooting in this case, as far as I can tell) Compensation for damage by game (1)Where the tenant of an agricultural holding has sustained damage to his crops from any wild animals or birds the right to Mil and take which is vested in the landlord or anyone (other man the tenant himself) claiming under the landlord, being animals or birds which the tenant has not permission in writing to kill, he shall, if he complies with the requirements of subsection (2) below, be entitled to compensation from his landlord for the damage. (2)The requirements of this subsection are that the tenant shall give his landlord— (a)notice in writing within one month after the tenant first became, or ought reasonably to have become, aware of the occurrence of the damage, (b)a reasonable opportunity to inspect the damage— (i)in the case of damage to a growing crop, before the crop is begun to be reaped, raised or consumed, and (ii)in the case of damage to a crop which has been reaped or raised, before the crop is begun to be removed from the land, and (c)notice in writing of the claim, together with particulars of it, within one month after the expiry of the year in respect of which the claim is made. As far as I can tell, this suggests that in the case of there being no written permision held by the tennent, he is only entitled to compensation - and cannot allow pepole to shoot (anything other than rabbits and even then only under the strict terms of the Ground Game Act 1880). What it doesn't do though, is sit very well with the terms of the current general licence, which states that 'owners' and 'occupies (subject to the provisions of the GL) can authorize people to shoot pigeions - and that's really the crux of my point. My personal issue aside (and although for the moment things for most people tend to work fine in practice, as did the old general license) - theres the possibility for a lot of members on this forum to regularly be committing armed tresspass and poaching, albeit without knowing.
  13. You havent seen the contracts some farmers have - some of them allow them to pass the tenancy on for three generation's* and theres very little the Landowner can do about it from a legal perspective,** without potentially incuring some hefty compensation that goes in the direction of the farmer. *two generation's - so three generation in all, counting the original farmer.
  14. Section 8 - 8 Interpretation clause. For the purposes of this Act— The words “ground game” mean hares and rabbits. I agree - it's a can of worms, and potentially quite worrying if you think about it.
  15. As a firm we dont tend to deal with sporting rights. I've no urge fall out with anyone over it, I just wondered if the collective mind of pigeon watch had come across it before.
Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...