General License Modifications

[The Big Fish]

We are all blissfully unaware of what is about to happen!

Edited March 5, 2005 by The Big Fish

[Devilishdave]

In general the anti's are not large organisations

 

and thereby lies the problem!!

 

This country is now run by people who are so politically correct they are avidly fighting themselves to be the next "champion" of a minority opinion, and the judiciary will support them to the hilt, notice the absolute disgrace to allow the young muslim the right to wear whatever suits her albeit she HAD signed to say she would accept the schools uniform policy before joining the school? and turned down the oppertunity to attend a muslim school that allowed the wearing of "cultural" attire, getting rid of blair will make no difference, only a radical change in political culture and a realisation(probably to late) that OUR country is being taken from us willy nilly will maybe save the day?

 

cheers keith

Personaly I thin k the girl not being allowed to wear her national dress is bang out of order. most schools these days dont care what you wear.

 

My old mans school had strick dress code or as a scotsman you could wear the Kilt instead which he did.

 

Dave

[Devilishdave]

Divided we stand together we fall, when ever a shot is fired accross our bows we always stand up and say such and such does worse things than us leave us alone.

 

For example, ban hunting!

No ban shooting they wound more foxes than us.

 

Ban shooting

No ban halal and Kosha thats crueler than what we do.

 

The answer should be no we are a majority doing nothing wrong if you dont like it move to a place whare people will allow you to force them all to be vegans.

 

Their answer, we are in that place already.

 

Together we stand and we wont fall.

 

Dave

[Country_est]

This will run and run. read in a "news" paper to day

 

Quote"

Airguns MUST be banned.

Apart from the Armed Services and the police who needs a gun in Britain in 2005 ?

 

Farmers can probably make a case for owning a shotgun to keep down predators and pests. Shooting clubs might, at a pinch, persuade us that target practice is a legitimate reason for owing a leathal weapon.

After that the list begins to tail off... and definately does not include people who want to shoot firemen in glasgow housing schemes."

 

Now whilst I DO NOT in any possible way condone what this was about ie a shooting and killing of a 2yr old with an air rifle, it only takes one thing like this be it dunblane, hungerford ect ect for the mass majority of leagal shooting people to loose out big time. There is enuf current law to protect and curtail the use of any weapon without any further laws.

 

 

 

Also reagrding the main cause of this thread, found this from the CA

 

Quote"

 

1. Simon Hart - non-lethal methods of control?

 

Even by DEFRA's standards Tuesday's announcement of new far-reaching conditions to the Open General Licences, which allow the killing of a number of avian pests including pigeons and corvids, was spectacularly stupid. Less than eight hours before they were due to come into force at midnight on 1st March DEFRA published the new licences to a limited circulation. It became clear that without consultation, and despite the warnings that had been eminating from the Alliance and others for some months, they had chosen to insert a new condition stating that the licences: "can only be relied upon in circumstances where the authorised person can demonstrate that appropriate non-lethal methods of control such as scaring are either ineffective or impracticable".

 

All wild birds are protected under the EU Wild Birds Directive. Previously it had been accepted that Open General Licences were issued specifically because the Government was satisfied that there was no other practical solution to a national pest problem other than culling. But at a stroke DEFRA has jettisoned responsibility for justifying the management of such species and placed the onus for demonstrating that ‘non-lethal methods of control are either ineffective or impractical’ on individual shooters.

 

Yesterday DEFRA was desperately backtracking saying: "These exemptions and conditions have not changed in substance as a result of the new general licences". This is clearly nonsense. There was no condition in previous licences about 'non-lethal' alternatives and our legal advice is clear that the new condition is a significant restriction on shooting and makes many forms of pest control completely impractical. The situation does not need spin, either from the Alliance or DEFRA. The new condition means exactly what it means. Every time you kill a crow, magpie, feral pigeon or woodpigeon, among other species, you will have to be able to "demonstrate that appropriate non-lethal methods of control such as scaring are either ineffective or impracticable".

 

In practical terms this is of course unworkable and, as with other DEFRA diktats, will be largely ignored. But it is the law and however ridiculous it might seem you could now be arrested and charged for shooting pigeons if you cannot fulfil the condition. Our advice is to be aware of the licence conditions under which you may shoot pest species and be prepared to argue that general culling is the only practical method of control. This is not guaranteed to protect you, but should ward off any but the most malicious prosecutions.

 

DEFRA got itself into this mess by failing to consult properly on its proposals and has completely ignored the Government's own Code of Practice on consultations. The Alliance has already lodged an official complaint about this, and is also working with the NGO, CLA and other organisations to bring a level of sanity back to the open licence system.

 

There is slightly better news from DEFRA on the subject of game rearing and the Animal Welfare Bill. The Labour dominated backbench Select Committee which scrutinised the draft Bill published last year criticised game rearing practices. The Government today responded by suggesting "a programme of scientific research on certain rearing techniques before drawing up proposals on the rearing of game birds". It has, however, rejected the proposal made by the Alliance and others that the Game Farmers’ Association (GFA) Code of Practice should be adopted as the statutory code. We are happy that the GFA code takes account of the best available evidence and is the most detailed and logically constructed Code of Practice currently available. If, however, the Government produces a code based on new impartial research and solid evidence of improved animal welfare it will be supported by the whole shooting industry. We cannot argue that legislation should not be based on 'evidence and principle', but the Government must be prepared to face down damaging backbench amendments which are likely to be put down if and when the Bill reaches the Commons."

 

 

 

So that to my mind leaves everything as clear as ****

 

trev

Edited March 6, 2005 by Country_est