UKC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/norfolk/7070362.stm

Persecuted to the verge of extinction in the UK to benefit a rich mans sport.

If climbing was the cause of an environmental crime on this scale the level of tolerance might be a bit different.

In reply to Slugain Howff:

That is so so stupid and I hope the young royal was not involved

In reply to nz Cragrat:

£5000 fine for shooting a hen harrier! Only 19 pairs left in the UK....

What's the fine for shooting a daft young royal? Must be quite high as there are only about 2 mating pairs as far as I can make out, plus a few that are not into mating for whom the fine would be lower, presumably

In reply to Slugain Howff:
If the act was witnessed, then it would be easy to tell if it was a ginner or not that did it.

In all seriousness though, if they do catch the person who did this then I think a 6 month jail sentence would send the right message. What would we think if some third world country didn't bother to catch the person who shot one of the last remaining pairs of tigers.

In reply to Slugain Howff: The Guardian's version is much the same
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2202127,00.html

Doesn't Prince Philip hold the world record for the most birds shot in a day or some such ? (from a time when he was president of WWF or similar organisation)

In reply to Slugain Howff:


It would make things fairer if the poor man could also persecute a species to the point of distinction.

I reckon they could go for running over pigs in "modded-up" escorts or chucking sheep off the top of tower blocks

In reply to Slugain Howff:


Aye, Slug. Makes my blood boil.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
And up to 6 months in prison, if Harry and his mate did do it, I hope they get the full force of the law, although I am not holding my breath.

In reply to dread-i:

So what do you think of a convicted rapist who only had to serve 4 months for raping a woman?

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=73636&in_page_id...

Are these two crimes of similar severity?

In reply to Slugain Howff: Sorry, I didnt realise what this thread was about (ambiguous title) so I started one of my own. When I realised this was about the same subject I deleted it. It's useful if your thread title gives some idea of the subject. This was my OP.
'The police are questioning Prince harry after two Hen Harriers were shot on the Sandringham estate. I have seen these birds and they are magnificent. If he is found to be guilty he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, if no one is found then it happened on his estate with his gamekeepers and failing the catching of anyone he should be held responsible'.
http://pda.sky.com/news/pda_news_story.asp?section=top&i=10&x=2

In reply to Slugain Howff: if they can get shut of one of those most famous women on the planet and get away with it, methinks a popping a couple of sh ! t hawks will be no problem. my best bet is "No conclusive evidence has been found to link HRH with the incident". also wont be surprised to read of some young estate worker having a mystery car crash with high levels of bloody alcohol, even though his dad says he never touched a drop. cynical ? me ?
mike

In reply to Slugain Howff: Sorry, I didnt realise what this thread was about (ambiguous title) so I started one of my own. When I realised this was about the same subject I deleted it. It's useful if your thread title gives some idea of the subject. This was my OP.
'The police are questioning Prince harry after two Hen Harriers were shot on the Sandringham estate. I have seen these birds and they are magnificent. If he is found to be guilty he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, if no one is found then it happened on his estate with his gamekeepers and failing the catching of anyone he should be held responsible'.
http://pda.sky.com/news/pda_news_story.asp?section=top&i=10&x=2

In reply to mrsmesh:


If the article report is accurate it is the 4 month sentence that is too light... 4 years would seem more appropriate.

6 months for shooting protected birds is a maximum I would imagine and I doubt that it has ever been applied.

In reply to Al Evans: BTW, are there really only 19 pairs left now. I have visited one nest site, and know the approximate location of two others, I'd be suprised (and depressed) at only 19 pairs.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: so you can get 6 months in jail for killing a bloody bird but you can get no prison sentence for beating an old man and blinding him in one eye?hmmmm our legal system is great at punishments fitting crimes

In reply to Al Evans:

It's not Harry's estate, it's HM's - but I do agree with you. In the absence of a specific individual being identified, then the estate owner should be held responsible.

My company operates a large car fleet and if one of those cars so much as trips a speed camera and we cannot identify the driver, then the company is held responsible and can be proscecuted (Note: does not seem to apply to police forces, but that's another matter). If it applied to cars, surely it can apply to firearms?

In reply to mrsmesh:
>So what do you think of a convicted rapist who only had to serve 4 months for raping a woman?
That it's a far too lenient sentence. Doesn't really have much to do with the OP either.

In reply to Slugain Howff:
Well it obviously couldnt have been Harry, i mean he's an officer the British Army and therefore must be far too busy to be wandering around shooting endangered birds etc ...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Actually the article says:

There are 749 nesting pairs in the UK

In reply to beastofackworth:

It's not the laws that are the problem, it's that the application is left too much to the whim of the judge. You could get several years for blinding an old man (GBH with intent?), but this didn't happen. It appears that only very rarely does any judge hand down anything like the max possible sentence.

In reply to beastofackworth:

Engage your brain.

The maximum sentence killing two rare and protected birds is 6 months, the maximum sentence for the second crime is life. I know the case you mention is real and I hope it gets reviewed.

In reply to Slugain Howff: Whilst it is unlikely that the prince was directly involved, he, and his family, will ultimately bear the responsibility for this. Game keepers are pressured to produce high bird numbers for shooting days and their job is on the line if they don't. Whilst the land owner (the Queen!) will of course disavow any knowledge of this, it is unlikely that the keeper, if it is proved to be him (which is incredibly hard), will loose his job for this- in fact he may find his christmas bonus will cover any resulting costs.

On the other hand, if he is found to be harbouring high numbers of vermin such as harriers, buzzards etc on the estate, he and his family will be kicked out of his job, their house, their school and loose their friends, neighbours and social circle. It doesn't make it a difficult decision for the keeper, does it?

In reply to toad:
>On the other hand, if he is found to be harbouring high numbers of vermin such as harriers, buzzards etc on the estate ....
If that's true its pretty sad. You would have thought that they could make money from guided bird watching trips all year round, as well as or in place of the grouse shooting.

The number of twitchers who would pay to see a golden eagle as well as contribute to its upkeep would bring in more cash over a longer period that a couple of fat bankers blasting away with a 12 bore.

In reply to The New NickB:

As the legal system is populated by people who would be sympathetic to so called vermin control, convictions are thin on the ground, fines grossly inadequate and only target the gamekeepers and not the estate owners. Living in the NE Scotand we hear of eagle and other raptor poisonings very frequently.

In reply to dread-i:
>>

I wish you were right, but the numbers involved in shooting are hard to comprehend, particularly if you factor in the "premium" accomodation,catering and what have you. I've encountered some of these keepers at close hand. Many of them are decent, honest men. But the pressure on them from the paymasters is impossible, and as far as they are concerned the price of failure is too high and the chances of being caught are minimal.

The only practical way is to make the landowner directly accountable for these killings, in the same way that they would be held responsible for draining or ploughing an SSSI.

It would also give an added incentive for them to catch the criminals who travel for miles to their estate to poison raptors before disappearing in a puff of smoke. Given they can spot a trespassing climber from the other side of the estate, it always suprises me that these bird poisoners are always so elusive ;(

In reply to dread-i:

Haha not even close!!!

In reply to Dr Avid:
Go on explain it to me; its the only way I'll learn.

In reply to toad: Toff hunting, that's the key. It's the one species we would actually benefit from making endangered.

In reply to David Riley: That sounds more like it.

In reply to toad:

Not so unlikely, he was shooting on the estate at the time of the crime.

In reply to Al Evans: But they weren't GAME. It would have been unsporting for the prince to have shot it, that's what the keepers are for

In reply to David Riley:

I was quoting the original post. Perhaps he was extrapolating the likely result if royal princes carry on blazing away

I think the toff hunting suggestion is the answer, but not with live shot, that wouldn't be nice, with a paint ball system whereby every hit meant the aristocrat concerned lost 1% (this %age could be adjusted according to public opinion) of his cash handout (including revenues fro what is generously called "crown land"). The sums liberated could be used on more useful things.

When he (or she) got down to zero they would be obliged to go and get a job like most people.

In reply to Slugain Howff: FFS ITV news just rehashed the 20 pairs left in the UK story. Can they not read?

In reply to toad:

It's ITV, not surprising really. Muppets.

In reply to DNS:


In which case, it would not be unreasonable for estate owners to ban access to their land in order to prevent being found liable for other's actions. Doubtless the RSPB would fully support them. Now, would you like to consider the effect that might have on climbing access in the UK?

In reply to Al Evans:

I just did that too and thought the same

In reply to Slugain Howff:

That's a shame - I watched a Hen harrier hunting from the crag recently - quite a sight.

In reply to 1234None: Ive only seen them on Islay and once in Wales. Ive never seen any in the Forrest of Bowland even though the symbol of this area is a hen harrier.

In reply to mrsmesh:

I think the secret lies in the fact that he wasn't convicted of rape but of sexual assault.

If all else fails, try reading the article before commenting on it.

jcm

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

749 pairs left in the UK, actually.

In reply to Fawksey: Jack (Street) has ringed the hen harrier chicks in the T of B.

In reply to Al Evans:

You're making a lot of assumptions here, Al. your automatic prejudices showing through again, eh?

First...AFAIK, there's no suggestion that Harry was actually shooting at the time. Reports were that he was "nearby" at the time and had been questioned as to whether he'd seen/ heard anythng. You'#re making a big leap of inference by implying that *he* shot them ("if he's found guilty...." etc).

Secondly, you seem to be assuming that if it wasn't him, then it was the estate gamekeepers.

Thirdly, if that *was* the case, the estate's the Queen's, not Harry's, so it'd have to be Regina v Regina.

Fourthly, if it happened on the estate without any of the estate management knowing about or condoning it, you're still suggesting that they be held responsible. Have you thought for a minute what this would do to access if it was a general rule? And how that would affect some of the country sports that *you* might enjoy?

In reply to Rob Naylor:

I don't think I said that?

I think that is a very reasonable assumption, who else would be shooting on the Sandringham estate?

Agreed, but if Harry was shooting at the time I really think he is culpable.

I think that is virtually impossible.

In reply to Rob Naylor:
>.

We have to address the issue of accountability. Yep, I'm going to state unequivocally that it was done by, or with the knowledge of, the estate management. This isn't unusual, it happens a lot, which is why hen harrier numbers have reached the parlous state they have.

Prosecution of individual keepers is probably neccessary, but it's difficult and doesn't solve the real problem. If an SSSI is ploughed, it isn't usually the tractor driver who is prosecuted, but the land owner, and I think that in this instance the same should apply. As I implied earlier in the thread, these birds aren't being shot by clandestine "game tourists", they are being killed by the estates as part of their predator control. And it has to stop.

To take your line that we would squeal if it happened to climbing, it already has. Seasonal and permanent bird bans and restriction of access to protect species are routine, and subject to compromise and discussion on both parts. By placing themselves above the law, the estates are inviting more draconian control measures. Don't Care will be Made to Care.

In reply to toad:

There's some question about whether they were even killed on the Sandringham estate...the radio this morning said they were shot on Dursinham (sp?) Bog, "a nature reserve next to the Sandringham estate".

So let's equivocate a bit longer until it becomes clearer, eh?

In reply to WillinLA:

I think most estate owners would claim that they do already 'ban' access to their estates to people carrying guns who are going to commit a crime - whether killing an endangered species or poaching.

I suppose my point is that they are either telling lies or doing a totally inadequate job.

Whilst I do enjoy climbing - and I do know that this is a climbing forum - not every argument I advance is necessarily dominated by climbing or access considerations. Nor, in fairness, is it necessarily thought through to the n'th (or even 2nd) degree.

In reply to Rob Naylor: Rob, are you being deliberately naive? Wherever the harriers were shot it was to protect the shooting birds on the Sandringham estate, why are you defending this action? Lets not equivocate, lets put the blame where it clearly lies, its an atitude like you are espousing that is putting at risk our noble birds of prey on estates throughout the UK, a prosecution of the Royal estate might go some way to making an example that gamekeepers thoughout the land could not ignore.

In reply to Al Evans:


The only "attitude" I'm esousing is not to jump to conclusions.

The post of yours that I was initially replying to clearly implied that you were suggesting that Harry himself had done the shooting.

your next comment was that if *he* hadn't personally done it, then "his gamekeeper" must and so he should be prosecuted anyway.

I merely pointed out that you were making some big assumptions there, possibly deriving from your own automatic prejudices, and that anyway it wasn't Harry's estate but his grandma's, so that if anyone was to be prosecuted on that basis it should be the queeen ( I believe I mentioned "Regina v Regina" as a possible court case.

Nowhere there was I condoning the action. I condemn it as strongly as you do. I just suggested we avoif jumping to conclusions. "Protecting the game birds on the Sandringham estate is not the "only possible" reason the shooting may have occurred. granted, that is what *may* have happened, and if it's shown that this *did* happ[en then I agree...the management, not just the individual responsible, should be prosecuted.

I'm just a bit less willing to jump in with a "taxi-driver" type comment: "'s obvious what 'appened, innit, guv? It were 'Arry wot dun it...I 'ad that Kate Middleton in the back of me cab once".

In reply to Rob Naylor:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,,2206470,00.html

- Police not seeking anyone else over killings,

but...

- No charges.

What a surprise.

In reply to Slugain Howff:
Yesterday when HRH entered parliment with Black Rod for the state opening, Dennis Skinner was heard to heckle "Who killed the harriers?"

Strangely enough he didn't get a reply!

In reply to DougG: same old story - without bodies, the coppers hve no way to proceed. Not unique to this case by any means, but highlights how hard it is to get even a chance of prosecution in wildlife cases.

You either have a poisoned bird, but no sign of the poisoner, or a shot bird, with no sign of the dead bird by the time the police turn up.

In reply to toad:

They should have planted some bodies and nailed the wee bastard then.
































Sorry, getting a bit carried away there.

It is sickening, though.

In reply to DougG: well, well- couldn`t have seen that one coming.

In reply to Slugain Howff:
Harriers: source of pride for the RAF, source of shame for the Royal Family.

In reply to dread-i: Rob.
We were once tipped off about a dead 'peregrine' on Win Hill, we went to retrieve the body, it was a buzzard. We bagged it and Jack took it to Denby Dale. The RSPB have a post morten facility there. It had been poisoned, on a later search we found traps laced with poisoned food. Who could that have possibly been but the gamekeeper for the area, obviously he got off scot free, we couildn't even warn him.
If the Hen Harriers bodies have been found on or near the sandringham estate there is a strong case for bringing a law suite against the owners for culpability, it might lose, but it's still worth doing.

In reply to Al Evans:


That's the point, the bodies disappeared.


PS there are still periodic raptor deaths in and around the Dark Peak. Grouse have done well this year, though.

In reply to Slugain Howff:

Not on the subject of killing birds but..... when young are ringed a DNA sample is taken that goes onto a database. Subsequently if somebody is found with a live chick and claim that it has been captive bred this can be disproved if not true. A few years ago this actually happened and the git was prosecuted. Marvellous.

In reply to toad: Does that include Black Grouse, they were having a hard time last time I was there.

In reply to Nath-is-a-legend:


Cant be Harry, as an officer he could hit a barn door with a howitzer.

In reply to Slugain Howff:

Wot no Sarah G ?

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

LOL ! The hawks were asking for it- you townies don`t understand the ways of the country etc. etc. with a x

Actually...
There's one old English law that gives permission to shoot (even rare) birds at Sandringham.
Weird, but true.

In reply to Andy Crofts: Direct us to it, I cant believe it has not been superceeded.

In reply to DougG:


Sure is, and it stinks to high heaven of a cover-up. If he's genuinely innocent, then he/they should recognise how bad it looks, and issue a proper and convincing statement explaining their movements at the time. It's nothing like good enough to just have a denial issued by some PR guy, and hope it will just fade away. If Harry *was* involved, the implications for the shrinking credibility of the royals are huge. These people purport to be stewards of the land and the natural order. In fact, they trumpet this status pretty regularly. If one of them was exposed as so brazenly cavalier about something that is so emotive to so many people, it would rather blow the lid off that one. Still, better not judge in the absence of clear evidence.

In reply to The New NickB:

You can breath easily now - he got away with it. Anyway, who do you think would be picking up the bill?

In reply to Rob Naylor:
>

here you go- it seems that no birds were shot
do you agree?

The Sunday Telegraph has learnt that senior staff at Sandringham - the Queen's country house in Norfolk which has a 600 acre estate - have carried out their own investigation into the "shooting" with the help of the "suspects", Prince Harry, his friend William van Cutsem, 28, and David Clarke, a gamekeeper.

The inquiry has concluded that there was probably no such shooting and that the supposed "eye witnesses" were, at best, mistaken over their claims.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/11/nharry111.x...

here's another hen harrier dispute in the news, with some excuses from the gamekeepers that may interest you
http://www.hexham-courant.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=562344

In reply to Anonymous:

Let's be fair about it, eh? The same article goes on to say this:

'Natural England remains adamant that the hen harriers were killed and says that one of its staff clearly saw the shooting and that the bodies of the birds must have been hidden. However, the agency has refused to identify the supposed eye witnesses to protect them from public and media attention.'

In reply to Anonymous: Interesting reports. I've first hand experience of raptor poisoning,and there are a lot of good, reliable witnesses to their shooting by the the large sporting estates. However, As you know, the burden of proof required to secure a criminal conviction is, of neccessity, high.

I've seen it from both sides, professionally, and personally, through long aquintance with people and family in the shooting community. Frankly I don't trust an "internal investigation" into a crime of this severity, particularly where the balance of power is so distorted - be honest, as an employee of Sandringham, would you say "it was the young princeling wot done it, yr honour"?

The pressures on employees in these circumstances are different to those in conventional employment. There is no work/life balance, or even any real seperation of the two. Therefore decisions are taken, which to an employee in a conventional organisation would be unthinkable. There are some justifiable parallels with the military.

Having said that, It could well be that the witnesses were confused, or mistaken - they saw the birds, heard the shot and lost sight of the animals afterwards. But whilst there have been no bodies, neither have there been subsequent sightings, to my knowledge. These are popular and charismatic birds. Surely a birder has caught sight of a live bird subsequently?

In reply to Sammy the Shammy:


And people slag off "old labour" - bet you wouldn't see David Cameron having either the nous or guts to speak out about that. Or anyone else in the fox-huntin', shootin' and fishin' party...

In reply to Dominion: Nothing like a bit of class envy ehh Dom? Ever thought that your prejudice is exactly the same as the racist morons in the BNP, it's just the target that differs.

In reply to toad:
>Frankly I don't trust an "internal investigation" into a crime of this severity, particularly where the balance of power is so distorted

Seems like a cohesive analysis of the whole thing (not just the part quoted above, but your whole post). My feelings exactly. I don't think it's trustable either, but I'm not going to form an opinion without proper evidence. Obviously, we're very unlikely ever to find out what really happened.

In reply to Anonymous:

>> .... Or anyone else in the fox-huntin', shootin' and fishin' party...



So fox hunting, shooting and fishing are activities all carried out on the whole by the same "classes"?

Looks to me as if the prejudice is in the mind of anonymouse