T(or not)In The Park

Where would you all suggest as a 'suitable' site for T in the Park? There will always be wildlife to consider wherever they take it. I still don't fully understand why they left the disused airfield at Balado after so long.

Having had a look at The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the often quoted S1(b) that it is an offence if any person intentionally :

takes, damages or destroys the nest of any wild bird while that nest is in use or being built..........

It appears that in Scotland this was amended by The Nature Conservation Act (Scotland) 2004. Schedule 6 of which not only widens the scope of 'intentionally' by adding the words 'or recklessly' but also adds two (in my view highly relevant) subsections which constitute an offence:

(ba) at any other time takes, damages, destroys or otherwise interferes with any nest habitually used by any wild bird included in Schedule A1;

(bb) obstructs or prevents any wild bird from using its nest.

As far as I can tell these changes have now been implemented unless I have misread our government's website.

The law appears to be fairly clear and I hope that it is enforced and that an investigation is already underway to ascertain whether offences have already been committed.  Requests to authenticate videos seem to me to be a smokescreen.

Hi Chloe.  The reason  they have left open field land at the side of the A9 is because of a dangerous  (by way of old damaged or corroded ) oil pipe running under the fields. The task is to find somewhere similar that a landowner wishes to rent as I can't think wildlife would have been  hampered to the same degree in open motorway fields . Whilst titp may bring in masses of money it also creates masses of cleanup and you are literally left with bog land. The revellers normally take nothing away and the cleanup operation is therefore immense  and all have two tents one being a bedroom and you can imagine what the other is for.

My best wishes for your speedy recovery, CRinger.

Surely the on site ' ornithologist ' should be aware of those further amendments. Is he choosing to ignore them !!!

Thanks Lmac. Found this article regarding 'thermal radiation risk' in The Independent.

Good headlines in The Sun, "your under a nest " haven't read the article just saw the headlines.

Saw a twitter feed that both ospreys home on their nest.

Now another question. Given that this is not normally a public nest are we allowed to continue to mention it does anyone know.

Unknown said:

Now another question. Given that this is not normally a public nest are we allowed to continue to mention it does anyone know.

Lmac, this is something I spoke of earlier that has really annoyed me.  This "non public" nest is now very much "public" but without the protection of the likes of LG, Dyfi, Rutland etc.   IMO there is now no point not talking about it.  Because of all the carry on and articles and photos in the press, the location is no longer secure so it is probably a good thing to keep it public and hopefully this will deter people from approaching this nest.     

There needs to be 24/7 surveillance and I think that those responsible for publicising this nest should be made to fund the required protection ie equipment and staff.

I guess, Karen, therein lies the dilemma.  The locals were apparently aware of the productive nest, and have been for a number of years.  The applicant seemed to ignore the local wildlife in their application documentation.  The 'secret' nest was 'discovered' last September presumably during Scoping for the application. Because the nest was being spoken of, more support was found to encourage folk to write to P&KC to give relevant planning reasons for them to turn the application down.

It is difficult.