Wed Apr 08, 2009 10:37 am
Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:21 pm
Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:50 pm
Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:19 pm
Wed Apr 08, 2009 10:15 pm
"...the matter is now subjudice and we cannot comment further.”
Wed Apr 08, 2009 10:47 pm
The Austrian wrote:"...the matter is now subjudice and we cannot comment further.”
so it seems, only the outcome of the case depends on further assessments e.g. proof, more legal proceedings, witness hearings etc. and - above all, the judges verdict at the end - tbh, I don't hold my breath![]()
![]()
The Austrian wrote:Last but by no means least, I would love to see JUST ONE precedented case acknowledged, which then could be used as a base for future incidents, leading to easier, less bureaucratic - and in effect for the taxpayer, less costlyconvictions for per se "offenders" - I am just not sure if I live long enough
to see that day
![]()
![]()
![]()
Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:28 pm
Thu Apr 09, 2009 1:10 am
The Austrian wrote:Thank you Bradan for making it clear, this was precisely what I tried to express in the above posting, obviously you are an expert in legal matters and I am sure the majority of us here are most grateful for any help and advice
What, in your opinion would be the most effective way to proceed when you have a definitive lead of proof or suspicion regarding the matter of illegal netting or poaching?
I am sure, most of us encounter these activities in the pursuit of their hobby and are just gob smacked by the fact that some individuals just walk all over rules and regulations or simply do not know how to react in a civil and acceptable manner without endangering themselves.
Thu Apr 09, 2009 1:19 am
Sun Apr 12, 2009 12:27 pm
Sun Apr 12, 2009 2:11 pm