The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

The wording of this is carefully worded to raise the emotional temperature but other than that?

I understood that pointing gun at someone was common assault not a breech of the peace?

And yes the bugger got away lightly!

I don't know them nor have I stalked with them. I do know someone who claims to know one. Hes' stated that the journalist was far from factual and that the whole incident is as clear as mud (hence both keeping their firearms certs.)

So i'm loathe to express my opinion upon these 2 individuals (until all the facts are clear). What I will say is that I agree with Mike; anyone caught poaching or killing deer out of season deserve the full weight of the law.

A hypothetical and provocative question....

Had the deer all been in season and all other things equal, how much would it have cost an individual for a days stalking and taking five deer?

The facts, I know, I know they will spoil a good discussion : http://www.crownoffice.gov.uk/News/Rele ... er-killing

meles meles wrote:Don't bother us with facts, ooman, we already have our opinions...

I knew some would say something along those lines. tongueout




PS. I'm still in favour of a Badger Cull!

Sim G wrote:A hypothetical and provocative question....

Had the deer all been in season and all other things equal, how much would it have cost an individual for a days stalking and taking five deer?

Not so simple to answer mate. I've happily parted with over a grand to stalk a single beast. However I've 'culled' a half dozen or more for free. Really depends on whether they were stalking, culling or poaching.

"Had the deer all been in season and all other things equal, how much would it have cost an individual for a days stalking and taking five deer?"

Not a lot actually Sim, it all depends on who or what you know.

My first thoughts when I read of this were serves them right, but after hearing others accounts of the events it seems that as usual the court report doesn't give a full and accurate account of the actual event.

Chapuis wrote:My first thoughts when I read of this were serves them right, but after hearing others accounts of the events it seems that as usual the court report doesn't give a full and accurate account of the actual event.

The court report(er) has a legal duty to be "fair, accurate and contemporaneous" ... what the report contains is what was said in court in front of the jury, hence it'll contain all the evidence that the jury was allowed to hear.

This is what defendants pay lawyers for: the ability to have relevant evidence excluded from a trial on legal technicalities. Don't blame the reporter - he stands to go to jail for not presenting things exactly as they happened in court, and he's on very shaky legal grounds if he includes extra details in a court report. Blame the legal vampires.

And the real facts as in the court results:

http://www.crownoffice.gov.uk/News/Rele ... er-killing

Gaz

How do you account for these then?

http://news.stv.tv/tayside/208262-man-a ... ting-trip/

http://news.stv.tv/tayside/216780-pensi ... ld-estate/

Although the second is more accurate, it is still different from the court record!

So newspapers, TV, radio and all journalistic media have fair, unbiased, accurate reporting then?

Otherwise the jails would be full of them.

I suggest that the way the article was written put a slant on it, the "reporter" or "editor" chose to call it a shooting incident rather than a poaching issue, the lead paragraph was about waiving a gun at the workers where as from the summing up it seemed that the main thing they were charged with was shooting deer out of season not threatening the workers. But of course being a journalist makes them sans reproche.