NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm Off to bed. Enjoy.............


----------------


Doctor shot gull that left unsavoury salad dressing
By Simon de Bruxelles


A DOCTOR who campaigned to rid a town of gulls was convicted yesterday of shooting a bird that had deposited an unwelcome addition into his wife’s salad.

Brian Boughton, the founder of an anti-seagull action group, had a licence to shoot them, but only if they were a danger to public health.

Boughton said that the birds, which were nesting on the roof of his home in Dartmouth, Devon, were aggressive and spread disease. One had dive-bombed his wife as she ate her lunch, covering her food with droppings.

Boughton was convicted of unlawfully shooting the bird, contravening the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, after a trial before Totnes magistrates.

The court was told that he had shot the bird with an airgun before stringing it up in his garden as a deterrent to other gulls. He was prosecuted by the RSPCA after a complaint from a member of the public.

Boughton, 62, said that he had tried humane methods to scare off the birds, but the final straw came when one flew past an open window, splattering his hair, clothes and the lunch of his wife, Elizabeth, with droppings.

Boughton told magistrates that the birds ripped open bin bags and left droppings everywhere. He said: “It was like living in medieval squalor. These gulls feed from human sewage outfalls and waste tips.

“I believe the risk to my family was extreme. They can cause death. I tried a range of methods to get rid of them, like a distress call and firing blanks, but none of them worked. The environment we live in was contaminated with seagull droppings. My property is sometimes inches thick with the stuff.”

Boughton, who is the father of Emma B, the Radio 1 DJ, told the court that he had not enjoyed killing the gull, and had told the local police wildlife officer what he intended to do. He said: “I tied it to an apple tree as a deterrent to other gulls. It was actually very effective and the whole street was soon cleared of seagulls. Farmers and fishermen have done this type of thing for hundreds of years and the purpose is to scare off other seagulls and avoid me having to shoot any more.”

full story:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2185398,00.html

-----------

I actually can't believe he's getting convicted for this.

I actually can't believe he's getting convicted for this.
It's political correctness gone mad. :mad:

Haha, what a joke. Some Governments and people seriously need to look at their laws and policies.

The court was told that he had shot the bird with an airgun before stringing it up in his garden as a deterrent to other gulls. He was prosecuted by the RSPCA after a complaint from a member of the public.


I have to wonder if seagulls are really deterred by that kind of thing.

hahaha.....where's peta in all of this?!?!?

serves the bird right for leaving fecal matter in a salad... haha...

should you really be saying that considering your lush forests and ur national bird?!?!?!??!?!?!

Thread title wins! :D

It's political correctness gone mad. :mad:


Yeah the world is pissing me off a little more day by day with crap like this. :mad:

Wait, so a guy with a license to shoot seagulls got prosecuted for shooting a seagull? Maybe someone should shoot the judge and prosecutor and tie them to an apple tree as a deterant to other overzealous prosecutors and judges.

Wait, so a guy with a license to shoot seagulls got prosecuted for shooting a seagull? Maybe someone should shoot the judge and prosecutor and tie them to an apple tree as a deterant to other overzealous prosecutors and judges.


hear hear!

If a bird shits in my salad it will become the replacement meal.

I actually can't believe he's getting convicted for this.
The only reason he is getting convicted is obviously because no one else had seagulls. Gulls are fucking pests of the highest calibre. He even had a license to shoot them if they posed a health hazard.

Fucking lawyers. Apparently the prosecution had a better one than he did because this was a fucking no-brainer. The RSPCA can go fuck itself and whatever "member of the public" reported him should be shot and hung from the nearest tree as a deterrent to other nosy, self-righteous neighbors.

National threat of the week: Seagulls.

Do you need a permit to use poisoned bait? Or to go all crazy cat-lady and get hundreds of felines to get rid of the menaces?

National threat of the week: Seagulls.
Threat Number 1: Bears.
Threat Number 2: Tom Hanks.
Threat Number 3: Seagulls.

From the title, I thought someone had killed Paul Newman.

Threat Number 1: Bears.
Threat Number 2: Tom Hanks.
Threat Number 3: Seagulls.


You forgot ManBearPig.

hahaha.....where's peta in all of this?!?!?
They're too busy killing dogs.

You forgot ManBearPig.

Same as Tom Hanks.

the man broke the law, where is the problem?

the man broke the law, where is the problem?
But he didn't break the law. Pest animals are more than fair game for being disposed of, especially when they pose a public health threat, or threaten farmers crops and livestock. These seagulls were posing a health threat to his family and he took proper action by informing the local wildlife department of what he was going to do.

At least that's how it works in Oregon.

But the man was NOT in Oregon.

the man broke the law, where is the problem?
Let's see. He had a license to shoot the animals if they were causing a public health hazard - they were spilling garbage and droppings everywhere, I'm positive that counts, check. He told the police ahead of time, check.

The only reason he was convicted was because the RSPCA, like other head-up-their-ass organisations, can afford better lawyers than your average person.

Let's see. He had a license to shoot the animals if they were causing a public health hazard - they were spilling garbage and droppings everywhere, I'm positive that counts, check. He told the police ahead of time, check.

The only reason he was convicted was because the RSPCA, like other head-up-their-ass organisations, can afford better lawyers than your average person.

exactly. i say have gulls shit in the RSPCA's salad and see how they feel.

Do you think the seagull purposely deficated on him? Unlikely.

And I have relatives in the RSPCA, so watch what you say!

What is more, his hanging of the dead bird almost certinately caused more of a health hazard than the live ones did.

But the man was NOT in Oregon.
Regardless, it was still stated that he had a license to kill them if they posed a health hazard. He took actions that would be nonlethal to the gull, and they were inefective. And even if the gulls weren't intentionally shitting on him, having an enviroment that is constnatly contaminated by seagull droppings is unhealthy.

the man broke the law, where is the problem?
He had a license to shoot seagulls. He shot a seagull. Where did he break the law?

Seagulls are only infectious IF you touch them, AND they have a deases that is transmitable to humans.
And even then, the chances of death are minimal.

By that logic, a pet dog or cat poses a health risk when they take a dump, would you shoot them?

He broke the law because the bird was not causing a health hazard.
The bird deficates, you clean up. There is no hazard. A hazard would be if they had a deases and were dying all over the place.

Also the phrase "medeval squallor" is almost certainly an overstatement.

Seagulls are only infectious IF you touch them, AND they have a deases that is transmitable to humans.
And even then, the chances of death are minimal.

By that logic, a pet dog or cat poses a health risk when they take a dump, would you shoot them?
Their feces are a source of Salmonella bacteria. Salmonella has caused fatalities in the past.

As for dog feces, I've been tempted to shoot certain people's dogs. Well, the dog doesn't know any better. I guess I should shoot it's owner. I used to build swimming pools for a living and some customers didn't clean up after their pets. It's not fun working in an open sewer.

Seagulls are only infectious IF you touch them, AND they have a deases that is transmitable to humans.
And even then, the chances of death are minimal.

By that logic, a pet dog or cat poses a health risk when they take a dump, would you shoot them?
The difference is that there aren't hundereds of cats or dogs shitting in the same place. Fishing towns attract thousands of gulls because of the discarded fish parts. These gulls have to find a place to nest, they were nesting in the area around this house, posing a health threat by their fecal matter.

And the seagul does know better?

True, but you have to touch the dropping, then ingest it, or some of the bacterium. Even then, salmonella is not one the top one hundred most lethal bugs.

Do you think the seagull purposely deficated on him? Unlikely.

And I have relatives in the RSPCA, so watch what you say!

What is more, his hanging of the dead bird almost certinately caused more of a health hazard than the live ones did.
Look, I no longer care about your argument.

And the seagul does know better?

True, but you have to touch the dropping, then ingest it, or some of the bacterium. Even then, salmonella is not one the top one hundred most lethal bugs.
It doesn't matter whether the seagull knows better or not. It's not someone's property, and therefore it's just vermin that needs to be exterminated.

Read the story. The seagull shat in his wife's salad. He claims that seagull feces were sometimes inches deep in places on his property.

Threat Number 1: Bears.
Threat Number 2: Tom Hanks.
Threat Number 3: Seagulls.
Bears are always going to be more more dangerous than seagulls...

Just imagine Hitchcock's "The Bears". Now that's scary!!!

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/cr_2003_threatdown_m1.jpg

Why? because I have relatives who care about the rights of animals?
Youre from America arnt you?

and therefore it's just vermin that needs to be exterminated.
This is what every other species on earth thinks of humans.

Why? because I have relatives who care about the rights of animals?
Youre from America arnt you?
I care about the rights of animals. However, I care more about the rights of humans.

Nice ad hominem at the end too. You are an ignorant hippy who cares more about animals than humans arn't you?
See I can do it too.

Here here!

What gives you the right to decide what gets to live, and what ust die?

And humans matter more... Why?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
That, my friend is going to keep me laughing til Christmas!
So you are from America.

To answer your assertion. No. I am not what you term a hippy, though i know many, and think very highly of them.
I do not think that animals matter more than humans, and it is precisely because I am not ignorant that i think this.

What gives you the right to decide what gets to live, and what ust die?
Let's see, oh yeah, the license to hunt seagulls who are a public nuisance and a threat to public health.

And humans matter more... Why?
And there is no more reason to argue with you. You are unreasonable.

This is what every other species on earth thinks of humans.
Yeah, and I'll be concerned about that when they grow opposable thumbs and learn to shoot.

This is what every other species on earth thinks of humans.
doubtful, very doubtful. Other species are more concered about their survival than the elimination of another species.

I care about the rights of animals. However, I care more about the rights of humans.

Nice ad hominem at the end too. You are an ignorant hippy who cares more about animals than humans arn't you?
See I can do it too.
Wow, calling someone an American qualifies as an ad hominem attack now?

"And there is no more reason to argue with you. You are unreasonable."

How is that unreasonable?

"And there is no more reason to argue with you. You are unreasonable."

How is that unreasonable?
Well if you don't know I'm not going to tell you.:p

Here here!

What gives you the right to decide what gets to live, and what ust die?

And humans matter more... Why?
When a health threat is posed to you and your family, that gives you a right to decide what lives and what dies. Also the fact that he is a doctor, and had a license stating he may eliminate threats to public health.

And humans matter more to (most) other humans, so humans take priority. In most other species a dangerous situation becomes a fight for survival of yourself, then protection of fellow species.

This is what every other species on earth thinks of humans.


Thankfully we're at the top of the food chain. Any animal that's a threat to us is on the endangered species list, and just to be sure several thousand others.

Well, arnt you an enlightned person.

I assume you only call yourself a communist because you think you are a rebel.

Wow, calling someone an American qualifies as an ad hominem attack now?
It was the implication of it.

Well, arnt you an enlightned person.

I assume you only call yourself a communist because you think you are a rebel.
No, I call my nation Drunk Commies so people will recognize me when I log on. You see, one of my early nations, The People's Republic of Drunk Commies, was ruled as a communist, alcohol themed state. When it got deleted I kept comming back as some variation of Drunk Commies so people would know it was me.

You suck at mindreading.

It was the implication of it.
Yeah, fucked up isn't it?

Since by and large this thread has degenerated to simple character bashing, I am going to leave you to wallow in your own ignorance.

Just hope that when a passing seagul flock decides you are a threat to public health, they are more merciful than you.

Wow, calling someone an American qualifies as an ad hominem attack now?

according to captain planet here i guess so.

Yeah, I am prefectly fine to wallow in the "ignorance" that animals don't deserve more, or even equal, rights to humans.

Since by and large this thread has degenerated to simple character bashing, I am going to leave you to wallow in your own ignorance.

Just hope that when a passing seagul flock decides you are a threat to public health, they are more merciful than you.
So, you don't want to face my arguments? You decided you can't win against logic, so your going to bash people, and blame it on themselves, and leave?

So, you don't want to face my arguments? You decided you can't win against logic, so your going to bash people, and blame it on themselves, and leave?


sounds like a member of the RSPCA to me.

just some punk who cant admit he's wrong, and wants to defend some rat with wings to the death.

sounds like a member of the RSPCA to me.
Don't stoop down to his level, let him "wallow in his ignorance" but personal attacks are above us logical people.

just some punk who cant admit he's wrong, and wants to defend some rat with wings to the death.

I would like to see how he could justify a cat killing twenty seven mice in one night using his arguments though.

Since by and large this thread has degenerated to simple character bashing, I am going to leave you to wallow in your own ignorance.

Just hope that when a passing seagul flock decides you are a threat to public health, they are more merciful than you.

Merciful? They are already dropping bombs on us!

Merciful? They are already dropping bombs on us!
Biological ones loaded with Salmonella!

I care about the rights of animals. However, I care more about the rights of humans.

Nice ad hominem at the end too. You are an ignorant hippy who cares more about animals than humans arn't you?
See I can do it too.

and, of cource you are wayyyy above character bashing, arnt you?

Since you wont listen to logic, how can i argue against you?
Humans are animals too!
Its like talking to a bunch of christians.

who ever thought a bird shitting in salad would start a flame war?

:rolleyes:

and, of cource you are wayyyy above character bashing, arnt you?

Since you wont listen to logic, how can i argue against you?
Humans are animals too!
Its like talking to a bunch of christians.
We won't listen to logic?

Justify this.

A cat kills 27 mice in one night. That is more mice than the cat can eat before they go bad. How is this justifiable?

Now, since humans are animals well, why is one person killing one seagull, out of hundereds, a bad thing?

We won't listen to logic?

Justify this.

A cat kills 27 mice in one night. That is more mice than the cat can eat before they go bad. How is this justifiable?

Now, since humans are animals well, why is one person killing one seagull, out of hundereds, a bad thing?


especially a gull that deficated in your food

Other species are more concered about their survival than the elimination of another species.

Uh, yeah, humans kind of make survival a little difficult for some species.

There is a message in all this: Don't mess with a man's salad dressing!

Uh, yeah, humans kind of make survival a little difficult for some species.
Yes, what I'm saying is they don't think at all about the destruction of humans, like you indicated they did. If they did, deadly animals would be much more violent. Meaning deadly snakes would strike when they saw you, rather than using striking as a last resort.

and, of cource you are wayyyy above character bashing, arnt you?

Since you wont listen to logic, how can i argue against you?
Humans are animals too!
Its like talking to a bunch of christians.
There is this little problem with sentience...

There is this little problem with sentience...


also did you notice it was that persons first post????? good way to start off on NS :rolleyes:

Bird shits in my food, I'd blow his head off too. And leave the body hanging from a signpost.

Damned seagulls.