Hi there
A retired schoolteacher charged with possessing wild birds has accused the RSPCA of “intimidating” bird breeders across the country. http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/norfolk_...ation_1_809170 A retired schoolteacher charged with possessing wild birds has accused the RSPCA of “intimidating” bird breeders across the country. Edward William Easter, 71, appeared at King’s Lynn Magistrates’ Court yesterday for the start of his trial on six wild bird charges....... Now this to me just takes the biscuit, or is it the taking mick of the rights of all wild birds the right to have a free life, and it is illegal - end of story! I'm in shock!!!! Regards Kathy and Dave
I don't think it is fair to comment until he is found guilty or not - we don't know if those birds really are wild caught and that is for the jury to decide based on the evidence they recieve. If the guy is found guilty fair enough, if not he should take the RSPCA to caught for causing him unneccessary stress and embarassment or whatever. But quite frankly, I don't trust the RSPCA as far as I can throw them, I don't support them and I'm leaving that at that.
Millie & Fly the Border Collies
Well done Blackbird to pick this up for everyones attention,absolutely disgusting that someone should keep these birds captive and he is obviously protecting others who do the same,by the sound of it he was doing this while being a practising teacher which just shows like everything else some bad eggs in the basket although obviously most would be with us and condemn such action.
Probably they would be first to condemn him as he brings disrepute to teaching in a roundabout way.
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Until the court decides, we don't know whether the birds were wild caught or not and with the newspaper article we don't know what evidence the RSPCA have. We could be condeming an innocent person who has true captive bred birds because shock horror, they do exist. Though if he is found guilty, he should be made to reveal the names of others to the police.
Good points Kat but personally would think it wrong to keep wild birds captive the only justification being if they are used for education or falcons that at least get good flying time.
michael s said: Good points Kat but personally would think it wrong to keep wild birds captive the only justification being if they are used for education or falcons that at least get good flying time.
But that same argument could be used against any pet - and these birds, if the guy is being honest and is just a bit thick for not having proper paper work (which in all honesty I find a bit fishy as only a complete idiot would not have the proper paperwork to hand), are supposed to be captive bred. Hamsters, snakes, rabbits, budgies, goldfish, cats and dogs were all originally once wild but now the majority are born and bred in captivity and responsible pet owners will ensure they use such sources - I think the big exception to that is tropical and marine fish of which many come from the wild, but the only time people cared about them was when Finding Nemo was released.
KatTai said: Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Until the court decides, we don't know whether the birds were wild caught or not and with the newspaper article we don't know what evidence the RSPCA have. We could be condeming an innocent person who has true captive bred birds because shock horror, they do exist. Though if he is found guilty, he should be made to reveal the names of others to the police.
Yes, Kat, it is for the court to decide the outcome of this case although it is quite reasonable that the nature of the allegations are reported in the press and brought to the attention of people on this forum.
But I do find it concerning that, while the personal details of the accused are in the public domain, they are detailed in this thread. It does imply guilt. Remember the witch hunt following the detention of Jo Yeates landlord?
"The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom" - Wlliam Blake
i might be wrong but im thinking the landlord is still on police bail ..
Ha Ha Kat we all find reasons that suit ourselves depending which animals we enjoy keeping,of course in this respect I am no better than anyone else just different animals,however some are illegal and some just as each person sees it morally wrong.
Just read the article and I would need a lot more information before deciding if this man was innocent or guilty.
We only have the article to go on and do not know any more that what the paper has decided to tell us.
I would not hasten to make any judgement until all the facts are known.
Rachel
It's not always easy to hug a hedgehog.
But that doesn't mean you shouldn't.
I think that this has to be left to the court to decide - No problem there - that's what they are there for, I also agree that the press are right to report that the case is going ahead - that's what they're there for.
I also believe that the RSPCA are right to bring the case as they obviously feel that there are charges to answer, (the fact that it has gone to trial. would tend to support this)
What does grate a little is the amount of detail that is given with regards to the actual accused - I seriously believe that the full details of the accused should only be placed into the public domain, if and only if, the guilt is proven.
If people are wrong doers then they need to be "named & shamed", especially those like this gent who purport to represent the official echelons of Bird Breeders - but only when they have been proved to be guilty
Best regardsNigel
| My Images | Newport Wetlands on Flickr @barman58