Changes To The General Licence

[lancer425]

32 minutes ago, Bazooka Joe said:

First I've heard, got a link..?

Its in the application form. 3 per area as i see it. on a phone at min so cant add it here. But person 1 person 2 person 3 . And they are not wanting young shots without specific written permission, its anti gun not protecting birds at all Police say who should shoot and landowners who they allow. any number.  This is not going to work. 

(9.) Authorised Individuals

*Will any additional authorised individuals / accredited agents
be required to act under this license?
Yes
No
.
(EPS only) N/A
If ‘Yes’, for each additional authorised individual / accredited agent, please complete the details below. If ‘No’ please go to the
next section.
Person 1
Person 2
Person 3
*Title:
*Forename:
Middle Name:
*Surname:
House No.:
*Address Line 1:
*Address Line 2:
Address Line 3:
Town:
*County:
*Postcode:
Please note: The licensee and anyone acting under the licence are responsible for their actions and for complying with the
licence conditions. In addition, no-one under the age of 18 may be authorised by the licensee without specific written permission

Edited April 30, 2019 by lancer425

[Mice!]

10 minutes ago, Dougy said:

We got  500,000 plus turn up to support the hunt,  in 1998 there was a devide then from a few thousand shooters who didn't feel it would have affected them. 

I wonder what the number would be if there was march round to Packams??? 

Or even the city again

probably about the same i imagine, with little interest shown by the general public. Multiple demos across the country causing peaceful disturbance might do more good raising more awareness of how we the law abiding shooters are being discriminated against.

[Bazooka Joe]

8 minutes ago, lancer425 said:

Its in the application form. 3 per area as i see it. on a phone at min so cant add it here.

Ta...haven't read it properly TBH, just flicked through it & obviously missed that bit...

[yickdaz]

37 minutes ago, lancer425 said:

Its in the application form. 3 per area as i see it. on a phone at min so cant add it here. But person 1 person 2 person 3 . And they are not wanting young shots without specific written permission, its anti gun not protecting birds at all Police say who should shoot and landowners who they allow. any number.  This is not going to work. 

(9.) Authorised Individuals

*Will any additional authorised individuals / accredited agents
be required to act under this license?
Yes
No
.
(EPS only) N/A
If ‘Yes’, for each additional authorised individual / accredited agent, please complete the details below. If ‘No’ please go to the
next section.
Person 1
Person 2
Person 3
*Title:
*Forename:
Middle Name:
*Surname:
House No.:
*Address Line 1:
*Address Line 2:
Address Line 3:
Town:
*County:
*Postcode:
Please note: The licensee and anyone acting under the licence are responsible for their actions and for complying with the
licence conditions. In addition, no-one under the age of 18 may be authorised by the licensee without specific written permission

its getting complicated and just downright stupid now 

[lancer425]

11 minutes ago, yickdaz said:

its getting complicated and just downright stupid now 

It is indeed but none of this is a forgone conclusion just yet, we need to wait and see what happens, BASC  are being involved to some degree with regards these licences and if Ne do what they said they would we should know what we are playing with by the weekend. 

BASCs Ian Bell.

 

[Konnie]

9 hours ago, SurreySquireler said:

I have applied just to control magpies, Jays, Crows and jackdoors in the garden, to prevent damage to "Flora and Fauna". I quoted all the song birds we have regularly and then emailed in the application. As of yet I have had nothing back; not even a message saying the application was received.

Having sent in the application I can't even continue to shoot them as there is no risk of "serious damage to crops or livestock" so I am not covered by the clause that says if you apply then you can shoot until the licence is issued as protection of Flora and Fauna isn't covered.

If you require lethal control to be carried out before the determination of your licence application then you may not commit an offence provided that you do the following.

You must be able to show that your action is necessary for the purpose of:

• preserving public health or public safety or air safety;
• preventing the spread of disease; or
• preventing serious damage to livestock, their foodstuffs, crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber, fisheries or inland waters. You must also be able to show that there was no other satisfactory solution available for preventing such serious damage.

With regards to the data, I don't think it is any more risky than them having our contact details for licencing: if the data is vulnerable to a leak from NE then I think it is probably vulnerable to a leak from the police. When I go in to the doctors for a jab ect in my notes it comes up on their screen that I am a shotgun certificate holder: so I think the data is probably rather more widely available than you might think!

So I would at the moment as long as I show I have tried methods of moving them have more scope  to control trouble species than if I applied.

 

Many thanks. 

[old'un]

40 minutes ago, Konnie said:

So I would at the moment as long as I show I have tried methods of moving them have more scope  to control trouble species than if I applied.

 

Many thanks. 

No, you would not.

[old man]

8 hours ago, Mice! said:

probably about the same i imagine, with little interest shown by the general public. Multiple demos across the country causing peaceful disturbance might do more good raising more awareness of how we the law abiding shooters are being discriminated against.

Mm, not sure of that, looking around the neighbours here 95% would, I think stop us going out?

Alcohol, day time TV, visiting the doctors, feeding squirrels and crows, holiday and eating out seem to be the order of life?

[old man]

We have to face facts, it's an absolute fiasco and legal minefield, with NE terrified of the next challenge and clueless how to dig themselves out of the hole they have made? 

They need clearing out from top to bottom starting with Gove, but the correct thing never happens at their level?

[oldypigeonpopper]

hello, i am sure this is already affecting gun shops and cartridge sellers all over the UK, let alone this coming pheasant shooting season and farmers who rely on crop protection by responsible shooting, has anyone applied and received a permit yet, i registered but never received any acknowledgement, i think if this drags on unless a compromise is reached with N E and a more simple process is given to apply there will be very few of us shooting this year, or am i being cynical !!!!!!!

[bostonmick]

So where are we at now. We have on one side an egotistical attention seeker that is raising his profile by looking for what he considers loopholes to be exploited for his own gain. And then we have those who have been temporarily disrupted by his actions. It seems to me that by posting all manner of comments good or otherwise about Mr p. Some are giving him exactly what he wants. At a time when a new series which he is part of comes to air you are giving him exposure all over social media and allowing him to make up any stories about death threats dead crows on gates that he wishes to and in the full knowledge that the public will readily believe. And a lot of these people would not have known who or what he was and even less cared. Now his viewing figures will rise due to the publicity and as a knock on so will his income. We should all totally ignore him and his part in this and aim our attention to N. E. And all of the organisations that claim to support the countryside and its way of life. Aim your emails and letters at them for their failings from before and after this fiasco. Leave the other side out of it all together whereby not giving him what he craves most. I would also add that now farmers will no doubt be hit financially by all of this that any approached by TV companies wanting to film on their land take the appropriate view and refuse. The quickest and surest way to get a TV channel to drop something or somebody is to push them down the ratings. So let's all concentrate on those who claim to be there to protect our interests and rights to come up with more than a stiffly worded letter here and there and show us some of this expertise they claim to have. 

Edited May 1, 2019 by bostonmick

[old'un]

Looks like Avery is now saying any new licences should take into consideration the approach of the RSPB and its control methods.

He states that no lethal control of Magpie, Rook, Jackdaw or Jay, took place on RSPB reserves, he singled out the Magpie as one of the birds being shot only to protect game birds, he is using the excuse that the RSPB have not killed any Magpie’s to protect song birds….https://community.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/b/martinharper/posts/the-conservationist-39-s-dilemma-an-update-on-the-science-policy-and-practice-of-the-impact-of-predators-on-wild-birds-5

 

 

Avery blog, Magpie near the bottom of page…https://markavery.info/blog/

[Miserableolgit]

While the initial outrage over the way NE managed both  the old GL's, the way WJ was able to spot their flaws and subsequent shambolic drip drip of unworkable replacements is still there,  momentum over how "we" respond seems to be slowing as people vent their anger and frustration in multiple postings across social media and online forums. Whenever CP pipes up there is an inevitable peak in comment but "we" seem to be waiting for the next GL edict to be handed down. This is inevitably a defensive position with a reliance on the / "our" various representative bodies to lobby and cajole Gove & NE to see reason and come up with something better. This is frustrating and always sets "us" on the back foot - being reactive instead of proactive. This inevitably causes frustration and some anger - the challenge is how to effectively challenge  so that "we" are not just reaching out aongst ourselves but also to the wider body of people - the public.

Yes I know I'm waffling but all the talk here, there and everywhere leaves me feeling that we are still floundering about and can't quite  hit upon an effective way forward that sees "us" being more in control of our own destinies - as opposed to being reactive to any minor celebrity, charity director or hack that has the idea of crowd funding legal challenges.

Crowd funding legal challenges ....now there's a thought. Could an effective and crowd funded legal team make a case against the new GL's being flawed and unworkable rather in the same manner that WJ found loopholes in the old GL's. Would an independent crowd funded initiative with a snappy title provide another way to attack our attackers especially if they worked in conjunction with existing campaigning / representative bodies? Just thinking out loud here...

I'm not going to attack or criticise our representative bodies here either as that plays into the hands of our attackers. Seriously, infighting and moaning achieves sweet fanny Adams other than to vent and sound off. In this respect change needs to happen from within, not by attacking from the outside. Nor does adopting the line that "someone must do something" as the fact is we should ALL be fighting back and stealing the initiative from those who choose to attack us.

Just a few rambling thoughts over a cuppa.

 

[JohnfromUK]

9 minutes ago, Miserableolgit said:

Crowd funding legal challenges ....now there's a thought. Could an effective and crowd funded legal team make a case against the new GL's being flawed and unworkable rather in the same manner that WJ found loopholes in the old GL's. Would an independent crowd funded initiative with a snappy title provide another way to attack our attackers especially if they worked in conjunction with existing campaigning / representative bodies?

Whilst crowd funding has a place in some matters, I don't think it is appropriate here - for two main reasons;

1. Natural England (NE) are a publicly funded body - paid for out of our taxes.  We should NOT have to pay again elsewhere (to legal teams or whoever) to get a decent level of service from them.  They should be answerable to a minister - who is (as a government member) answerable to Parliament.
2. We already have our representative bodies ..... who have funds, and are currently working (I hope with a common voice if not fully 'together') on reviewing and challenging NE where appropriate.  NE should be listening to their representations (BASC, CA, NFU, NGO and any others who are involved).  If NE had talked to them before going off at the deep end, then the current situation would be a 'managed work in progress' issue of considered updates rather than an 'out and out crisis' of panic, suspend and start again.

15 minutes ago, Miserableolgit said:

I'm not going to attack or criticise our representative bodies here either as that plays into the hands of our attackers.

I agree - and other than my comments above, I will only say that we are all looking to them to represent us.  The making of this mess is wholly NE's responsibility.  I hope our representative bodies can help them get out of the mess they have created.

[old'un]

23 minutes ago, Miserableolgit said:

While the initial outrage over the way NE managed both  the old GL's, the way WJ was able to spot their flaws and subsequent shambolic drip drip of unworkable replacements is still there,  momentum over how "we" respond seems to be slowing as people vent their anger and frustration in multiple postings across social media and online forums. Whenever CP pipes up there is an inevitable peak in comment but "we" seem to be waiting for the next GL edict to be handed down. This is inevitably a defensive position with a reliance on the / "our" various representative bodies to lobby and cajole Gove & NE to see reason and come up with something better. This is frustrating and always sets "us" on the back foot - being reactive instead of proactive. This inevitably causes frustration and some anger - the challenge is how to effectively challenge  so that "we" are not just reaching out aongst ourselves but also to the wider body of people - the public.

Yes I know I'm waffling but all the talk here, there and everywhere leaves me feeling that we are still floundering about and can't quite  hit upon an effective way forward that sees "us" being more in control of our own destinies - as opposed to being reactive to any minor celebrity, charity director or hack that has the idea of crowd funding legal challenges.

Crowd funding legal challenges ....now there's a thought. Could an effective and crowd funded legal team make a case against the new GL's being flawed and unworkable rather in the same manner that WJ found loopholes in the old GL's. Would an independent crowd funded initiative with a snappy title provide another way to attack our attackers especially if they worked in conjunction with existing campaigning / representative bodies? Just thinking out loud here...

I'm not going to attack or criticise our representative bodies here either as that plays into the hands of our attackers. Seriously, infighting and moaning achieves sweet fanny Adams other than to vent and sound off. In this respect change needs to happen from within, not by attacking from the outside. Nor does adopting the line that "someone must do something" as the fact is we should ALL be fighting back and stealing the initiative from those who choose to attack us.

Just a few rambling thoughts over a cuppa.

 

You are of course correct in saying we must be more proactive, the RSPB report on pest control on their reserves is one possibility.

Although the RSPB have killed avian pests on their reserve, there is no mention of the non-lethal methods used before the use of lethal methods, a possible chink in the Avery argument.

[Miserableolgit]

49 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Whilst crowd funding has a place in some matters, I don't think it is appropriate here - for two main reasons;

1. Natural England (NE) are a publicly funded body - paid for out of our taxes.  We should NOT have to pay again elsewhere (to legal teams or whoever) to get a decent level of service from them.  They should be answerable to a minister - who is (as a government member) answerable to Parliament.
2. We already have our representative bodies ..... who have funds, and are currently working (I hope with a common voice if not fully 'together') on reviewing and challenging NE where appropriate.  NE should be listening to their representations (BASC, CA, NFU, NGO and any others who are involved).  If NE had talked to them before going off at the deep end, then the current situation would be a 'managed work in progress' issue of considered updates rather than an 'out and out crisis' of panic, suspend and start again.

I agree - and other than my comments above, I will only say that we are all looking to them to represent us.  The making of this mess is wholly NE's responsibility.  I hope our representative bodies can help them get out of the mess they have created.

Yes indeed, all valid and I take no issue with your points at all. My comments were idle musings and can see that some aspects were not  thought through. More coffee required!

[mossy835]

is there a form out yet

[Yellow Bear]

2 minutes ago, mossy835 said:

is there a form out yet

like the complaints to NE have been answered  with a "go forth and multiply" letter stating they are taking no further action on the complaint because of the number.

[JohnfromUK]

16 minutes ago, Miserableolgit said:

Yes indeed, all valid and I take no issue with your points at all. My comments were idle musings and can see that some aspects were not  thought through. More coffee required!

It wasn't meant as a criticism, more as something thrown into the discussion.

I (like I think all of us if we think about it) am sick and tired of very poor performance from those we have to pay via our taxes.  Whether it be on Brexit, dealing with the Extinction Rebellion rabble, or NE's licenses - we pay the salaries of MPs, civil servants, ministers .......... and in the last few months we seem to have been getting singularly poor value for our money.  Incompetence, inaction and simple lack of any progress are all demonstrated.

IF they were in private industry they would have been dismissed/demoted/disciplined - but as they are public servants, they will get honours and generous pay rises.

[ShootingEgg]

31 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

like the complaints to NE have been answered  with a "go forth and multiply" letter stating they are taking no further action on the complaint because of the number.

I never got a response on the day the licenses were revoked... Not expecting one now. 

[Muddy Funker]

4 hours ago, bostonmick said:

So where are we at now. We have on one side an egotistical attention seeker that is raising his profile by looking for what he considers loopholes to be exploited for his own gain. And then we have those who have been temporarily disrupted by his actions. It seems to me that by posting all manner of comments good or otherwise about Mr p. Some are giving him exactly what he wants. At a time when a new series which he is part of comes to air you are giving him exposure all over social media and allowing him to make up any stories about death threats dead crows on gates that he wishes to and in the full knowledge that the public will readily believe. And a lot of these people would not have known who or what he was and even less cared. Now his viewing figures will rise due to the publicity and as a knock on so will his income. We should all totally ignore him and his part in this and aim our attention to N. E. And all of the organisations that claim to support the countryside and its way of life. Aim your emails and letters at them for their failings from before and after this fiasco. Leave the other side out of it all together whereby not giving him what he craves most. I would also add that now farmers will no doubt be hit financially by all of this that any approached by TV companies wanting to film on their land take the appropriate view and refuse. The quickest and surest way to get a TV channel to drop something or somebody is to push them down the ratings. So let's all concentrate on those who claim to be there to protect our interests and rights to come up with more than a stiffly worded letter here and there and show us some of this expertise they claim to have. 

Definitely.

That's a great idea, I'd love to see the result of every farmer/land owner telling countryfile and other programs of it's type to get ****ed.

No filming here thank you.

[Miserableolgit]

I, and I dare say many others, have just received the following in response to the official complaint I submitted to NE last week...

Quote

www.gov.uk/natural-england
Date: 30th April 2019
Natural England
County Hall
Spetchley Road
Worcester
WR5 2NP
Dear Complainant
Complaint in respect of general licences GL04, 05 and 06
I am writing with regard to your formal complaint about Natural England’s approach to the
changes it has had to make to general licences GL04, 05 and 06.
Natural England operates a three stage complaints procedure but in view of the seriousness
of the issue and the number of similar complaints we have received we escalated your
complaint directly to our Chief Executive as a Stage 3 complaint. Our Chief Executive has
responded via a piece on .gov.uk explaining our position on General licences and the next
steps.
https://naturalengland.blog.gov.uk/2019/04/25/general-licences-and-the-next-steps/
We are continuing to work to address the issues arising from the changes we had to make
but because our Chief Executive has considered your complaint at stage 3 this is now our
final response. If you are dissatisfied with the outcome of our investigation then should you
wish to you can now go through your MP to put your complaint to the Parliamentary and
Health Service Ombudsman to consider. See https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
The page on the Ombudsman's website that is linked below gives a helpline number which
you can call if you have any questions on the process or requirements at this stage. It also
provides a link where you can check who your MP is should you need to.
https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/making-complaint
The helpline number is 0345 0154 033.
Yours sincerely
Mike Smith
www.gov.uk/natural-england
Manager for Operations Delivery
Natural England

 

[ShootingEgg]

16 minutes ago, Miserableolgit said:

I, and I dare say many others, have just received the following in response to the official complaint I submitted to NE last week...

 

Ive had nothing. No response at all.. 

[Miserableolgit]

1 minute ago, ShootingEgg said:

Ive had nothing. No response at all.. 

Standby for the same standard response as above.

[ShootingEgg]

43 minutes ago, Miserableolgit said:

Standby for the same standard response as above.

Yeo got the reply with a pdf attached, so they got an email back.. 

Will be a phone call as the next step. 

Edited May 1, 2019 by ShootingEgg
Adding sentence