CH4 NEWS - Nesting Birds & Network Rail

[IanW]

I wonder if the same people that complain about the works disturbing birds would complain when their trains are delayed because of vegetation on the tracks???

[skyhuck]

The people do not want the trees cutting, would you?? If there were trees between me and the rail line I would be very keen for them to stay.

 

Of cause they will endeavour to use any means at their disposal to prevent the cutting, as would I.

[Kveldssanger]

10/10 that man. It was indeed NE.

 

Priceless.

[Ty Korrigan]

Business before birds and bats.

Here in France if I refuse to fell a tree/ hedge some-one else will get the work.

As the public here has little awareness towards wildlife and the 'authorities' whoever they might be do not enforce whatever regulations may exist my own conscience doesn't need to extend much beyond the next coin.

Try telling a client their hedge can't be removed because of a nesting bird and you'll just lose the work.

Ty

[Marc Lewis]

The gist of it was network rail are putting in some big clearances beside the rail tracks to stop the trees affecting the lines and trains and people are getting upset and protesting against it. At this time of year they are using the excuse 'you can't cut any trees down there's nesting birds' channel 4 news very one sided I think

 

Probably the same people who complain when their train gets delayed due to leaves on the track.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

The 'intentionally' part is Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 which I think was amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 which adds the offence of doing so 'recklessly'.

 

I can't find anything that seems relevant in CRoW Act - a riveting read though - picked up some new info on occupiers' liability in relation to access land. Have I missed it tucked away in there somewhere?

 

Left me wondering, if CRoW Act supersedes CaW Act (in this example - intentionally v recklessly, - or any other circumstance where one Act seems to cover a similar topic as a previous one) which Act takes precedence?

 

Is it safe to assume that the later one has greater weight than any previous one or do they both remain relevant in their own right?

 

I can't really see where any chance of a successful prosecution of NR could be anticipated in the example reported on C4 news. Surely it can neither be considered "intentional" if they did a survey before hand (and it came up negative for nesting birds), nor "reckless" if it was part of a planned operation.

 

I'd say there has been more discussion / investigation of the subject within this short thread than appears to have been done in the C4 news production team.

 

I bet the protestors are happy with the coverage though, regardless of the accuracy of the story, they made prime time TV and put negative PR on NR.

[felixthelogchopper]

I can't find anything that seems relevant in CRoW Act - a riveting read though - picked up some new info on occupiers' liability in relation to access land. Have I missed it tucked away in there somewhere?

 

Left me wondering, if CRoW Act supersedes CaW Act (in this example - intentionally v recklessly, - or any other circumstance where one Act seems to cover a similar topic as a previous one) which Act takes precedence?

 

Is it safe to assume that the later one has greater weight than any previous one or do they both remain relevant in their own right?

 

I can't really see where any chance of a successful prosecution of NR could be anticipated in the example reported on C4 news. Surely it can neither be considered "intentional" if they did a survey before hand (and it came up negative for nesting birds), nor "reckless" if it was part of a planned operation.

 

I'd say there has been more discussion / investigation of the subject within this short thread than appears to have been done in the C4 news production team.

 

I bet the protestors are happy with the coverage though, regardless of the accuracy of the story, they made prime time TV and put negative PR on NR.

 

Apologies, the 'reckless'(definition R v Caldwell 1982) aspect of the offence applies to Schedule 1 bird species. It was introduced in CRoW 2000 to aid prosecution for;

 

Any activity that involves deliberately taking an unacceptable risk.

 

Failing to notice or not considering an obvious risk, which results in disturbance.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Apologies, the 'reckless'(definition R v Caldwell 1982) aspect of the offence applies to Schedule 1 bird species. It was introduced in CRoW 2000 to aid prosecution for;

 

Any activity that involves deliberately taking an unacceptable risk.

 

Failing to notice or not considering an obvious risk, which results in disturbance.

 

I had a quick look at R v Caldwell, it would appear that that case, and the test for recklessness defined within, have been over ruled by:

 

https://webstroke.co.uk/law/cases/r-v-g-2004

 

Surely it would potentially be considered reckless if a tree had fallen and caused injury / damage? Stuck between a rock and a hard place!!

 

I thought of interest the second bullet on the exceptions from the RSPB site:

 

The RSPB: Wild birds and the law: Exceptions

 

Maybe a bit of an own goal by not getting the work done during the Winter. Leaves me wondering if it was a decision borne out of financial limitations or poor planning?

 

I don't have a "stance" either for or against the NR actions here just for clarity but I am finding the debate / discussion interesting.

 

I think it was an incomplete / potentially bias piece of TV news reporting though.

[felixthelogchopper]

I had a quick look at R v Caldwell, it would appear that that case, and the test for recklessness defined within, have been over ruled by:

 

https://webstroke.co.uk/law/cases/r-v-g-2004

 

Surely it would potentially be considered reckless if a tree had fallen and caused injury / damage? Stuck between a rock and a hard place!!

 

I thought of interest the second bullet on the exceptions from the RSPB site:

 

The RSPB: Wild birds and the law: Exceptions

 

Maybe a bit of an own goal by not getting the work done during the Winter. Leaves me wondering if it was a decision borne out of financial limitations or poor planning?

 

I don't have a "stance" either for or against the NR actions here just for clarity but I am finding the debate / discussion interesting.

 

I think it was an incomplete / potentially bias piece of TV news reporting though.

 

Thanks for the update.

[Scotty38]

Tree sparrow eh?

Just had a look on Wiki as I'd never heard of this bird. House Sparrow yes.

Well, down 93% but on the up says the RSPB

I've read another source where pesticides, mink and cats cause the greatest loss of song birds.

Certainly tree surgeons are not mentioned.

Monday-Thursday we've another humungous conifer hedge to rag out, this time through the eye of a needle so no good the biomass chipper.

I don't have ANY conscience about nesting birds.

If I didn't do it then another business would.

Not as if urban Thuya hedges are home to the last breeding pairs of any endangered species.

Ty

 

I accept jobs need to be done and folk need to make a living but what a completely ignorant statment to make.

 

I don't expect people working in arb to all be Bill Oddie but to have never heard of a tree sparrow amazes me