Tractor pushes parked cars out of the way

[FiF]

JimSuperSix said:

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?

Not my default response, but if that's your interpretation of it then it's even more amusing that earlier on in the thread you gave a response which in its entireity consisted of

JimSuperSix said:

In your opinion, of course.

Hypocrite.

Clearly from your response you've not bothered to read the information source referenced, and simply put some personal biased interpretation of what you'd like the law, and subsequent case law, to say, and how it should be applied in this case. Well your interpretation is an opinion, that's a fact, albeit one where I have zero respect.

[anonymous-user]

I read it, and formed a thought about it - perhaps you could do similar and explain how moving sheep would be covered under that law?

[anonymous-user]

JimSuperSix said:

Crackie said:

You just have an opinion Jim, nothing more. It is supercilious, conceited and condescending to claim otherwise. Little different to the sanctimonious drivel from you on the thread so far though.......

In your opinion of course

Also, perhaps quote the thread accurately , rather than just selectively to suit your bias, before you accuse people of hypocrisy.

[Red Devil]

JimSuperSix said:

TooMany2cvs said:

JimSuperSix said:

The option of smashing the cars up is illegal too , so whats your point? Do you think smashing cars is somehow "less illegal" or something than calling the police and waiting while blocking the road?

It's certainly "less illegal" (where "less" = "not at all") than blocking the road in the first place - and the legislation proving it has been posted here.

Unfortunately it doesn't prove it - it would depend entirely upon the complete circumstances, which you and I don't know.

Given that you have now admitted that you don't know the complete circumstances why don't you do us all a favour and take your one note trumpet and blow it somewhere else?
We all know your PoV so repeating it ad nauseam is becoming tiresome.

I've been on PH for a smidge under 11 years and in all that time have never felt the need to express myself in such blunt terms about another's posts.

[ferrisbueller]

Mammasaid said:

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...

Rain, you say?

Flooding, you say?

Animals being rescued.....

Well fk me. If only people had foresight to move livestock before this all kicks off. Oh, wait.........

[Mammasaid]

ferrisbueller said:

Mammasaid said:

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...

Rain, you say?

Flooding, you say?

Animals being rescued.....

Well fk me. If only people had foresight to move livestock before this all kicks off. Oh, wait.........

I know, who'd have thunk it...

[anonymous-user]

Red Devil said:

JimSuperSix said:

TooMany2cvs said:

JimSuperSix said:

The option of smashing the cars up is illegal too , so whats your point? Do you think smashing cars is somehow "less illegal" or something than calling the police and waiting while blocking the road?

It's certainly "less illegal" (where "less" = "not at all") than blocking the road in the first place - and the legislation proving it has been posted here.

Unfortunately it doesn't prove it - it would depend entirely upon the complete circumstances, which you and I don't know.

Given that you have now admitted that you don't know the complete circumstances why don't you do us all a favour and take your one note trumpet and blow it somewhere else?
We all know your PoV so repeating it ad nauseam is becoming tiresome.

I've been on PH for a smidge under 11 years and in all that time have never felt the need to express myself in such blunt terms about another's posts.

It's a discussion - nobody knows the complete circumstances , and it's pretty obvious that different aspects of the same opinion will keep coming up , if you don't want to read it then don't read this thread. I don't really care how long you've been on here as if that gives some extra importance to your view.

I'm still waiting for FiF to explain how that quoted law would apply to some sheep being moved, he seems to find it easier to not answer the question and misquote prior posts just so he can call me a hypocrite. I can't imagine why he's not answering the actual question asked.

[FiF]

JimSuperSix said:

JimSuperSix said:

Crackie said:

You just have an opinion Jim, nothing more. It is supercilious, conceited and condescending to claim otherwise. Little different to the sanctimonious drivel from you on the thread so far though.......

In your opinion of course

Also, perhaps quote the thread accurately , rather than just selectively to suit your bias, before you accuse people of hypocrisy.

Oh sorry, I didn't quote accurately, an extra comma crept in. Oops. Otherwise expression of hypocrisy was bang on the money.

Also Crackles post was bang on the money too.

It's very rarely that I find a poster so deliberately obtuse as to make such direct comments as those made there, but, frankly, they were deserved, glad someone else did it. I might gave spoilt my manners and got a censure from the mods.

As for finding reasons why moving sheep could result in a situation where the farmer felt the need to protect them and thus have a lawful excuse, there have been plenty of explanations of that in the thread so far. I see no need to go over old ground and repeat arguments ad nauseam, though do recognise that you have no problem with such repetition, as evidenced by your one note samba contributions.

Let's face it, we aren't going to agree on this, so in the event of any prosecution it would be for a jury to decide and nobody on here. Points at R v Wang (2005) 2 Cr. App. R. 136, HL which stated that if there is any evidence of "lawful excuse", no matter how tenuous or nebulous, the defence should be left to the jury.

[FiF]

JimSuperSix said:

It's a discussion - nobody knows the complete circumstances , and it's pretty obvious that different aspects of the same opinion will keep coming up , if you don't want to read it then don't read this thread. I don't really care how long you've been on here as if that gives some extra importance to your view.

I'm still waiting for FiF to explain how that quoted law would apply to some sheep being moved, he seems to find it easier to not answer the question and misquote prior posts just so he can call me a hypocrite. I can't imagine why he's not answering the actual question asked.

Been out and about in the wide world, I'm not here to answer your obnoxious snipes by return. End of discussion from my side. Done with you.

[anonymous-user]

FiF said:

JimSuperSix said:

It's a discussion - nobody knows the complete circumstances , and it's pretty obvious that different aspects of the same opinion will keep coming up , if you don't want to read it then don't read this thread. I don't really care how long you've been on here as if that gives some extra importance to your view.

I'm still waiting for FiF to explain how that quoted law would apply to some sheep being moved, he seems to find it easier to not answer the question and misquote prior posts just so he can call me a hypocrite. I can't imagine why he's not answering the actual question asked.

Been out and about in the wide world, I'm not here to answer your obnoxious snipes by return. End of discussion from my side. Done with you.

Oh dear, I will miss you

Not sure how you could reach the conclusion that the farmer was "protecting" his sheep? From what? Sitting in a trailer for a while? So far the only "reason" i've seen mentioned is that they might have been in there too long and there is a time limit. It suppose it's technically possible he had driven them from 8 hours away....seems a bit of a stretch though. Even if that were the case, what would have happened if for example his tractor had broken down or there was a "proper" traffic jam? The sheep would still be stuck in the trailer. None of these things sound like a situation to which that law could be sensibly applied.

[TooMany2cvs]

JimSuperSix said:

Not sure how you could reach the conclusion that the farmer was "protecting" his sheep? From what? Sitting in a trailer for a while? So far the only "reason" i've seen mentioned is that they might have been in there too long and there is a time limit. It suppose it's technically possible he had driven them from 8 hours away....seems a bit of a stretch though.

How long until the drivers of those cars returned?

JimSuperSix said:

Even if that were the case, what would have happened if for example his tractor had broken down

A replacement tractor would be fetched, and the trailer moved over. Farmers work together in situations like that.

JimSuperSix said:

or there was a "proper" traffic jam?

You've never been out of the city, have you?

[anonymous-user]

TooMany2cvs said:

JimSuperSix said:

Not sure how you could reach the conclusion that the farmer was "protecting" his sheep? From what? Sitting in a trailer for a while? So far the only "reason" i've seen mentioned is that they might have been in there too long and there is a time limit. It suppose it's technically possible he had driven them from 8 hours away....seems a bit of a stretch though.

How long until the drivers of those cars returned?

JimSuperSix said:

Even if that were the case, what would have happened if for example his tractor had broken down

A replacement tractor would be fetched, and the trailer moved over. Farmers work together in situations like that.

JimSuperSix said:

or there was a "proper" traffic jam?

You've never been out of the city, have you?

Actually I live in the country, full of tractors no less

The basis of the "its ok to smash through cars in some circumstances" defence seems to hinge on there being a good enough reason - the only supposed cause is that the sheep may been in the trailer too long. So the question was - if its so important that he's ok to smash through cars to get them back, would he have smashed through a traffic jam? On what basis were the sheep in any danger so that the law quoted could be applied? What emergency situation was there?

As for "How long until the drivers of those cars returned?" - you've no idea - the owners of the cars he hit might have been 100 yards down the road. There were people about such as those mentioned in the news report or the one that left the note on the damaged cars. The farmer didn't wait to see did he, just drove up, paused, then smashed through.

Did he ask anyone around if they owned the offending vehicles? In fact, did he do anything to avoid "having" to damage the cars?

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 23 November 14:57

[James TiT]

Fastchas said:

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

I hope all the bad Parkers get fined heavily.

[anonymous-user]

James TiT said:

Fastchas said:

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

I hope all the bad Parkers get fined heavily.

I hope I get some socks for xmas.

[TooMany2cvs]

JimSuperSix said:

TooMany2cvs said:

JimSuperSix said:

or there was a "proper" traffic jam?

You've never been out of the city, have you?

Actually I live in the country, full of tractors no less

Proper country? Or suburbia-with-the-odd-tractor?

[anonymous-user]

TooMany2cvs said:

JimSuperSix said:

TooMany2cvs said:

JimSuperSix said:

or there was a "proper" traffic jam?

You've never been out of the city, have you?

Actually I live in the country, full of tractors no less

Proper country? Or suburbia-with-the-odd-tractor?

You seem to be failing to answer my previous question....

[Never you mind]

TooMany2cvs said:

JimSuperSix said:

TooMany2cvs said:

JimSuperSix said:

or there was a "proper" traffic jam?

You've never been out of the city, have you?

Actually I live in the country, full of tractors no less

Proper country? Or suburbia-with-the-odd-tractor?

Recently moved and still to learn countryside ways ?

[anonymous-user]

Never you mind said:

TooMany2cvs said:

JimSuperSix said:

TooMany2cvs said:

JimSuperSix said:

or there was a "proper" traffic jam?

You've never been out of the city, have you?

Actually I live in the country, full of tractors no less

Proper country? Or suburbia-with-the-odd-tractor?

Recently moved and still to learn countryside ways ?

Yeah that special countryside talent of not driving a motor vehicle into a space too small for it

[parabolica]

Jeez 12 days in and still posters are raging over this; with the amount of st-slinging going on in this thread you could replace the farmer's muck-spreader and do a 100x better job.

[gazza285]

parabolica said:

Jeez 12 days in and still posters are raging over this; with the amount of st-slinging going on in this thread you could replace the farmer's muck-spreader and do a 100x better job.

We've done that already as well, and while good for the anger issues and point making, they are not ideal for transporting sheep in.