This discussion has been closed.
Posted by rosietonthemove (U2260932) on Friday, 7th August 2009
Are the SW's aware that Pip and David are wrong to have photographed the Barn Owl's nest without a licence? In the interest of public information, I hope this will NOW be made clear in the SL concerned.
, in reply to message 1.
Posted by kk forever in the cyber atlantis of mustardland (U4670994) on Friday, 7th August 2009
Fri, 07 Aug 2009 19:09 GMT, in reply to rosietonthemove in message 1
(scratches elderly head)
Déjà vu? ... sounds like the name of an album.
Or that for every thread that is moved to DTA without a response, verily shall two more spring up in its place and thus shall we learn about the awesome power of 2.
[Cue doom music]
, in reply to message 3.
Posted by Auntie Clockwise (U8040384) on Saturday, 8th August 2009
Good on you Rosie. We need a response from the editorial team (or whatever they are called).
, in reply to message 4.
Posted by SussexCornflower InTheFinalCountdown (U13833966) on Saturday, 8th August 2009
Whereever the thread is - it shouldn't stop the powers that be explaining themselves to the listeners.
It is perfectly obvious from this thread that we are at odds over the situation - and that's just the MLers.
Many other people also listen to TA and are presumably left with the belief that it is all right to put a ladder up a tree, wait until the adult bird flies off (just one or two?) and then climb up and peer into the nest and take photos etc.etc.
Whether that is technically O.K. within the strict letter of the law I do not know but I cannot believe that it is a very sensible message to put out.
BFM
(Copied over from the end of the other thread)
I was just about to do this, Rosie, when I saw your posting.
Whatever our views about whether the law was broken, I am sure that we can agree that the promised clarification must surely be broadcast.
As I see it, there are three possibilities:
1. The SW genuinely believe that they have established that David and Pip did not break the law; in which case, they are deluded. Although my views differ from those of the majority, I of course accept that it is yet to be proven that they did not transgress.
2. The original research was faulty in that it did not take into account the fact that, merely by visiting the nest, D and P might disturb a protected bird and so break the law.
3. The SW are ignoring us.
, in reply to message 6.
Posted by rosietonthemove (U2260932) on Saturday, 8th August 2009
I am concerned that the /photography/ was done /without/ /a/ /license/.
Indeed. And, if the act of photography disturbed the birds, it is clear that the law was broken.
But the mere act of photography, if it did not disturb the birds (I accept that this may be a big if) if not itself illegal.
, in reply to message 8.
Posted by SussexCornflower InTheFinalCountdown (U13833966) on Sunday, 9th August 2009
Indeed. But the message that came over from the programme was that there was no real restrictions at all!
Technically legal or not, the message was not clever.
BFM
, in reply to message 9.
Posted by Auntie Clockwise (U8040384) on Sunday, 9th August 2009
dickie, my understanding is that you don't even attempt to photograph schedule 1 species without a licence. Even with a very long lense you need to get fairly close to the nest and there's no guarantee the birds won't be disturbed. I wish someone from one of the appropriate organisations would give us a definitive statement, but to my knowledge one mustn't photograph a schedule 1 species at the nest without a licence regardless of whether or not the birds are visably disturbed.
message 8
[Patiently]
I am not concerned about the chumps breaking the law.
Hence my note, in the first post
"Are the SW's aware that Pip and David are wrong to have photographed the Barn Owl's nest without a licence? In the interest of public information, I hope this will NOW be made clear in the SL concerned."
, in reply to message 11.
Posted by rosietonthemove (U2260932) on Monday, 10th August 2009
So.
Will the programme be dealing with how Pip got her licence to photograph barn owls, please?
Agreed we are in dire need of some resolution on this, and I'm personally very disappointed that Keri hasn't responded to numerous requests for clarification. I know that comparatively few people (30?) have actually contributed to the three main threads involved, but we are the tip of the iceberg. Many more will have been lurking or fuming silently about this matter.
, in reply to message 13.
Posted by Mustafa Grumble (U8596785) on Monday, 10th August 2009
Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:08 GMT, in reply to southernmum
Many more will have been lurking or fuming silently about this matter.Â
Yep. I'm one of them.
, in reply to message 14.
Posted by SussexCornflower InTheFinalCountdown (U13833966) on Monday, 10th August 2009
And many listeners (who don't visit ML) could be assuming that it is O.K. to do what David and Pip did....
... and even if what they did does turn out to be technically within the law, it is a dangerous message to broadcast as it could easily be interpreted as being acceptable to a wider degree.
BFM
Forlorn bump
, in reply to message 15.
Posted by rosietonthemove (U2260932) on Tuesday, 11th August 2009
message 15
To hell with the law.
What about Poisonous Pip getting a licence (only 32 a year issued) to photograph Barn Owls?
Many more will have been lurking or fuming silently about this matter.Â
Yep. I'm one of them. Â
Me too.
Rosie
She hasn't got a licence, has she? Or are you suggesting that she should be applying for one (in which case the chances of her application being successful would not be high, I feel).
, in reply to message 19.
Posted by rosietonthemove (U2260932) on Tuesday, 11th August 2009
NO!
Message 1:
Are the SW's aware that Pip and David are wrong to have photographed the Barn Owl's nest without a licence?
Message 7
I am concerned that the photography was done without a license.
Message 12
Will the programme be dealing with how Pip got her licence to photograph barn owls, please?
, in reply to message 20.
Posted by Reggie Trentham (U2746099) on Tuesday, 11th August 2009
I've been following the various threads on this off and on and I can't for the life of me understand why you are all so worked up about it.
Ok there may or may not have been a mistake made over the legality of Pip and the barn owls, I'm honestly not sure. But why is the issue so important? It's not as if it had major plot or character development implications. It was a minor plot line leading nowhere. So why all the agitation?
, in reply to message 21.
Posted by Auntie Clockwise (U8040384) on Tuesday, 11th August 2009
Reggie, speaking for myself I just want it to be made clear, in TA's role as a conveyor of information, that if someone finds the nest of a Barn Owl it is not ok to climb up a ladder and take photographs.
, in reply to message 21.
Posted by rosietonthemove (U2260932) on Tuesday, 11th August 2009
Tue, 11 Aug 2009 19:05 GMT, in reply to Reggie Trentham in message 21
But we know (from the lack of any apologetic response to any Archers errors) that the Production Team don't care.
Reggie
I want it to be made clear that the mere act of taking photographs is not itself illegal, so long as the birds are not disturbed.
, in reply to message 24.
Posted by rosietonthemove (U2260932) on Wednesday, 12th August 2009
cos, I want it to made clear that Pip needed a license (Ruth's snotty comment, to Lynda, "Pip's allowed to" is nonsense, otherwise) and that she had the requisite steps fullfilled to get it.
, in reply to message 23.
Posted by Keri Davies (U2219620) on Wednesday, 12th August 2009
>But we know (from the lack of any apologetic response to any Archers errors) that the Production Team don't care.
I'm hurt and offended by that statement. I think my numerous responses (literally thousands) over many years - which most certainly have included apologies - do not justify the accusation.
, in reply to message 26.
Posted by Keri Davies (U2219620) on Wednesday, 12th August 2009
On the general point:
As you may be aware, this episode took place when I was off sick. I took up the question with the team soon after I returned to work but when I was still in a pretty poor state. It may that I misinterpreted either the question that was raised here, or the answer I was given.
I will ask again, but the key person is on leave at the moment, so it may be some time before I'm able to respond here.
, in reply to message 27.
Posted by Auntie Clockwise (U8040384) on Wednesday, 12th August 2009
Thanks Keri. The query was never meant as a personal dig at you and I'm sorry if you feel hurt.
Sorry you are offended.
I do recall one apology ("I'm very sorry for the delay in getting a response to this question," which was Hayley's due date). You went on, "I can confirm that we did make an error in this case, " which we knew - we had spent a great many posts spelling out the error, we didn't need a confirmation. We wanted an apology for the error being made in the first place.
And Feedback hasn't got a track record of the prod team admitting mistakes and apologising, has it?
, in reply to message 29.
Posted by SussexCornflower InTheFinalCountdown (U13833966) on Wednesday, 12th August 2009
Thanks Keri - look forward to hearing from you when the appropriate person is back.
I think it is true to say that the MLers who have been keeping this up are genuinely concerned about Barn Owls and are not just trying to get at you all out of spite.
We will bump the thread as a reminder!!!
BFM
, in reply to message 27.
Posted by Leaping Badger (U3587940) on Wednesday, 12th August 2009
Thanks for your response, Keri. I'm not looking for an apology - least of all, from you - and I don't agree with Rosie's statement.
What I'm looking for is: a clarification of what went on in the on-air episodes; whether this was supposed to constitute lawful visits to a Schedule 1 species nest; if so, on what basis this was lawful; and acknowledgement, if a mistake has been made and the disturbance was unlawful (as seems clear to me from what I heard and from what has been discussed on the other thread) that a mistake has been made.
I was interested to find out from the BTO that they originally suggested the SL in order to get young people interested in ringing and recording, and I'll be interested to find out what their view is of the scenes which were broadcast.
If it does transpire that what was broadcast inadvertently showed them breaking the law, it might then be appropriate to write future scenes to make this clear to anyone who was inspired by the earlier scenes to clamber up a ladder and poke a camera into a Barn Owl nest.
By the way, does anyone have the relevant episodes as podcasts? Just thinking if we're told 'Pip and David did not make the parent leave the nest' we can check back to get exactly what was broadcast.
'Ö'
Me neither, Badgey.
Crikey, this all feels very OTT. I agree the record should be set straight about licences and photographing owls but blimey, I would imagine Keri is feeling beleaguered.
, in reply to message 31.
Posted by Mustafa Grumble (U8596785) on Wednesday, 12th August 2009
Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:52 GMT, in reply to Legspinning Badger in message 31
Leapers - While I accidentally deleted my entire library of podcasts - %&£&^%!"$£"%£$"!^(*^)$(^$"%£*"&$£"^!$"$£ - earlier this year, I do have a complete set from 6th May. I think that should just about cover the period in question.
Charlie the bird expert (I keep wanting to say Charlie Parker, and would not be surprised if there was a deliberate reference) appeared on 1st July.
Pip lifted the lid of this particular Ambridge version of a tree-mounted Pandora's box & took the photos (sorry, Dickie - difficult to see how that is anything other than disturbing the things) on 20th May.
I think the Ruth reference to the intended illegal activities was on 18th May - I shall try & find the time to LA.
Unfortunately, this SL seems to have started on/about 26th April (so I do not have a podcast) when, according to the synopsis,
"Pip’s revising hard but is worrying about her exams. David doesn’t want her to overdo it and assures her they just want her to do her best. He suggests Pip takes a break so they can look at the owl nest box. To Pip’s delight there are five eggs."
Hope this helps, M'Lud.
, in reply to message 18.
Posted by _ShropshireLad_ (U10844552) on Thursday, 13th August 2009
Thu, 13 Aug 2009 07:31 GMT, in reply to Quezzie in message 18
Many more will have been lurking or fuming silently about this matter.Â
Yep. I'm one of them.Â
Me too.Â
Lurk.
, in reply to message 21.
Posted by en plein air (U14080895) on Thursday, 13th August 2009
I also have absolutely no idea why people's knickers are in a twist over this.
The point is that, whether or not inadvertently, the SW have given the impression that it is OK to disturb protected wild birds, a clear breach of the law (there is a subsidiary issue, whether or not what David and Pippa did is disturbance within the meaning of the law).
If David and Pippa disturbed the birds, this is a serious matter, and nothing has been broadcast yet to establish that they did not break the law.
, in reply to message 35.
Posted by Auntie Clockwise (U8040384) on Thursday, 13th August 2009
Because we're concerned about conservation and don't want the wrong message to go out over the radio about what's acceptable behaviour around protected wildlife.
, in reply to message 35.
Posted by Leaping Badger (U3587940) on Thursday, 13th August 2009
In reply to porcelainclown in message 35
That's a very derogatory phrase, as though no one has any business asking about this.
'Ö'
, in reply to message 37.
Posted by en plein air (U14080895) on Thursday, 13th August 2009
Ah, I see now. I just regard it as a soap opera and as I never go to the countryside I kind of tune out during things like the barn owls.
, in reply to message 39.
Posted by Lemon Sabotage (U9577550) on Thursday, 13th August 2009
It is just a soap opera...but people who listen to it regularly appreciate the writers getting their facts right. Nothing wrong with that.
, in reply to message 40.
Posted by en plein air (U14080895) on Thursday, 13th August 2009
no, indeed not.
, in reply to message 41.
Posted by Auntie Clockwise (U8040384) on Thursday, 13th August 2009
TA's has always had a remit for disseminating information about farming and the countryside.
According to Keri TA lost its remit to inform about farming matters some time in the 1970s (but I'm pleased that it still does).
Meanwhile back at the barn owls ... I'm worried that this query has been oustanding so long that some of those little barn owl chicks will fall off the twig through boredom into the jaws of the farmhouse cat waiting below ...
[no barn owl chicks were harmed during the writing of this post]
, in reply to message 43.
Posted by marthawood4d (U2638874) on Thursday, 13th August 2009
Meanwhile back at the barn owls ... I'm worried that this query has been oustanding so long that some of those little barn owl chicks will fall off the twig through boredom into the jaws of the farmhouse cat waiting below ...
And I'm worried that hoards of people will have been going round the countryside photographing (and therefore disturbing) Barn Owls whilst saying "It's OK - Pip and David Archer did it"!
, in reply to message 44.
Posted by Mustafa Grumble (U8596785) on Tuesday, 18th August 2009
"Toowit Toowoo - Bump - Get that flashing light out of my eyes - Go on scram, before mum comes back with a regurgitated mouse - Hop it, you're disturbing me - Toowit Toowoo"
, in reply to message 45.
Posted by _ShropshireLad_ (U10844552) on Tuesday, 18th August 2009
Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:37 GMT, in reply to Mustafa Grumble in message 45
I have, in my hand at this moment, an RSPB leaflet entitled "Code of Conduct for Birdwatchers" which states that:
"Disturbance at or near the nest of a species listed on the First Schedule of the Wildlife and and Countryside Act 1981 is a driminal offence. Copies of Wild Birds and the Law are obtainable from the RSPB, The Lodge, Sandy Beds, SG19 2DL at £3 per copy. Copies of our Leaflet Information about Birds and the Law are available free of charge (please enclose a first class stamp)."
I've sent an email which is now waiting for the return of the relevant person. Out leave is consecutive, however, so it will probably be mid September before I have anything useful to say here.
, in reply to message 47.
Posted by Leaping Badger (U3587940) on Tuesday, 18th August 2009
Many thanks, Keri. I look forward to the response.
You off anywhere nice? (Silly question; if it wasn't nice, you wouldn't have booked it.)
'Ö'
, in reply to message 48.
Posted by Keri Davies (U2219620) on Wednesday, 19th August 2009
We're being very bold and leaving it to the last minute, hoping that the weather forecast will be good enough to stay in Britain.
I suspect it will either be a huge success or an abject failure.
So glad this has been brought up I did have a bit of a head-bashing moment over it; being someone who does her bit for barn owl research.
Just to note, in breeding season it is against the law to even go neer a barn owl site for the purpose of collecting pellets (I'm a zoologist, not a wierdo, I promise!!), so I'm positive anything involving a ladder, camera and Pip is going to be an even bigger no-no!!
I'd bring this up with my professor, but coming out as a closet TA fanatic is slightly worrying!
Welcome to the Archers Messageboard.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
This messageboard is now closed.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú © 2014 The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.