Night-time clashes between protesters against England's imminent badger cull and armed farmers pose a clear risk to public safety, ministers have been warned.Warned by whom? Someone with a vested interest, would be my guess.
And right on cue...
The warning came from the police came during consultations with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.Gosh. I must be psychic...
Detective chief superintendent Adrian Tudway, national co-ordinator for domestic extremism at the Association of Chief Police Officers, told Defra officials: "Farmers and landowners culling badgers with firearms (of any description) has potential to place armed farm workers in the near vicinity of protesters and activists, typically during the night-time; we regard this as a scenario with clear potential for harm to public safety … we believe there is a likelihood [of] incidents of lawful protest and lobbying as well as some potential for unlawful direct action, disorder and criminality."Well, you and your officers are paid to ensure that that doesn't happen, so hop to it! What are you whinging about?
He also referred to reduced police resources owing to "the impact of the recent funding cuts".Ah. Of course.
And then there's the ones that have gone native...
Peter Charleston, staff officer at Acpo to Chief Constable Richard Crompton, who has responsibility for wildlife crime, told his boss in an email the cull would risk widespread illegal killing of badgers under the cover of culling:
"Concerns relate to the possibility of open season being declared on badgers because of a perception that Defra is not really bothered about their protected status."Ummm, what? Farmer or employee of farmer with licence issued by DEFRA - legal. Shifty looking individual caught with dead badger and no licence - illegal.
It's not going to need Sherlock Holmes, is it?
Lee Moon, a Hunt Saboteurs Association spokesman, said experienced campaigners were getting involved alongside people who didn't usually take part in direct action.Or, as they are almost certainly known to these seasoned domestic terrorists, 'cannon fodder'...
"The warning came from the police came", good old Grauniad.
ReplyDeleteForget the badgers just cull the activists.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand if we had lots of wild bears, lynxs, panthers, wolves and wolverines about as well as many more buzzards and big eagles, that would do the trick I understand that foxes find badger cubs tasty. Perhaps the activists could go foxhunting with the packs of hounds to contain this threat to the badgers.
ReplyDeleteI quite like badgers, but a stray round or section of buckshot in the way of an 'activist', not really a problem is it.
ReplyDeleteXX I quite like badgers, but a stray round or section of buckshot in the way of an 'activist', not really a problem is it. XX
ReplyDeleteUntil they start screaming "Compensation", and "Why did the police not "do anything.""
And, as to the police spokesman, aye it IS bloody dangerous to have two opposed groups wandering around at night, in the dark, when no one can hear you scream, with one of those groups armed, and totaly "untrained."
I'm surprised the dirty gypsies haven!t eaten them all.
ReplyDeleteKill them all.
And the badgers.
Bunny
ReplyDeleteMr Teutonicus - to get compensation the farmer would have to owe the 'protestor' a duty of care. Is a person who is trespassing and trying to obstruct someone who is carrying out their lawful business owed a duty of care? Somehow I doubt it, especially if they attempt violence or aggression.
One method of controlling badgers could be the use of Staffordshire bull terriers which have been brutalised by former owners to naturally remove aforesaid badgers. Any 'protestor' who wants to interfere can happily to interpose themselves between badger and Staffordshire bull terrier in full blown killing mode.
"national co-ordinator for domestic extremism"
ReplyDeleteI truly, truly despair.
Tha'll be Ch Supt Desk-Driver then I suppose.
As to the issue in question, shoot the blighters, every stinking, foetid one of them, the Badgers will still need to be dealt with though.
""national co-ordinator for domestic extremism"...
ReplyDelete...reads as though they are personally responsible for it, doesn't it.
Surely it should be ""national co-ordinator against domestic extremism" ?
Freudian Slip, perhaps...
'Pull!'
ReplyDeleteJulia,may I be permitted to change the subject?
ReplyDeleteOne of your many hobby-horses is the arrest of householders who shoot burglars.I notice today's story about the Leicestershire burglars who were shot who got sentenced.The householders were quoted as saying the sentences were too short.Have to agree with that.The line I nearly missed in the papers was that they were interviewed in Australia-"where they now live". Oh hold on,an arrested person who then gets cleared can't get a visa or pass a CRB check can they?But this man shot two people and within two months moves to a country with one of the strictest immigration controls in the world.Next time this happens please don't use that as a reason for non-arrest.
The Pleb who used to be Jaded.
(PS please feel free to shoot burglars-they deserve it!).
Yes Jaded, and also I was reading about the Rochdale report, particularly those parts about how the police would come across some of the victims of sexual abuse and arrest them. This happened more than once.
ReplyDeleteThere's never NO reason for non-arrest, is there, Jaded?
Send the Activists a few polar bears to hug, that'll teach them.
ReplyDeleteAs for the cull (which would otherwise be in the suffering badgers own interests) it won't work because those killed will simply be replaced by others, just like urban foxes.
"Perhaps the activists could go foxhunting with the packs of hounds to contain this threat to the badgers."
ReplyDeleteHeh! I'd pay to see that...
"Any 'protestor' who wants to interfere can happily to interpose themselves between badger and Staffordshire bull terrier in full blown killing mode."
I note these brave 'protesters' never feel the need to mass outside a court hearing for dog fighting cases, or attempt to break up illegal dog fighting rings. I wonder why?
"Surely it should be ""national co-ordinator against domestic extremism" ?"
Heh! Not if you want to have a continuing source of employment..? ;)
"The line I nearly missed in the papers was that they were interviewed in Australia-"where they now live". Oh hold on,an arrested person who then gets cleared can't get a visa or pass a CRB check can they?But this man shot two people and within two months moves to a country with one of the strictest immigration controls in the world."
ReplyDeleteThe country that tends to have the problem with CRB checks is America, Jaded. Not Oz.
And they had been contemplating a move to Oz before the break in, so possibly had already passed the necessary checks.
"There's never NO reason for non-arrest, is there, Jaded?"
Ooooh, that's gotta sting, eh? ;)
"As for the cull (which would otherwise be in the suffering badgers own interests) it won't work because those killed will simply be replaced by others, just like urban foxes."
I don't think badgers breed as well - young animals from surrounding territories are the more likely replacements.
Which will perhaps be used as a lever for a countrywide cull?
I still think a vaccine is the better option.
XX Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteBunny
Mr Teutonicus - to get compensation the farmer would have to owe the 'protestor' a duty of care. Is a person who is trespassing and trying to obstruct someone who is carrying out their lawful business owed a duty of care? Somehow I doubt it, especially if they attempt violence or aggression. XX
I presume you were in the bog, or something, and missed all the hundreds of cases, where a householder is the one arrested for tackling an armed burgler, with nothing more than a vicious looking dustpan and brush?
Please hold me personally responsible for the Rochdale cases.I can't see how they are linked to the burglar shootings but never mind.
ReplyDeleteIf you do a post on that case then I can't disagree that the police messed up big-time but just for once let me have my five minutes in the sun!
Jaded
In reply don't forget to mention Hillsborough,Tomlinson and De Menzes.
Jaded,
ReplyDeleteHow ironic that the police should collectively baulk at a person with an arrogant attitude, an assumed sense of superiority and an expectation of deference treating those not in his 'gang' as plebs.
Now you know how it feels.
btw, You recently told me that you were unable to request changes in the lawl by lobbying your MP, as you are a serving PC and this is not allowed.
How come serving PCs are picketing an MPs office, as we speak?
Mmm, inconsistent testimony. Anyone would think that you just make it up as you go along.
I have no idea Noggin,why don't you ask them? Or is it easier just to snipe on here?
ReplyDeleteJaded (ex-pleb)
Noggy old fruit,
ReplyDeleteIf I may interject in support of Jaded? The Police officers were not lobbying for a change in the law. They were picketing Mitchell's constituency office - they were all off-duty at the time - in protest at either (a) being called plebs by some officious, over-paid, twonk or (b) being accused of lying by same officious, etc. They were also bringing to the public's attention the general overall crappy treatment of the Police by iDave and his gang. There is a difference. Serving Police officers are still not allowed to take an active part in politics, or go on strike, take industrial action, or enjoy many other rights of an employee while still being treated as such by said gang. However, they can visibly, silently, and peacefully, protest. You may be aware that during that protest no shops were burned down, no cars were set alight and no one was showered with bricks, lumps of concrete, fire extinguishers or bags of urine or excretia (that's 'sh*t' Noggy).
Penseivat
Bunny
ReplyDeleteMr Teutonicus my point wasn't related to criminal law, but to tort law and the duty of care that a farmer would have to have to a trespassing protestor. Who may well be wearing camoflage and blacked up at night. The duty of care would be minimal. Your comparison is criminal law, my comments merely relate to the Law of Tort a different matter. You are comparing oranges with apples.
Pense,
ReplyDeleteNone of your post explains how Jaded says that he is not allowed to engage in such activity. Strange some of his fellow gang members are allowed to, but only when their interests are affected though, never the people they are paid to harass, oops, sorry, I meant protect.
BTW It's excreta, unless you were speaking Latin, in which case, coitus te.
Jaded,
ReplyDeletePleading the fifth?
NTN-what's your area of expertise? Please tell me so I can stereo-type and make sweeping snide comments about your job.
ReplyDeletePenseivat is spot-on as usual.
XX Bunny
ReplyDeleteMr Teutonicus my point wasn't related to criminal law, but to tort law and the duty of care that a farmer would have to have to a trespassing protestor. Who may well be wearing camoflage and blacked up at night. The duty of care would be minimal. Your comparison is criminal law, my comments merely relate to the Law of Tort a different matter. You are comparing oranges with apples. XX
O.K, aye, I DO apprieciate the difference, and can see your point.
Which, in this case, would you think would go first? I mean, O.K, for compo, tort is virtually a "one sided street", as you say.
But if someone IS topped, then someone MUST go down, or at least to trial. In criminal law TODAY (my knowledge of GB criminal law is a bit....stale (70-80er), how would that "pan out"?
Bunny
ReplyDeleteMr Teutonicus I think it would be man slaughter and not murder, with a reduced sentence or possibly no sentence other than suspended. With reference to compensation it would be minimal on the basis that the 'negligence' would have been contributory, ie putting yourself in the way of a .22 round, pellets or preferably brutalised Staffordshire bull terrier, which has been retrained to be of some use to society. Note I doubt if the former owner could be retrained to be of use to society, unless it was to dress them up as badgers for the purpose of training said dogs.
Also as corporate bod my forte is contract and tort, hence I can speak out on that subject rather than criminal.
Jaded,
ReplyDeleteWhat's it to you, big nose?
Rest assured, if, at the end of my working day, I had carried out my duties with such appalling disregard for the welfare of the public that one of them was dead, I would be in more trouble than simply having to transfer to another branch, or resign on full pension.
You're the one that has the questions to answer, because you're the one that is paid to illegally harvest DNA, and then you whine on in this place and others that you are just doing your job and there is nothing you can do about it, whilst defending the thugs you work with who assault old women in the cells.
Pleb.
XX illegally harvest DNA, XX
ReplyDeleteYet no one has challenged it in court?
If yes, and they have lost, then it is NOT fucking "illegal" IS it?
I'm sorry you got that speeding ticket Noggin.But thanks for answering my question anyway.
ReplyDeleteGot to go now.DNA to illegally harvest.Might get Kelly Brooks's and clone her.
"If yes, and they have lost, then it is NOT fucking "illegal" IS it?"
ReplyDeleteA sick parrot is the most appropriate emblem for your crudities, Füror. Permit me to inform you that any oppressive action by a UK government and its servants is de jure, illegal.
This stands irrespective of conveniently held views by the present Parliament and its Courts, to the contrary.
MTG believes that nay 'oppressive' act by the government is illegal, it depends on your understanding of oppresive. For example the old Prevention of Terrorism Act can be considered oppresive and as could be the 'Riot Act', for example banning groups of people from congregating. However they are not illegal.
ReplyDelete@ anon 15:34
ReplyDeleteNo such word as *oppresive' in any of the languages known to me, old boy.
Old Plodese, perhaps?
Oh, I'm off to the gym.
ReplyDeleteIn spite of the weather, it shames me to squander what remains of this day with plod morons.
Patronising? Check
ReplyDeleteSneering? Check.
Off-topic? Check.
Etc etc etc.
XX MTG said...
ReplyDeleteOh, I'm off to the gym.
In spite of the weather, it shames me to squander what remains of this day with plod morons.
28 September 2012 15:45 XX
Don't count your chickens....
Furor,
ReplyDeleteUse that Google thingy before you engage your sausage munching mouth please.
It has been found to be illegal, in the High Court of this country and the ECHR.
Every time a Police Force retains the DNA of person who is either not charged or found not guilty, they are breaking the law.
Jaded,
ReplyDeleteNever had a speeding ticket, I have already told you that.
Whisky alpha november kilo echo romeo. Check.
Yawn.
ReplyDeleteJaded,
ReplyDeleteYep, your pathetic mewling bores me too.
MTG going to the gym? Fuck off. Noggin you are a cunt.
ReplyDeleteNot Jaded - just pissed off at wankers like you.
Yup, that is my argument. Fuck off - free speech innit.
Utter Cunt!
Now, now. girls. Just because you're on your periods, don't get all emotional and hormonal. As has been said many times, once you reduce yourself to insults, then you have lost the high ground. Rational debate, logical and reasonable argument backed up with provable evidence rules OK. To do otherwise, shows just what a bunch of ignorant, inconsiderate, tw*ts you can be.
ReplyDeleteNoggy, I will accept that excreta is the correct word and not excretia. In my defence I was comparing it to other words which have a similar ending, such as inertia, which describes the lack of after reading your latest, tunnel-visioned, single issue focused, diatribe. Not an insult mind, just a reasonably considered viewpoint based on the evidence of your previous comments.
Pensievat
XX Noggin the Nog said...
ReplyDeleteFuror,
Every time a Police Force retains the DNA of person who is either not charged or found not guilty, they are breaking the law.
28 September 2012 16:40 XX
That does not alter the point and content of my question.
Take it to court again, if it is illegal.
Ever heard of "group action"?
OR, refuse the sample and let THEM take you to court.
Funny how it only seems to be Brits that have this problem.
dare furor spricht:
ReplyDeletevinegar und wrecked und fry height
fur daz doicher farter land
danach laßt uns alle streben
brooderlick mit hairs und hand
vinegar und wrecked und fry height zint dez glookers unterpfand
blew im glanzer dieses glookers
blewer doycher farter land
Furor,
ReplyDeleteIt does alter your point, entirely. It is illigal and the police break the law when they retain DNA in those circumstances.
As for withholding the sample, I suspect the police would simply beat one out of you and then charge you with assaulting a PC and obstruction of justice.
Aye, right. I believe you.
ReplyDeleteHonest.
ReplyDelete