Antony Barnett. Vandal convicted at Prees Heath

[Neil Jones]

This happened at Prees Heath the Butterfly Conservation nature reserve.

At Shrewsbury Magistrates’ Court yesterday Antony Barnett, 71, of The Grove, Hodnet, was found guilty of causing criminal damage at the site on August 9 last year and ordered to pay £4,500 compensation.

The court heard a digger was driven on to the nature reserve and used to tear down the gates.

Read more: http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2011 ... auty-spot/

[Gibster]

For anyone not up to speed on this story and it's consequences, have a look at May Sightings and check out pages 8 onwards.

And as I mentioned, "why the heck wasn't the gate fixed anyway?"

Cheers,

Gibster.

[Michaeljf]

It's nice to know that our subscription money to Butterfly Conservation is being efficiently used in this case

[David M]

I'm quite happy for my subscriptions to be used towards getting them off this site.

They have entered illegally and caused criminal damage in doing so.

Sadly, the craven legal system of this once admired nation is such that no doubt there will be more people from the law-related professions trying to defend them than there will from those who seek to evict them.

How long would it take to remove them if they set up a camp outside Balmoral?

On second thoughts, don't bother answering that.

[JohnR]

Why does no-one use the old action of Forcible Entry and Detainer, gets them out in no time. Works on squatters, just got to show that some force was used to enter the property.

[David M]

just got to show that some force was used to enter the property.

Why should that even matter?

If I walked through someone's front door when it was left open and sat down in the lounge in front of their television, does anyone really think I'd be treated more sympathetically than if I'd have broken a lock to get there?

[Gibster]

Ok, so just one small point. That gate was trashed LAST YEAR by a local chap and his digger. I guess he has some strong feelings about access issues onto the heath (unless he was just drunk in charge of a digger?) So, for once, you can't blame the gipsies. Hence they won't be evicted for criminal damage, or breaking and entry or any other such charge. Sneaky buggers, huh? Again, why wasn't the gate repaired/replaced. Hindsight is a brilliant thing - but come on! The site is right next to a couple of main roads and this should have been foreseen.

Personally I'm looking forward to hearing about tomorrow nights moth trapping session. I expect there will be plenty of Dark Daggers, Bricks, Heath Rustics and Nonconformists recorded. (Sorry, couldn't resist. Gypsy Moth was too obvious for inclusion)

Cheers,

Gibster.

[David M]

Hindsight shouldn't come into it.

These people have no right to be living there.

[Michaeljf]

Stabled door...horse bolted etc etc..

It was cheap but I liked the Gipsy Moth joke.

But seriously, if Butterfly Conservation is going to use monies raised for sites such as this, the repair of the gate should have been done some time ago. Maybe it wouldn't have made any difference, but it sounds like mis-management by lack of any action. Hindsight, c*ap. It was asking for more trouble.

Don't expect any Silver-Studded Blues to deliver their case for the protection of the site in any court any time soon, unfortunately they're probably stuck under the travellers caravans.

[Paul Wetton]

These are all valid points raised but when the tinkers/travellers (they're definitely not proper Gypsies) accessed the farm land near us they just cut a 10 foot section out of a living hedge and wooden fence to get in.

It also appeared they knew the land owner was in Spain and would be difficult to contact making their eviction all the more difficult.

They possibly realise that the small minority of people like us will make much less noise than the residents of a housing estate and therefore in many peoples eyes the problem is better where it is rather than on their front door.

[JohnR]

If I walked through someone's front door when it was left open and sat down in the lounge in front of their television, does anyone really think I'd be treated more sympathetically than if I'd have broken a lock to get there?

Then the householder could sue you for trespass, but that is all, the police would only be interested if you had broken in because that constitutes a criminal offence. The old rule about trespass on land was that if a farmer/landowner caught you wandering around on his land offer to make a token payment for damage, this was then a defence if he subsequently sued for trespass.

[Neil Jones]

If I walked through someone's front door when it was left open and sat down in the lounge in front of their television, does anyone really think I'd be treated more sympathetically than if I'd have broken a lock to get there?

Then the householder could sue you for trespass, but that is all, the police would only be interested if you had broken in because that constitutes a criminal offence. The old rule about trespass on land was that if a farmer/landowner caught you wandering around on his land offer to make a token payment for damage, this was then a defence if he subsequently sued for trespass.

The Oxford English Dictionary has a special definition for trespass to land. From memory it is something like "Wrongful entry upon the land of another with damage to his real property."

As to those who wonder why the gates were not replaced. I don't know but if you really want to know you could ask, couldn't you?

[Charles Nicol]

Surely his family's human rights were infringed by the trauma of the trial.

Charles

[Neil Jones]

An update from the Shropshire Star

Bags of rubbish have been left strewn across a Shropshire nature reserve after travellers who set up camp there moved on.

More than 40 caravans were parked on Prees Heath Common, near Whitchurch for a week. But now the travellers have moved on, conservationists said they are facing a major clear up to restore the reserve, which is home to a nationally-important population of the silver-studded blue butterfly.

Stephen Lewis, warden for Butterfly Conservation, which owns the site, said he was disappointed that bags of rubbish had been left behind. He said the travellers arrived on May 22 and left on Sunday.

Read more: http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2011 ... z1NvpImc8Q

[Michaeljf]

Absolutely disgusting - but at least they've moved on - I suppose that is something.

[Paul Wetton]

This is typical.
The lot near us even left discarded caravans and gas bottles as well as the normal rubbish.
Watch where you walk if you visit the area over the next few months as the area was probably also used as a toilet by most of them.
No comments as what I think of them

[Butterfly Gardener]

Disgraceful. How can they be allowed to get away with things like this?

[David M]

They demand respect from other people yet show a total lack of respect for others and the environment.

Still, at least they're off now and hopefully not too much damage has been done.

[Neil Jones]

This was in the Daily Express. It is perhaps a good example of why you should not believe everything that you read in the newspapers!


By Nathan Rao

A COLONY of one of Britain’s rarest butterflies is under threat after a group of travellers moved on to a nature reserve.

Some 60 travellers descended on heathland in Shropshire that is home to the endangered silver-studded blue butterfly.

Prees Heath Common is one of only seven sites in the country where the butterflies are found.

Site warden Stephen Lewis, of Butterfly Conservation which manages the common, said: “Just by bringing vehicles on to the common, they are doing damage to the habitat. They are driving vans and caravans up and down and damaging vegetation which the butterflies feed on.”

There has been a 72 per cent decline in silver-studded blues over the past 10 years.

One of the travellers, John Smith, said the group was attending a religious event.

He said: “We are not doing any harm and will not be leaving any mess. We are born-again Christians and obey the law.”

A police spokesman said: “It is up to the landowner to take the necessary steps to remove the travellers.”


Read more: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/249 ... z1ODOyOvJh

[David M]

I read that and dismissed it the moment I read "one of only seven sites".