Tractor pushes parked cars out of the way

[Efbe]

speedking31 said:

Efbe said:

PF62 said:

If, as has been quoted, the farmer lived only a short distance from where the cars were parked, wouldn't they have know this would be a problem and shouldn't they have planned better?

He has not done this before, yet has worked this farm for many years. Therefore people parking on both sides at this specific pinchpoint in the road has not been an issue before. There isn't an alternative road.

For the sake of debate (uh-oh), what if the cars had been parked slightly less considerately such that if the tractor tried to go through he would get jammed in between them, and that was obvious to the farmer. What would he do then?

ever seen a tractor pull?

[anonymous-user]

No but I’ve seen a field marshall

[DWS]

You/We can argue the moral right/wrongs from each side until the cows (sorry sheep) come home. At the end of the day farmer is liable for criminal damage. End of.

[oakdale]

DWS said:

You/We can argue the moral right/wrongs from each side until the cows (sorry sheep) come home. At the end of the day farmer is liable for criminal damage. End of.

That's your opinion, criminal damage is when someone damages property without lawful excuse, in my opinion he did have a lawful excuse.

[FiF]

oakdale said:

DWS said:

You/We can argue the moral right/wrongs from each side until the cows (sorry sheep) come home. At the end of the day farmer is liable for criminal damage. End of.

That's your opinion, criminal damage is when someone damages property without lawful excuse, in my opinion he did have a lawful excuse.

Such a lawful excuse could comprise if he believed there was a need to protect property belonging to themself or another, and that such damage would be considered reasonable having regard to all the circumstances. Furthermore it is immaterial if the belief was justified or not if said belief was honestly held.

It really amuses me when posters show their prejudices by shouting criminal damage, end of. Demonstrates they know square root of stuff all about the issues by making such pronouncements when there is no evidence one way or the other in public domain.

Source for info and further reading, Crown Prosecution Service, Legal Guidance, Criminal Damage.

[Mandalore]

speedking31 said:

Efbe said:

PF62 said:

If, as has been quoted, the farmer lived only a short distance from where the cars were parked, wouldn't they have know this would be a problem and shouldn't they have planned better?

He has not done this before, yet has worked this farm for many years. Therefore people parking on both sides at this specific pinchpoint in the road has not been an issue before. There isn't an alternative road.

For the sake of debate (uh-oh), what if the cars had been parked slightly less considerately such that if the tractor tried to go through he would get jammed in between them, and that was obvious to the farmer. What would he do then?

SLIGHTLY less considerately!

Now there's a phrase that captures the essence of the argument.

[SpeckledJim]

FiF said:

oakdale said:

DWS said:

You/We can argue the moral right/wrongs from each side until the cows (sorry sheep) come home. At the end of the day farmer is liable for criminal damage. End of.

That's your opinion, criminal damage is when someone damages property without lawful excuse, in my opinion he did have a lawful excuse.

Such a lawful excuse could comprise if he believed there was a need to protect property belonging to themself or another, and that such damage would be considered reasonable having regard to all the circumstances. Furthermore it is immaterial if the belief was justified or not if said belief was honestly held.

It really amuses me when posters show their prejudices by shouting criminal damage, end of. Demonstrates they know square root of stuff all about the issues by making such pronouncements when there is no evidence one way or the other in public domain.

Source for info and further reading, Crown Prosecution Service, Legal Guidance, Criminal Damage.

But he said "end of."

What do you say to that? Once someone has said "end of", even as a suffix to some nonsense, then that's it. End of.

[TooMany2cvs]

Mandalore said:

speedking31 said:

For the sake of debate (uh-oh), what if the cars had been parked slightly less considerately such that if the tractor tried to go through he would get jammed in between them, and that was obvious to the farmer. What would he do then?

SLIGHTLY less considerately!

Now there's a phrase that captures the essence of the argument.

I think he means...

[Mandalore]

SpeckledJim said:

FiF said:

oakdale said:

DWS said:

You/We can argue the moral right/wrongs from each side until the cows (sorry sheep) come home. At the end of the day farmer is liable for criminal damage. End of.

That's your opinion, criminal damage is when someone damages property without lawful excuse, in my opinion he did have a lawful excuse.

Such a lawful excuse could comprise if he believed there was a need to protect property belonging to themself or another, and that such damage would be considered reasonable having regard to all the circumstances. Furthermore it is immaterial if the belief was justified or not if said belief was honestly held.

It really amuses me when posters show their prejudices by shouting criminal damage, end of. Demonstrates they know square root of stuff all about the issues by making such pronouncements when there is no evidence one way or the other in public domain.

Source for info and further reading, Crown Prosecution Service, Legal Guidance, Criminal Damage.

But he said "end of."

What do you say to that? Once someone has said "end of", even as a suffix to some nonsense, then that's it. End of.

Next week, you aren't allowed to bring your own football in, neither. You have to use his.

Because.. he called it first.

[SpeckledJim]

Mandalore said:

SpeckledJim said:

FiF said:

oakdale said:

DWS said:

You/We can argue the moral right/wrongs from each side until the cows (sorry sheep) come home. At the end of the day farmer is liable for criminal damage. End of.

That's your opinion, criminal damage is when someone damages property without lawful excuse, in my opinion he did have a lawful excuse.

Such a lawful excuse could comprise if he believed there was a need to protect property belonging to themself or another, and that such damage would be considered reasonable having regard to all the circumstances. Furthermore it is immaterial if the belief was justified or not if said belief was honestly held.

It really amuses me when posters show their prejudices by shouting criminal damage, end of. Demonstrates they know square root of stuff all about the issues by making such pronouncements when there is no evidence one way or the other in public domain.

Source for info and further reading, Crown Prosecution Service, Legal Guidance, Criminal Damage.

But he said "end of."

What do you say to that? Once someone has said "end of", even as a suffix to some nonsense, then that's it. End of.

Next week, you aren't allowed to bring your own football in, neither. You have to use his.

Because.. he called it first.

Hah! Fingers crossed! Look! Doesn't count.

[KAgantua]

Likeomg said:

it's been confirmed as a tractor pulling a sheep trailer.. apparently you could only just squeeze a car through the gap...

walkers are knobs

if they are walkers, and they like walking so much, could they not park further away (somewhere not causing an obstruction) and walk to the meeting point?

[anonymous-user]

FiF said:

oakdale said:

DWS said:

You/We can argue the moral right/wrongs from each side until the cows (sorry sheep) come home. At the end of the day farmer is liable for criminal damage. End of.

That's your opinion, criminal damage is when someone damages property without lawful excuse, in my opinion he did have a lawful excuse.

Such a lawful excuse could comprise if he believed there was a need to protect property belonging to themself or another, and that such damage would be considered reasonable having regard to all the circumstances. Furthermore it is immaterial if the belief was justified or not if said belief was honestly held.

It really amuses me when posters show their prejudices by shouting criminal damage, end of. Demonstrates they know square root of stuff all about the issues by making such pronouncements when there is no evidence one way or the other in public domain.

Source for info and further reading, Crown Prosecution Service, Legal Guidance, Criminal Damage.

I can't really see how moving some sheep along a road would come under the exemptions in that law, I suspect that is to cover properly serious situations like racing to hospital with a sick child or getting to a fire. Unless ofc the sheep had been in there for 7.99hours and there was a sheep-welfare inspector in the hedgerow....

[Efbe]

JimSuperSix said:

FiF said:

oakdale said:

DWS said:

You/We can argue the moral right/wrongs from each side until the cows (sorry sheep) come home. At the end of the day farmer is liable for criminal damage. End of.

That's your opinion, criminal damage is when someone damages property without lawful excuse, in my opinion he did have a lawful excuse.

Such a lawful excuse could comprise if he believed there was a need to protect property belonging to themself or another, and that such damage would be considered reasonable having regard to all the circumstances. Furthermore it is immaterial if the belief was justified or not if said belief was honestly held.

It really amuses me when posters show their prejudices by shouting criminal damage, end of. Demonstrates they know square root of stuff all about the issues by making such pronouncements when there is no evidence one way or the other in public domain.

Source for info and further reading, Crown Prosecution Service, Legal Guidance, Criminal Damage.

I can't really see how moving some sheep along a road would come under the exemptions in that law, I suspect that is to cover properly serious situations like racing to hospital with a sick child or getting to a fire. Unless ofc the sheep had been in there for 7.99hours and there was a sheep-welfare inspector in the hedgerow....

it will be interesting to see if the animal welfare/ farmer's work angle is enough to stop the police prosecuting, which is the only reason I could see for them to drop the case rather than it go to court. Unless they went for the "this is a civil matter" as they seem to do more and more these days, and leave it to the insurance companies

[FiF]

JimSuperSix said:

FiF said:

oakdale said:

DWS said:

You/We can argue the moral right/wrongs from each side until the cows (sorry sheep) come home. At the end of the day farmer is liable for criminal damage. End of.

That's your opinion, criminal damage is when someone damages property without lawful excuse, in my opinion he did have a lawful excuse.

Such a lawful excuse could comprise if he believed there was a need to protect property belonging to themself or another, and that such damage would be considered reasonable having regard to all the circumstances. Furthermore it is immaterial if the belief was justified or not if said belief was honestly held.

It really amuses me when posters show their prejudices by shouting criminal damage, end of. Demonstrates they know square root of stuff all about the issues by making such pronouncements when there is no evidence one way or the other in public domain.

Source for info and further reading, Crown Prosecution Service, Legal Guidance, Criminal Damage.

I can't really see how moving some sheep along a road would come under the exemptions in that law, I suspect that is to cover properly serious situations like racing to hospital with a sick child or getting to a fire. Unless ofc the sheep had been in there for 7.99hours and there was a sheep-welfare inspector in the hedgerow....

In your opinion, nothing more.

[Fastchas]

Got fed up after 40 pages...has the farmer come forward yet or has the police started making enquiries? Any updates?

[anonymous-user]

FiF said:

JimSuperSix said:

FiF said:

oakdale said:

DWS said:

You/We can argue the moral right/wrongs from each side until the cows (sorry sheep) come home. At the end of the day farmer is liable for criminal damage. End of.

That's your opinion, criminal damage is when someone damages property without lawful excuse, in my opinion he did have a lawful excuse.

Such a lawful excuse could comprise if he believed there was a need to protect property belonging to themself or another, and that such damage would be considered reasonable having regard to all the circumstances. Furthermore it is immaterial if the belief was justified or not if said belief was honestly held.

It really amuses me when posters show their prejudices by shouting criminal damage, end of. Demonstrates they know square root of stuff all about the issues by making such pronouncements when there is no evidence one way or the other in public domain.

Source for info and further reading, Crown Prosecution Service, Legal Guidance, Criminal Damage.

I can't really see how moving some sheep along a road would come under the exemptions in that law, I suspect that is to cover properly serious situations like racing to hospital with a sick child or getting to a fire. Unless ofc the sheep had been in there for 7.99hours and there was a sheep-welfare inspector in the hedgerow....

In your opinion, nothing more.

Is that the default response to any question you can't answer? Just say "in your opinion" as if that somehow gives your reply more/any depth? Maybe instead engage in a discussion about why you think moving sheep might be covered by that law?

[Torquey]

Fastchas said:

Got fed up after 40 pages...has the farmer come forward yet or has the police started making enquiries? Any updates?

Not that I'm aware of.
I keep coming back to the this thread for updates but there's so much bullst to sift through.

[Mammasaid]

It's a tad wet up here at the moment, the police I believe have more pressing issues.

http://cumbria.gov.uk/roads-transport/WeatherStati...

[Mandalore]

Torquey said:

Fastchas said:

Got fed up after 40 pages...has the farmer come forward yet or has the police started making enquiries? Any updates?

Not that I'm aware of.
I keep coming back to the this thread for updates but there's so much bullst to sift through.

Sheepst, surely?

[threespires]

Fastchas said:

Got fed up after 40 pages...has the farmer come forward yet or has the police started making enquiries? Any updates?

I'm wondering the same ---