SSSI and the CCW

[Ian A]

I spotted this little gem in the news today ....

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/2011/09/27/farmers-charged-over-damage-to-sssi-55578-29491636/

Prima Facie it all seems perfectly reasonable and, indeed, it appears that the farmers are not the landowners and they have caused "damage". So why should they not be prosecuted ?

I am not going to defend the farmers (I know nothing of the case) and quite probably the CCW are right to prosecute. So why I am fussing as usual ?  :dry:

Here's the thing;
The CCW have been scheduling land for over 5 years arbitrarily but it appears from the article that they have so far not prosecuted anyone for falling foul of their decisions.

In my opinion, their mandate is totally farcical and, inherently iniquitous in that they have an unelected power to command dominion over landowners and everyone else at (in simple terms) their own discretion or whim and without the requirement to mark specific areas (they schedule "whole chunks").

Now, it seems, they have been historically harrassing, haranguing and bullying "people" with the aid of the police (they seems to have an attached Sergeant) to get their own way without prosection (I can name two easy examples where I have first hand experience so there is no libel).  So, why I am still fussing that no one has been prosecuted ?  Isn't that a good thing ? :dry:

Well, in all of the cases that I am aware of, there was an obvious defence that the "damage" was not actually affecting the specific area allegedly protected by the SSSI and the case could therefore fail in court. That would have been very bad for the CCW because it would likely serve as a case precedent in all other similar instances which means that people would have been able to "go about their business" so long as they did not interfere with the specific SSSI designation.

Now, however, the CCW have a "soft target" and will almost certainly get their case precedent as I doubt the farmers will argue they have not interfered with the reason for the SSSI.

Assuming all of this is the case, I suspect the outcome will be a case precedent preventing anyone from doing anything on SSSI regardless of whether the action(s) actually affect anything or not.

I also personally beleive this case has been spefically selected for that very purpose which, if so, demonstrates that the CCW are not acting equitably but are, as my own experiences so far have demonstrated to me to be the case, power-mongering.

Assuming, of course, the newspaper has reported the position correctly.

Hum.

:S

Ian

[Doug Thompson]

Well said.:angry:

[Les Williams]

But Natural England (England) and CCW (Wales) only have the right to prosecute if you contravene the PDO's that were listed when the sites were scheduled.

With each site the statuary body MUST provide a list of PDO's to the land owners. This is then the only basis for prosecution. If the farmers are being prosecuted then they must be pretty sure of their case. I would suggest that in the other cases where they haven't prosecuted, perhaps they achieved what was required by negotiation rather than prosecution. I know on Mendip a land owner was going to be prosecuted for infilling adepression/cave entrance that was scheduled. Infilling was directly aginst a PDO and he was bang to rights. Cavers helped him empty the depression and then lobbied the relevant authorities and the potential prosecution was dropped. In another case cavers were digging in an SSSI and dumping spoil ther as well. Natural England threatened prosecution, a series of negotiations took place, spoil is dumped temporarilly and removed every so often, the cave is being dug, nobody was prosecuted.

Negotiation is always a better outcome than prosecution.

Incidently, a Sheduled Ancient Monument (different agency) was recently destroyed by a land owner at Priddy. The statuary agency (English Heritage) was informed and we are awaiting the outcome, but believe prosecution is almost certain. The site concerned was Priddy Circles, a very important prehistoric site. It has been buldozed completely so even if it is "restored" the archeology will no longer be original or in place. The general concensus is that "hanging is too good for them" around these parts.

If these farmers have destroyed part of an SSSI in direct contravention of the PDO's then they deserve everything that is coming there way. If they havent then they will probably get aquitted (if CCW go all the way with the legal action).

If this is the Llwyn in question then this document
http://www.ccw.gov.uk/idoc.ashx?docid=d2cafe7a-f14c-4918-b975-4eea38c84e9c&version=-1
lists all the PDO's for that site. I don't know what they have allegedly done as the article dosen't go into detail but if they are the land owners then they will have been advised by CCW and given this list. If they were not the land owners then it is probable that they shouldn't have been doing what ever it was without the land owners consent anyway.

[Ian A]

Les,

Not disagreeing with you in the slightest. The process (as you described it) almost certainly is the case here â€" I have no reason to believe otherwise.

Negotiation is better than prosecution yes â€" but in the two cases I was involved with (with other club members) there was no “negotiation”, no “discussion” but plenty of “threatening “ and intimidation. Additionally, the “officer” at our end of the rock face had a totally opposing view to the officer at the other end of the same rock face. In this instance, not only was the club (in question) given permission, they were also given a grant as the “silt” was considered rubbish and waste. In our case, the removal of the same silt was considered worthy of prosecution and a police sergeant was despatched to make enquiries and prosecute.

The point I am making here is that “one man” has decided the fate of everything and has now found a “soft target” to gain a legal court case precedent which will have very broad ramifications to the rest of us in what I consider to be an iniquitous manner.

I have no sympathy for the farmers in question (well, I still don’t know the case facts so I shouldn’t even say  that) â€" it’s the fact that they (the CCW), in my opinion, are using he opportunity to legitimise a whole load of bollocks at their own “whim” and totally contrary to the spirit of their existence.

:unsure:

Ian

[Les Williams]

Having looked at the article again it seems that the alleged offence took place on land owned by the woodland trust. It is likely that the Woodland Trust never gave the farmers permission to do what they have allegedly done so in my opinion they are going to get everything that they deserve (if guilty). The SSSI legislation was set up to protect such sites from being destroyed/damaged by unscrupulous land owners/others. It seems that that is exactly what is happening in this case so I dont see how this is setting a precedent. Either you break the PDO's and get busted or you haven't and dont. No precedent for damage to a site by actions listed in the PDO's is ever going to set a precedent for actions that dont conflict with PDO's.
The local CCW guy who is exceeding his authority will not be able to persue people through the courts if his case is weak/non existant. The police may turn up but again if they arrest somebody wrongly they will get a heap of shit from the courts and their superiors. It is my experience that the police quite often don't know what the various laws actually say and rely on "experts" to advise them. If the local guy is using their ignorance to intimidate then the police (who unwittingly become part of his game) should be reported as exceeding their authority. At the same time, if your evidence is strong then he should be reported to his superiors, however this action WILL result in making an enemy of somebody you may need as a friend. (I am minded to think of a certain Spar Mine here). If your actions are in contravention of the list of PDO's for a site then you are wide open for prosecution and should be glad there was just the threat with no further action.

People have already been prosecuted under the Wildllife and Countryside Act so precedents have already been set for this stuff.

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/necrowprosecutions_tcm6-5760.xls

[Ian A]

Les,

We are still at cross purposes â€" sorry .....

The case in question does involve farmers who were not the landowners....

The man at the centre of our CCW is NOT outside of his authority or remit.

According to the report, there are no precedents of this nature “here” and the case will likely create a precedent.

.... It isn’t the Spar mine I have in mind but an instance at Poachers cave to which the club was unaware of and also an incidence at Nadolig which the club got hammered with and which was nothing to do with us.

I am referring only to the underhand manner in which the CCW (in our area) appears to operate.


:dry:

Ian

[mike leahy]

you trying to hang yourself sec :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: .you can be like a dog with a bone sometimes;)

[Les Williams]

Sorry Ian I may have confused you a bit, I think you misunderstand my post.
perhaps I should have split it apart as there are two different things in it. The first part is about the farmers and Llwyn. The second is about your "little local problems" around Poachers, Nadolig and Spar Mine and CCW.

Les

[Ian A]

Well, we are certainly running around in circles .... :whistle:

I did understand your comments regarding our CCW man stepping beyond his remit but actually, he isn’t. I have complained, whinged and moaned in a bitter and twisted manner that his remit supports him and he is not breaking any rules or laws. He is free to wade it with two shoulders full of bazookas if someone touches a blade of grass that has been deemed SSSI.

Furthermore, he can dictate what should and should not be SSSI. I know there should be consultation but it is all a smokescreen of utter diarrhoea. The people at the centre of the Nadolig scandal were there more than 10 years before he even stepped foot there and they knew nothing at all of the SSSI until he found them 5 years after it was scheduled. Then he sent a police sergeant after them with specific instructions to prosecute (I know because I was there and I met with that sergeant). Who consulted with the diggers before it got slapped with a SSSI ?

To further add acid into the already diabolical pot of complaint; such is the wide remit of these people that one officer can deem part of the “silt” rubbish (and a grant magically becomes available) whilst another can deem the same “silt” so important that anyone who touches it MUST be prosecuted.

It is this element of “power” that has been handed to these people that I find so utterly distasteful and I believe wholly iniquitous.

THEN.... to reinforce their mandate with the force of the courts, they find a soft target and, suddenly, there is a precedent to protect all SSSI land and not just it’s component parts. That’s my opinion before anyone shouts libel.

In this case here I believe that the best interests of the Countryside of Wales is most certainly not being served and, instead, we have a power-mongering and malevolent individual(s) who has nothing better to do than to take my taxes and waste them by firing bullets everywhere loaded with venomous poison.

Your philosophy of “keeping him a friend because we might need him” is, of course, quite right and I (personally) have been extremely nice, pleasant and totally co-operative to him/them for the sake and benefit of not only the club but all others around who may be affected. It does not mean, however, that I have like the git.

There is another philosophy too ...

All it takes for evil to flourish is good men to stand by and do nothing

I did not vote for this contemptuous fiasco and I want my money back :evil:

.... I do like our little chats

Ian

[mike leahy]

not forgeting all the dumped waste in nadolig car park (glass bottles,tyres.ect ect) which did'nt/has'nt been removed by yhe ccw. poachers just through the fence line (which is lying flat on the floor , and has been for years) house hold waste ect ect which has'nt been removed . but we where??-