http://www.advocatesforanimals.org.uk/campaigns/wild/others/poisoning.html

More poisonings of birds of prey
Summer 2004
This spring, the police, acting on a tip-off from a member of the
public, discovered the bodies of 25 protected birds of prey on a
single sporting estate near Peebles.

The birds, 22 buzzards, one tawny owl, one heron and one extremely
rare goshawk had been poisoned. They were all thought to have been
killed within a few weeks of each other. This was the fourth major
reported case of bird poisoning in the Scottish Borders in the past
year.

Described as one of Scotland's worst ever cases of wildlife crime,
RSPB Scotland's Dave Dick said:

"It is utterly disgusting that our wildlife is still being wantonly
and indiscriminately persecuted."
Other recently reported incidents of death by poisoning include
peregrine falcons found dead in Aberdeenshire and red kites found in
Dumfries and Galloway. These are just the latest in a long series of
poisoning incidents. It does raise the question of how many more birds
are being cruelly killed on sporting estates that go unreported. These
incidents may well be just the tip of the iceberg.

'Sporting' estates
Illegal killing of protected birds of prey has been found to be
particularly rife on or near sporting estates where raptors are often
wrongly accused of threatening grouse numbers and, therefore,
financial 'sporting' interests.

Recent changes in the law have increased the maximum sentence for
wildlife crime to six months' imprisonment or a £5000 fine. Estate
owners can also be prosecuted if they allow offences to be committed
on their land. Sadly, though, because these crimes are mostly
committed in remote areas, the guilty parties are seldom discovered
and brought to justice.

Advocates will do what it can to highlight this illegal slaughter of
Scotland's wild birds.

From:	Tim Lamb
Subject:	Re: More poisonings of birds of prey
Date:	Fri, 24 Dec 2004 21:46:33 +0000

In article <47pos01947k8pkr1tt6ov4uce3ng3av8gi@4ax.com>, Rooney
writes
>On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 17:03:30 +0000, Tim Lamb
>wrote:
>
>>In article , Rooney
>> writes
>>>On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 22:26:56 +0100, "John Morgan"
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>At least three, and arguably two others, have no relevance to this topic.
>>>>These I have trimmed. Perhaps when responding to multiple ng.s we should
>>>>indicate the group where the preceding post was read.
>>>
>>>And if it's read in many groups?
>>
>>I think it would be helpful, when responding to a *cross* post, to know
>>which group one is replying to.

>>
>>regards (uba)
>>>
>
>I'm still not with you, Tim. I'm replying to all of them, and I'm
>reading it in most of them.

Now I have checked the groups, I see uba is not there so I am reading
this in uk.rec.natural-history.

If someone makes a sensible reply to one of Pete's multigroup epics it
is difficult to trim the groups if you wish to follow up.

regards
>

--
Tim Lamb

From:	Donald Monkshabit
Subject:	Re: More poisonings of birds of prey
Date:	Sat, 25 Dec 2004 20:24:30 GMT

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 21:46:33 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

>In article <47pos01947k8pkr1tt6ov4uce3ng3av8gi@4ax.com>, Rooney
> writes
>>On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 17:03:30 +0000, Tim Lamb
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article , Rooney
>>> writes
>>>>On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 22:26:56 +0100, "John Morgan"
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>At least three, and arguably two others, have no relevance to this topic.
>>>>>These I have trimmed. Perhaps when responding to multiple ng.s we should
>>>>>indicate the group where the preceding post was read.
>>>>
>>>>And if it's read in many groups?
>>>
>>>I think it would be helpful, when responding to a *cross* post, to know
>>>which group one is replying to.
>
>
>>>
>>>regards (uba)
>>>>
>>
>>I'm still not with you, Tim. I'm replying to all of them, and I'm
>>reading it in most of them.
>
>Now I have checked the groups, I see uba is not there so I am reading
>this in uk.rec.natural-history.

Make your mind up.

From:	Tim Lamb
Subject:	Re: More poisonings of birds of prey
Date:	Sun, 26 Dec 2004 17:11:43 +0000

In article <337njvF3oq8qjU1@individual.net>, Donald Monkshabit
writes

>>>>Now I have checked the groups, I see uba is not there so I am reading
>>>>this in uk.rec.natural-history.
>>>
>>>Make your mind up.
>>
>>OK.
>>
>>regards urn-c:-) traffic at last!
>
>I'm reading this in RB sometimes TPA and often SB.

And you criticise my decision making?!

regards urn-c

--
Tim Lamb

From:	Steve Terry
Subject:	Re: More poisonings of birds of prey
Date:	Sun, 26 Dec 2004 17:44:22 +0000

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 17:11:43 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

>In article <337njvF3oq8qjU1@individual.net>, Donald Monkshabit
> writes
>
>>>>>Now I have checked the groups, I see uba is not there so I am reading
>>>>>this in uk.rec.natural-history.
>>>>
>>>>Make your mind up.
>>>
>>>OK.
>>>
>>>regards urn-c:-) traffic at last!
>>
>>I'm reading this in RB sometimes TPA and often SB.
>
>And you criticise my decision making?!
>
>regards urn-c

You made one?

--

Cheerio,

SUPPORT ISRAEL

Myths & Facts Online
A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict
By Mitchell G. Bard

http://tinyurl.com/ysepr

+------------------------+
| NO PLONKING ZONE |
+------------------------+
| | |
| | | |
..| |.. .| |..
...\| |/.... \| |/..

**********************************************

'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.

Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities
Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities
I am in the top 0.217% richest people in the world.
There are 5,986,950,449 people poorer than me

If you're really interested I am the 13,049,551
richest person in the world.

And I'm keeping the bloody lot.

So sue me.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

Newsgroup ettiquette

1) Tell everyone the Trolls don't bother you.
2) Say you've killfiled them, yet continue to respond.
3) Tell other people off who repsond despite doing so yourself.
4) Continually talk about Trolls while maintaining
they're having no effect.
5) Publicly post killfile rules so the Trolls know
how to avoid them.
6) Make lame legal threats and other barrel scraping
manoeuvres when your abuse reports are ignored.
7) Eat vast quantities of pies.
8) Forget to brush your teeth for several decades.
9) Help a demon.local poster with their email while
secretly reading it.
10) Pretend you're a hard bastard when in fact you're
as bent as a roundabout.
11) Become the laughing stock of Usenet like Mabbet
12) Die of old age
13) Keep paying Dr Chartham his fees and hope one day you
will have a penis the girls can see.

From:	Tim Lamb
Subject:	Re: More poisonings of birds of prey
Date:	Fri, 24 Dec 2004 17:03:30 +0000

In article , Rooney
writes
>On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 22:26:56 +0100, "John Morgan"
>wrote:
>
>>At least three, and arguably two others, have no relevance to this topic.
>>These I have trimmed. Perhaps when responding to multiple ng.s we should
>>indicate the group where the preceding post was read.
>
>And if it's read in many groups?

I think it would be helpful, when responding to a *cross* post, to know
which group one is replying to.

regards (uba)
>

--
Tim Lamb

From:	Rooney
Subject:	Re: More poisonings of birds of prey
Date:	Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:51:10 +0000

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 17:03:30 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

>In article , Rooney
> writes
>>On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 22:26:56 +0100, "John Morgan"
>>wrote:
>>
>>>At least three, and arguably two others, have no relevance to this topic.
>>>These I have trimmed. Perhaps when responding to multiple ng.s we should
>>>indicate the group where the preceding post was read.
>>
>>And if it's read in many groups?
>
>I think it would be helpful, when responding to a *cross* post, to know
>which group one is replying to.
>
>regards (uba)
>>

I'm still not with you, Tim. I'm replying to all of them, and I'm
reading it in most of them.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y

From:	John Cartmell
Subject:	Re: More poisonings of birds of prey
Date:	Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:14:03 +0000 (GMT)

In article ,
J Smytje wrote:
> Recent changes in the law have increased the maximum sentence for
> wildlife crime to six months' imprisonment or a £5000 fine. Estate
> owners can also be prosecuted if they allow offences to be committed
> on their land. Sadly, though, because these crimes are mostly
> committed in remote areas, the guilty parties are seldom discovered
> and brought to justice.

Perhaps confiscation of the property would be a more suitable punishment.
It would certainly make it easier to fulfil the wishes of Oz&c who were
advocating the purchase of land by those with an interest in wildlife...

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines

From:	Michael Saunby
Subject:	Re: More poisonings of birds of prey
Date:	Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:26:27 -0000

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
news:4d1ebcb08ejohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
> In article ,
> J Smytje wrote:
>> Recent changes in the law have increased the maximum sentence for
>> wildlife crime to six months' imprisonment or a £5000 fine. Estate
>> owners can also be prosecuted if they allow offences to be committed
>> on their land. Sadly, though, because these crimes are mostly
>> committed in remote areas, the guilty parties are seldom discovered
>> and brought to justice.
>
> Perhaps confiscation of the property would be a more suitable punishment.
> It would certainly make it easier to fulfil the wishes of Oz&c who were
> advocating the purchase of land by those with an interest in wildlife...
>

How would you propose punishing wildlife crime on Crown property? Which
would surely increase if the Crown owned more of the land where such things
occur? Hanging?

And why are you posting your wisdom to all these groups John? Have you now
been recruited to the Animal Aid spam club too?

Michael Saunby

From:	John Cartmell
Subject:	Re: More poisonings of birds of prey
Date:	Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:48:44 +0000 (GMT)

In article , Michael Saunby
wrote:

> "John Cartmell" wrote in message
> news:4d1ebcb08ejohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
> > In article , J Smytje
> > wrote:
> >> Recent changes in the law have increased the maximum sentence for
> >> wildlife crime to six months' imprisonment or a £5000 fine. Estate
> >> owners can also be prosecuted if they allow offences to be committed
> >> on their land. Sadly, though, because these crimes are mostly
> >> committed in remote areas, the guilty parties are seldom discovered
> >> and brought to justice.
> >
> > Perhaps confiscation of the property would be a more suitable
> > punishment. It would certainly make it easier to fulfil the wishes of
> > Oz&c who were advocating the purchase of land by those with an
> > interest in wildlife...

> How would you propose punishing wildlife crime on Crown property? Which
> would surely increase if the Crown owned more of the land where such
> things occur? Hanging?

I wasn't thinking of giving the Crown jurisdiction. That group of
landowners are clearly unfit for the task.

> And why are you posting your wisdom to all these groups John? Have you
> now been recruited to the Animal Aid spam club too?

I haven't changed the postings at all and I don't know which groups have
interest in the discussion so it's difficult to know where to trim. You
obviously had the same problem with your cross-posted comment.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines

From:	Rooney
Subject:	Re: More poisonings of birds of prey
Date:	Sat, 18 Dec 2004 13:12:06 +0000

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:48:44 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

>In article , Michael Saunby
> wrote:
>
>> "John Cartmell" wrote in message
>> news:4d1ebcb08ejohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
>> > In article , J Smytje
>> > wrote:
>> >> Recent changes in the law have increased the maximum sentence for
>> >> wildlife crime to six months' imprisonment or a £5000 fine. Estate
>> >> owners can also be prosecuted if they allow offences to be committed
>> >> on their land. Sadly, though, because these crimes are mostly
>> >> committed in remote areas, the guilty parties are seldom discovered
>> >> and brought to justice.
>> >
>> > Perhaps confiscation of the property would be a more suitable
>> > punishment. It would certainly make it easier to fulfil the wishes of
>> > Oz&c who were advocating the purchase of land by those with an
>> > interest in wildlife...
>
>> How would you propose punishing wildlife crime on Crown property? Which
>> would surely increase if the Crown owned more of the land where such
>> things occur? Hanging?
>
>I wasn't thinking of giving the Crown jurisdiction. That group of
>landowners are clearly unfit for the task.
>
>> And why are you posting your wisdom to all these groups John? Have you
>> now been recruited to the Animal Aid spam club too?
>
>I haven't changed the postings at all and I don't know which groups have
>interest in the discussion so it's difficult to know where to trim. You
>obviously had the same problem with your cross-posted comment.

All groups look to me to be relevant.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y

From:	John Morgan
Subject:	Re: More poisonings of birds of prey
Date:	Mon, 20 Dec 2004 22:26:56 +0100

Rooney wrote in message
news:c4b8s0daijd9369uhhabkvg2glrb6p9fkv@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:48:44 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
> wrote:
>
> >In article , Michael Saunby
> > wrote:
> >
> >> And why are you posting your wisdom to all these groups John? Have >
>> you now been recruited to the Animal Aid spam club too?
> >
> >I haven't changed the postings at all and I don't know which groups have
> >interest in the discussion so it's difficult to know where to trim. You
> >obviously had the same problem with your cross-posted comment.
>
>
> All groups look to me to be relevant.

At least three, and arguably two others, have no relevance to this topic.
These I have trimmed. Perhaps when responding to multiple ng.s we should
indicate the group where the preceding post was read.

From:	Rooney
Subject:	Re: More poisonings of birds of prey
Date:	Fri, 24 Dec 2004 12:54:29 +0000

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 22:26:56 +0100, "John Morgan"
wrote:

>At least three, and arguably two others, have no relevance to this topic.
>These I have trimmed. Perhaps when responding to multiple ng.s we should
>indicate the group where the preceding post was read.

And if it's read in many groups?

--

R
o
o
n
e
y

From:	RaStaMan Vibrations 4 i N i
Subject:	Re: More poisonings of birds of prey
Date:	Sat, 18 Dec 2004 14:21:34 +0000

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 13:12:06 +0000, Rooney wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:48:44 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
> wrote:
>
>>In article , Michael Saunby
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "John Cartmell" wrote in message
>>> news:4d1ebcb08ejohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
>>> > In article , J Smytje
>>> > wrote:
>>> >> Recent changes in the law have increased the maximum sentence for
>>> >> wildlife crime to six months' imprisonment or a £5000 fine. Estate
>>> >> owners can also be prosecuted if they allow offences to be committed
>>> >> on their land. Sadly, though, because these crimes are mostly
>>> >> committed in remote areas, the guilty parties are seldom discovered
>>> >> and brought to justice.
>>> >
>>> > Perhaps confiscation of the property would be a more suitable
>>> > punishment. It would certainly make it easier to fulfil the wishes of
>>> > Oz&c who were advocating the purchase of land by those with an
>>> > interest in wildlife...
>>
>>> How would you propose punishing wildlife crime on Crown property? Which
>>> would surely increase if the Crown owned more of the land where such
>>> things occur? Hanging?
>>
>>I wasn't thinking of giving the Crown jurisdiction. That group of
>>landowners are clearly unfit for the task.
>>
>>> And why are you posting your wisdom to all these groups John? Have you
>>> now been recruited to the Animal Aid spam club too?
>>
>>I haven't changed the postings at all and I don't know which groups have
>>interest in the discussion so it's difficult to know where to trim. You
>>obviously had the same problem with your cross-posted comment.
>
>
>All groups look to me to be relevant.

I post in every group and I am interested in everything even
fetishesssss

From:	Rooney
Subject:	Re: More poisonings of birds of prey
Date:	Sat, 18 Dec 2004 15:57:10 +0000

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 14:21:34 +0000, RaStaMan Vibrations 4 i N i
wrote:

>On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 13:12:06 +0000, Rooney wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:48:44 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In article , Michael Saunby
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "John Cartmell" wrote in message
>>>> news:4d1ebcb08ejohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
>>>> > In article , J Smytje
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >> Recent changes in the law have increased the maximum sentence for
>>>> >> wildlife crime to six months' imprisonment or a £5000 fine. Estate
>>>> >> owners can also be prosecuted if they allow offences to be committed
>>>> >> on their land. Sadly, though, because these crimes are mostly
>>>> >> committed in remote areas, the guilty parties are seldom discovered
>>>> >> and brought to justice.
>>>> >
>>>> > Perhaps confiscation of the property would be a more suitable
>>>> > punishment. It would certainly make it easier to fulfil the wishes of
>>>> > Oz&c who were advocating the purchase of land by those with an
>>>> > interest in wildlife...
>>>
>>>> How would you propose punishing wildlife crime on Crown property? Which
>>>> would surely increase if the Crown owned more of the land where such
>>>> things occur? Hanging?
>>>
>>>I wasn't thinking of giving the Crown jurisdiction. That group of
>>>landowners are clearly unfit for the task.
>>>
>>>> And why are you posting your wisdom to all these groups John? Have you
>>>> now been recruited to the Animal Aid spam club too?
>>>
>>>I haven't changed the postings at all and I don't know which groups have
>>>interest in the discussion so it's difficult to know where to trim. You
>>>obviously had the same problem with your cross-posted comment.
>>
>>
>>All groups look to me to be relevant.
>
>I post in every group and I am interested in everything even
>fetishesssss

I'm currently tracing the UK source of the latest outbreak of
net-nannyism. I do believe I've located it.
Of course, said UK net nanny may argue that they picked up the habit
in a foreign group, but that's hardly relevant.

I should add that I also suspect certain persons of the fair , with
whom I have have private email conversations, but who have become
disillusioned when they realised I wasn't interested in them. This is
another line of enquiry - but to the best of my knowledge they are all
UK based.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y

From:	RaStaMan Vibrations 4 i N i
Subject:	Re: More poisonings of birds of prey
Date:	Fri, 17 Dec 2004 20:26:07 +0000

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:26:27 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:

>
>"John Cartmell" wrote in message
>news:4d1ebcb08ejohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
>> In article ,
>> J Smytje wrote:
>>> Recent changes in the law have increased the maximum sentence for
>>> wildlife crime to six months' imprisonment or a £5000 fine. Estate
>>> owners can also be prosecuted if they allow offences to be committed
>>> on their land. Sadly, though, because these crimes are mostly
>>> committed in remote areas, the guilty parties are seldom discovered
>>> and brought to justice.
>>
>> Perhaps confiscation of the property would be a more suitable punishment.
>> It would certainly make it easier to fulfil the wishes of Oz&c who were
>> advocating the purchase of land by those with an interest in wildlife...
>>
>
>How would you propose punishing wildlife crime on Crown property? Which
>would surely increase if the Crown owned more of the land where such things
>occur? Hanging?

Worse could happen.

>And why are you posting your wisdom to all these groups John?

Same as you one would guess.

> Have you now
>been recruited to the Animal Aid spam club too?

Ooh bad boy.

From:	RaStaMan Vibrations 4 i N i
Subject:	Re: More poisonings of birds of prey
Date:	Fri, 17 Dec 2004 20:23:55 +0000

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:14:03 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

>In article ,
> J Smytje wrote:
>> Recent changes in the law have increased the maximum sentence for
>> wildlife crime to six months' imprisonment or a £5000 fine. Estate
>> owners can also be prosecuted if they allow offences to be committed
>> on their land. Sadly, though, because these crimes are mostly
>> committed in remote areas, the guilty parties are seldom discovered
>> and brought to justice.
>
>Perhaps confiscation of the property would be a more suitable punishment.

It would certainly be the most effective that's for sure.

>It would certainly make it easier to fulfil the wishes of Oz&c who were
>advocating the purchase of land by those with an interest in wildlife...

Only until it happens and then they whine because all the land is
being bought up and nobody wants to buy chemical laden farm produce
any more!

From:	Tim Lamb
Subject:	Re: More poisonings of birds of prey
Date:	Sun, 26 Dec 2004 10:22:27 +0000

In article <3360jjF3sjuj3U1@individual.net>, Donald Monkshabit
writes
>>>
>>>I'm still not with you, Tim. I'm replying to all of them, and I'm
>>>reading it in most of them.
>>
>>Now I have checked the groups, I see uba is not there so I am reading
>>this in uk.rec.natural-history.
>
>Make your mind up.

OK.

regards urn-c:-) traffic at last!

--
Tim Lamb

From:	Donald Monkshabit
Subject:	Re: More poisonings of birds of prey
Date:	Sun, 26 Dec 2004 12:03:22 GMT

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 10:22:27 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

>In article <3360jjF3sjuj3U1@individual.net>, Donald Monkshabit
> writes
>>>>
>>>>I'm still not with you, Tim. I'm replying to all of them, and I'm
>>>>reading it in most of them.
>>>
>>>Now I have checked the groups, I see uba is not there so I am reading
>>>this in uk.rec.natural-history.
>>
>>Make your mind up.
>
>OK.
>
>regards urn-c:-) traffic at last!

I'm reading this in RB sometimes TPA and often SB.