They do, and when people report them they sometime get done for it. It is worth reporting such occurrences when you witness them.
Crime and Punishment
- Thread starter Birdjaguar
- Start date
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
Most of our trails are through forests, though I imagine inevitably on trails such as the 1000+ mile Ice Age trail, there are points where it cuts across a field.
If I was a farmer and a trail cuts through my field, and I could face prison time for something my cow did....you betcha I would put up a barb wire fence on both sides of the trail, turning one large field into two fields.
The path has to be 6 foot across. If you look at the online map I linked above you get the idea of the number of these. If a farmer fenced off all these paths they would loss a lot of their productive land, as well as making awkward shaped fields that are hard to work. It is certainly an option, but not one most people here take.
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
I don't care what the other farmers do, I'd just worry about my own property. I would be petitioning to have the trail slightly altered so it goes around the edge of the property, rather than down the middle or whatever adjustments makes the most sense for that particular trail and property.
It is really hard to get them moved. I used to work on a research establishment that had issues with violent animal rights protestors, and had a public footpath going through the middle of the site. They did get it moved, but it took them about 40 years to make the change.
My point is that farmers should not have to do that.
EnglishEdward
Deity
The way I see it.
A farmer may have duty to keep an aggressive bulls out of fields with a public right of way, but milk cows are low risk.
If you choose to enter a field with cows on it, that is your risk.
But that is health and safety for you.
A farmer may have duty to keep an aggressive bulls out of fields with a public right of way, but milk cows are low risk.
If you choose to enter a field with cows on it, that is your risk.
But that is health and safety for you.
I generally agree with you, but cows with calves are really dangerous. Without any real data, I would rather walk between a beef bull and its herd (another thing you should not do) than walk between a dairy cow and her calf.
Public Rights of Way tend to be long established. You'd have been aware of them when you purchased the land or took the tenancy. If you obstructed one I'd want you prosecuted.
The Health and Safety Executive only prosecutes after repeated warnings have been given.
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
I'm not talking of blocking the trails.
A fence on the sides of the trail to separate the cows from the people. Do these trails have designated enter/exit points? I Wouldnt put fence across the entrance/exit. Or can you get on/off wherever you feel like? If you can get on/off wherever then I can understand your 'blocking access' argument, but then I can understand farmers upset by people not sticking to the trails, trampling other non-trail areas.
In this case theres no suggestion in the article that the walker who died acted improperly or foolishly. Thats an assumption @Samson is making.
A right of way isn't a trail but in this case I note that it went through the farmyard, an area that visitors to the farm like vets or suppliers would use.
Heres another, slightly more detailed article on the case.
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/new...-where-attack-took-place-18-years-ago-3324233
There was no warning signage and there had been a previous incident at the same farm. The couple should perhaps have turned back when they saw the cows with calves but felt it was too late to do so. They were experienced walkers who lived in the area, not ignorant townies. Difficult for the farmer since he had only 1 other pasture field but the farm owners don't seem to have done anything to improve matters in the years since the previous attack.
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/new...-where-attack-took-place-18-years-ago-3324233
There was no warning signage and there had been a previous incident at the same farm. The couple should perhaps have turned back when they saw the cows with calves but felt it was too late to do so. They were experienced walkers who lived in the area, not ignorant townies. Difficult for the farmer since he had only 1 other pasture field but the farm owners don't seem to have done anything to improve matters in the years since the previous attack.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
Getting killed by a sow is a pretty trite way for a small farm kid to check out. Almost never the boar, he makes it clear he's dangerous. The sow goes from gentle to murder in no time flat. Most things are that way with their young.
I mean I could be wrong. I've never verified that, just word of mouth.
I mean I could be wrong. I've never verified that, just word of mouth.
That has some interesting points. It seems the previous attack was a generation ago and they claim the information was not past down. For information here, I think a big mistake was:
> she saw Mrs Tinniswood pick up one of the dogs
It is probably the dogs that the cows were upset about. Dogs are good at running away, and are not worth what humans are worth. If I found myself in such a situation I would let the dogs go. They are likely to run, the cows are likely to follow and leave you alone.
Also the coroner does not know what they are talking about:
> Cattle are not domesticated animals
Yes they are, they are just not tame pets they are farm animals.
Pigs are really violent animals. Any animal is pretty dangerous when their young are involved, but pigs will kill and eat you just because they think they can. You have to make sure they are always more afraid of you than you are of them.
More GDPR fun: Google analytics illegal in France and Austria at least
French data protection authority CNIL has declared that Google Analytics breaches Euro privacy law the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) because it transfers European netizens' data to America.
The decision, while only applicable inside France, is likely to be echoed around the European Union: CNIL confirmed it had reached its decision in cooperation with its other EU data protection counterparts – and today's ruling mirrors one made by Austria a month ago.
CNIL's decision found that Google Analytics' operation contravened article 44 onwards of the EU's General Data Protection Regulation. The French agency read the EU directive together with the famous Schrems II judgment of the EU Court of Justice, which struck down the old Privacy Shield transatlantic data-sharing agreement.
The decision boils down to the US not having EU-style data protection laws preventing secret transfer of personal data from corporations to US law enforcement and spy agencies. Nonetheless both the United States and the political bloc have, until now, fudged the issue by publishing standard contractual clauses that allow commerce to continue while politicians haggle over a permanent solution to the problem.
CNIL's decision reiterates the Austrian finding that automatic operation of Google Analytics (think of all the cookie opt-out boxes which put analytics under the "necessary and not disable-able" heading) does not qualify for the "necessary for the performance of a task" exemption in the GDPR.
A lawsuit filed in the US last year alleged that Google Analytics can still track users of its Chrome browser in incognito mode.
The decision, while only applicable inside France, is likely to be echoed around the European Union: CNIL confirmed it had reached its decision in cooperation with its other EU data protection counterparts – and today's ruling mirrors one made by Austria a month ago.
CNIL's decision found that Google Analytics' operation contravened article 44 onwards of the EU's General Data Protection Regulation. The French agency read the EU directive together with the famous Schrems II judgment of the EU Court of Justice, which struck down the old Privacy Shield transatlantic data-sharing agreement.
The decision boils down to the US not having EU-style data protection laws preventing secret transfer of personal data from corporations to US law enforcement and spy agencies. Nonetheless both the United States and the political bloc have, until now, fudged the issue by publishing standard contractual clauses that allow commerce to continue while politicians haggle over a permanent solution to the problem.
CNIL's decision reiterates the Austrian finding that automatic operation of Google Analytics (think of all the cookie opt-out boxes which put analytics under the "necessary and not disable-able" heading) does not qualify for the "necessary for the performance of a task" exemption in the GDPR.
A lawsuit filed in the US last year alleged that Google Analytics can still track users of its Chrome browser in incognito mode.
Broken_Erika
Play with me.
Her boyfriend killed her son but she went to jail
Rebecca Hogue's boyfriend beat her toddler son to death while she was at work. So why is she the one being called a murderer?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60326621
Rebecca Hogue's boyfriend beat her toddler son to death while she was at work. So why is she the one being called a murderer?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60326621
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
Holy crap. Murder conviction on a false equivalence. She "allowed murder"? Really? They can screw off with that. I didn't realize we had something that bogus on the books, or that there were so many examples of our "justice" system making a bad situation even worse.
Broken_Erika
Play with me.
US father and son 'chased and shot' black FedEx driver
A black delivery driver in Mississippi who says he was pursued and shot at by two white men while on the job has argued that they should face hate crime charges.
D'Monterrio Gibson, 24, compared his case that of Ahmaud Arbery, a black man who was murdered while jogging.
"I feel it's my responsibility to speak up, because [Arbery] didn't survive to speak up for himself," he told CNN.
Similar to that case, suspects in Mr Gibson's incident are a father and son.
According to Mr Gibson, he was delivering a FedEx package in Brookhaven, about 55 miles (88km) south of Jackson, Mississippi on 24 January when his van was cut off by a pickup truck as he was pulling out of a driveway.
He swerved around it, then encountered a man in the street pointing a gun at him and gesturing for him to pull over.
He ducked behind the steering wheel as the man opened fire, he said. Bullets damaged the van and packages inside but no one was hurt in the shooting.
Mr Gibson said the two men, identified as father Gregory Charles Case and son Brandon Case, then pursued him, firing more shots, until he got onto the highway to return to the FedEx distribution centre.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60354950
A black delivery driver in Mississippi who says he was pursued and shot at by two white men while on the job has argued that they should face hate crime charges.
D'Monterrio Gibson, 24, compared his case that of Ahmaud Arbery, a black man who was murdered while jogging.
"I feel it's my responsibility to speak up, because [Arbery] didn't survive to speak up for himself," he told CNN.
Similar to that case, suspects in Mr Gibson's incident are a father and son.
According to Mr Gibson, he was delivering a FedEx package in Brookhaven, about 55 miles (88km) south of Jackson, Mississippi on 24 January when his van was cut off by a pickup truck as he was pulling out of a driveway.
He swerved around it, then encountered a man in the street pointing a gun at him and gesturing for him to pull over.
He ducked behind the steering wheel as the man opened fire, he said. Bullets damaged the van and packages inside but no one was hurt in the shooting.
Mr Gibson said the two men, identified as father Gregory Charles Case and son Brandon Case, then pursued him, firing more shots, until he got onto the highway to return to the FedEx distribution centre.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60354950
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
That article doesn't have anything that suggests it as "hate crime". The guy doesn't allege that the assailants said anything racially motivated. No mentions of any of these folks knowing about each other previously, either.
Without any context that suggests hate crime, how the heck can you implicate hate crime? Absent such evidence, this is more akin to banditry where the bandits open fire upon non-compliance.
"Hate crime" is a stupid concept anyway, but if it's going to be used at all, there should at least be elements to support it. And no, "people of different skin colors were involved" is not sufficient on its own.
Without any context that suggests hate crime, how the heck can you implicate hate crime? Absent such evidence, this is more akin to banditry where the bandits open fire upon non-compliance.
"Hate crime" is a stupid concept anyway, but if it's going to be used at all, there should at least be elements to support it. And no, "people of different skin colors were involved" is not sufficient on its own.
