Trespassers

you seem very knowledgeable!

I can remember working for a family farm in Essex on a harvest job years ago, they had massive problem with this. His plan was to freeze them, chip them then spread the output down the beach in the spinner at a low tide.

For legal reasons I would like to point out I do not agree with this or any other action on this thread.... I would just not be surprised if I saw it on the front pages in the coming months as the problem seems to be getting worse and due to police cuts the arrests get less as a propotion.
 

Davey

Member
Location
Derbyshire
Not that I'd recommend it but I think if you're planning to take on pikeys you'd need to make sure there was nothing linking it back to you.

Farmers, their buildings, equipment and families are easy targets to pikeys who can easily pick up and disappear once they've exacted their revenge.

Worse still the law will do nothing to protect someone defending their property (Unless they fear for their life), nor will they do anything to take on the pikey scum that do as they like.
 
they don't do anywhere near enough damage here to warrant any sort of interaction. The damage they could do after an interaction can not be measured though!

others have a different views though.

talking to a game keeper recently, a friend of his in Yorkshire had 3000 partridge stolen in their pens - that's probably £90k of losses in one night. It was them as an example who may take a different view and be seen on the front pages.
 

Formatted

Member
Livestock Farmer
Both really people being where they shouldn’t. At the end of the day any farm anywhere is liable should somebody enter without permission and then have an accident which is their own fault.

This is complete nonesense. I'm a technical member of institute of occupational health and safety; you have to do all that is reasonably practicable to protect MOP, staff and yourself from harm. It'd be very easy to argue that by someone trespassing you cannot do all that is reasonably practicable in protecting them. That being sad, deliberate traps designed to injure trespassers are 100% illegal.
 
Point out to them that by walking through your crops they have contaminated their footwear and clothing with di-hydrogen oxide, which in a large enough dose can be fatal.
They'll probably start moaning on Facebook about farmers using di-hydrogen oxide and want to get it banned. Now ask yourself this, how long could you continue farming without it?
dihydrogen monoxide;);)
 

PSQ

Member
Arable Farmer
dihydrogen monoxide;);)

Dangerous stuff, you don't want to get it on your skin :dead:

From http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

A similar study conducted by U.S. researchers Patrick K. McCluskey and Matthew Kulick also found that nearly 90 percent of the citizens participating in their study were willing to sign a petition to support an outright ban on the use of Dihydrogen Monoxide in the United States.

What are some of the dangers associated with DHMO?
Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:
poisonbottle.gif

  • Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
  • Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
  • Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
  • DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
  • Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
  • Contributes to soil erosion.
  • Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
  • Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
  • Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
  • Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
  • Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.
  • Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.
  • Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.
 
Dangerous stuff, you don't want to get it on your skin :dead:

From http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

A similar study conducted by U.S. researchers Patrick K. McCluskey and Matthew Kulick also found that nearly 90 percent of the citizens participating in their study were willing to sign a petition to support an outright ban on the use of Dihydrogen Monoxide in the United States.

What are some of the dangers associated with DHMO?
Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:
poisonbottle.gif

  • Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
  • Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
  • Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
  • DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
  • Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
  • Contributes to soil erosion.
  • Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
  • Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
  • Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
  • Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
  • Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.
  • Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.
  • Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.
brill,print that out and post it by the entrances
 

D14

Member
This is complete nonesense. I'm a technical member of institute of occupational health and safety; you have to do all that is reasonably practicable to protect MOP, staff and yourself from harm. It'd be very easy to argue that by someone trespassing you cannot do all that is reasonably practicable in protecting them. That being sad, deliberate traps designed to injure trespassers are 100% illegal.

I'll give you an example then. We found two teenagers sat on the roof of a shed about 20ft up. They had scaled the vertical wall using the plastic drainpipes to sit on a roof that is around 50 years old. Nobody was in the our yard at the time to tell these two idiots not to do it. So if they had fallen climbing onto the roof or fallen through the roof and injured themselves where do we stand with that because we do not have signs saying 'do not climb up walls and onto roofs'.
 

milkloss

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
East Sussex
I'll give you an example then. We found two teenagers sat on the roof of a shed about 20ft up. They had scaled the vertical wall using the plastic drainpipes to sit on a roof that is around 50 years old. Nobody was in the our yard at the time to tell these two idiots not to do it. So if they had fallen climbing onto the roof or fallen through the roof and injured themselves where do we stand with that because we do not have signs saying 'do not climb up walls and onto roofs'.

Ah, but then you'd be telling them it was dangerous and allowing them to do it by not excluding them!
 

Formatted

Member
Livestock Farmer
I'll give you an example then. We found two teenagers sat on the roof of a shed about 20ft up. They had scaled the vertical wall using the plastic drainpipes to sit on a roof that is around 50 years old. Nobody was in the our yard at the time to tell these two idiots not to do it. So if they had fallen climbing onto the roof or fallen through the roof and injured themselves where do we stand with that because we do not have signs saying 'do not climb up walls and onto roofs'.

The argument you'd make is, there was no ladder or stair leading to the roof and that it was not reasonable practicable to prevent people from climbing up your drain pipes. What is reasonably practicable is an assessment based on the hazard verses cost, time and inconvenience of removing that hazard. If you ever in doubt write it down, it shows you have thought about it and that you have decided it was not reasonably practicable to fix.
 

Formatted

Member
Livestock Farmer
Ah, but then you'd be telling them it was dangerous and allowing them to do it by not excluding them!

I have no idea how this myth generated itself, it is going to get people killed but also puts companies/individuals at risk.

This is from the HSE guidance note
  • 20 The Regulations place duties on employers in respect of risks to their employees/non-employees with the principal duty being to ensure that safety signs are in place.
By having signage you do not admit liability but by not having it you are committing a breach.

Specific legislation if anyone is interested is section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and regulation 12 of the Management Regulations regarding the health and safety of non-employees.
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 79 42.9%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 63 34.2%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 16.3%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 6 3.3%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,287
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top