# I find this rather worrying.



## Alec Swan (31 March 2017)

&#8230;. and specifically any attempt to change our legal system,  the one whereby we consider a person to be innocent until proven guilty.  It may well be possible for a person to prove their innocence,  perhaps they weren't even at the location of the supposed crime,  but if they were,  then the burden of proof falls upon the accuser and their ability to reinforce their accusations with evidential fact.

Put simply;  we can prove that an event has taken place but it would be often near impossible to prove that an event hasn't taken place.  

_Lord Bonomy, who produced a review of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act for the Scottish Government in late November 2016, appeared before the Scottish Parliament&#8217;s Environment, Climate Change and Rural Affairs committee on Tuesday 28th March.

The focus of questioning was on the recommendations made for greater monitoring and regulation, and changes to the legislation which the review recommended should be considered.  Lord Bonomy spoke of the frank and open discussions he had with those of opposing views on the issue of hunting.  He expressed concern that the anti-hunting lobbyists may oppose any changes due to their opposition to the activity itself, and not simply how it is conducted at present.  He also confirmed restricting the number of dogs that can be used was not necessary, and that any such change would have the effect of ending flushing to guns in Scotland. Lord Bonomy noted that a shortage of police involvement was not an issue, and there was no evidence of a lack of resources as far as enforcement was concerned. He accepted that what the hunts were doing was &#8220;genuine pest control&#8221;.  Lord Bonomy indicated that he gave a lot of weight to the evidence submitted by Police Scotland, even though this contradicted the evidence given by the police to the Environment Committee, a matter of months earlier.

Lord Bonomy was keen that the non-legislative recommendations around monitoring, protocol and code of practice were taken forward, *noting that having the evidence in order to bring successful prosecutions was vital*. &#8230;.._ *He acknowledged that his suggestion to reverse the burden of proof so that it would be for someone accused of illegal hunting to prove their innocence was controversial and his position was in a minority as far as the judiciary was concerned.* _He also accepted that abandoning the principle of innocent until proven guilty would be more serious if coupled with an extension of the time in which a prosecution could be brought, noting that this would &#8220;work against the interest of the accused&#8221;. Indeed there are good grounds for believing both these proposals are incompatible with human rights law. The Scottish Government are due to publish a public consultation on Lord Bonomy&#8217;s recommendations, and the Committee concluded by deciding to await the outcome of that consultation before considering the matter further._

Any thoughts,  Judgemental?

Alec.


----------



## GirlFriday (2 April 2017)

Worrying indeed. And of course post-Brexit the issue of human rights compatibility becomes less of an inhibitor to such steps.

The anti-terror stuff is terrible enough (secret evidence the accused has no right to challenge etc, etc) but the idea of us going down this kind of road more widely, shudder...


----------



## Dry Rot (3 April 2017)

I think some people need to wake up and smell the coffee!

In October 2015, my guns were seized by the police following an altercation with my neighbour over his falsification of a planning application. I was not told of my alleged offence ("hostile behaviour" -- my accuser being said fraudster) for TEN months. By the way, I'm a farmer and don't shoot for sport. My guns are 'tools of trade' for vermin control (rabbit holes and horses don't mix) and to humanely destroy livestock. To cut a long story short, my complaints to the independent reviews commissioner were upheld on three out of four counts and my guns were returned after 14 months. I handled this matter myself but to have a suitable lawyer attend a one hour meeting with the police (let alone handle all the correspondence) would have cost a minimum of £500.

But that is just a detail. Because my case has become known, I have been approached by others in a similar situation. One, a self employed gamekeeper, had his guns seized and 18 months later has had his firearms certificates revoked because he is SUSPECTED of committing fraud by falsifing deer returns. Not sure how fraud constitutes an offence under firearms legislation but it does mean the police don't have to bother with the tedious chore of gathering evidence and proving their case in court. They can just claim they suspect the gun owner MAY present a danger and take away the means by which he feeds his family. Innocent until proven guilty? I think not!


----------



## Alec Swan (3 April 2017)

D_R,  BASC and the GKA are associations which provide support for their members.  I do agree with you though,  the heavy handed approach to those who hold firearms legally and by the police often not only oversteps the bounds of common sense,  but also the victim's everyday Rights.

Alec.


----------



## Dry Rot (3 April 2017)

Alec Swan said:



			D_R,  BASC and the GKA are associations which provide support for their members.  I do agree with you though,  the heavy handed approach to those who hold firearms legally and by the police often not only oversteps the bounds of common sense,  but also the victim's everyday Rights.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

BASC act as a mouthpiece for the member, so they will put his case -- but seem disinterested in taking on the police directly about policy or their sticking to police guidelines. My MP attended an interview and was marginally better. There were so many flaws in the handling of my case that I will be putting it all on a web site. I have never been in trouble with the police in my life, was a registered firearms dealer, ran a busy sporting agency for north sea oil personnel, managed 66,000 acres for a cousin of the Queen, and have held an Open firearms certificate for 59 years! 

When they took my guns, I asked for a receipt. The officer asked me sign a document saying, "This is just a receipt to say we've got the guns. We will be taking it away with us". Now does that sound right to you? Fortunately, I had my reading glasses on. It was actually a form stating that I was voluntarily surrendering my guns for destruction! I never did get a proper receipt, in spite of numerous requests, and when they returned the guns they'd lost the bolts and the ammunition! 

Trust the police? Did you know that 994 officers in England and Wales have a criminal record? (Source: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jan/02/police-944-officers-criminal-record). Just Google "Police corruption" and see what comes up. I can assure you, after doing minimal research, I won't be trusting the police in the future. Here's another one: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/03/the-shocking-truth-about-police-corruption-in-britain/


----------



## Goldenstar (3 April 2017)

At the risk of sounding like a rabid conspiracy theorist I think it's wise to trust no one and especially the police .


----------



## View (3 April 2017)

To return to the opening post, I find it very worrying.  How on earth does this fit with corroboration of evidence, never mind driving a four in hand through "innocent until proven guilty".


----------



## Alec Swan (3 April 2017)

View said:



			To return to the opening post, I find it very worrying.  How on earth does this fit with corroboration of evidence, never mind driving a four in hand through "innocent until proven guilty".
		
Click to expand...

And ignoring for one moment the question of Hunting,  what does it say about our judicial system?  Innocent until proven guilty is a basic tenet of Law.

More to the point,  how can someone,  the good lord in question,  be expected to give a clear and unbiased opinion on the rights or not of hunting,  when the man seems to have no idea of the structure of our legal system?  The man's puddled.

Alec.


----------



## Dry Rot (4 April 2017)

For those who are interested, this is the newspaper report on the stalker who has had the tools of his trade taken away from him because of "allegations". I know the man personally as he occasionally calls to pick my brains about dog training. There are similar stories but this is by far the most serious in my opinion. Are we heading for a police state?

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/f...contracts/?sso-c=MC40NTI3MjcwMCAxNDg5MDUwOTMy

Why do I get so concerned about justice? A few years ago, a neighbour was allowing his stock to stray over the countryside. He was finally charged when the regular procurator fiscal went on holiday. When the regular man came home, he called me to try to persuade me to withdraw my complaint. I wouldn't. He then said, he didn't have to prosecute and wouldn't "...as the owner is a very nice person and a very good curler". I reported this to the Lord Advocate and got a reply stating that this is a small community and it was inevitable that people would know each other. I replied that if things continued, someone was going to get killed. Not long after, a motorcyclist was kiled when he hit one of the man's cows. When I was called as a witness at the fatal accident inquiry, the police stated that I had made 23 complaints about straying stock. I challenge that, stating that it was a lot more! Not the police that time, but the Scottish legal system.  Trust them not! Nothing to do with the thread except to explain my lack of trust in the "authorities". I gather the procurator fiscal was sacked.


----------



## Fiagai (7 April 2017)

"noting that having the evidence in order to bring successful prosecutions was vital. &#8230;.. He acknowledged that his suggestion to reverse the burden of proof so that it would be for someone accused of illegal hunting to prove their innocence was controversial and his position was in a minority as far as the judiciary was concerned"
Read more at http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/foru...find-this-rather-worrying#KTVBBoYEdVMcexOS.99

I fear this train of thought comes from the same stable of the politically  correct mindset aka 'right think' that engenders the claim that anyone who hunts, does so  outside the law - unless they are able to prove otherwise. 

It is evident that those hunting whether drag hunting or hunting the clean boot are regularly attacked both in the flesh and vilified by the press with accusations of moral turpitude.

 Just as just as it no longer politically expedient to point the finger at anyone committing atrocities arising from deranged teachings, so those who attempt to claim the moral high ground with regard to anti hunting rhetoric without any justification do so unchallenged.  Time a spade is call a spade. Without the will to challenge these issues head on, they remain unchallengeable.


----------

