The Accidental Smallholder Forum

Community => Coffee Lounge => Topic started by: Fowgill Farm on August 06, 2013, 10:31:53 am

Title: Farner charged with manslaughter over walker death
Post by: Fowgill Farm on August 06, 2013, 10:31:53 am
Just seen this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-23586552 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-23586552)
 
So does this mean that any of us who have cattle in our fields which have public right of ways thro them are responsible or their actions?? Where the feck are we supposed to put them?
Grrr :rant: :rant:
Mandy :pig:
Title: Re: Farner charged with manslaughter over walker death
Post by: plumseverywhere on August 06, 2013, 10:35:24 am
He was killed by a bull, very tricky. I would have thought there are more circumstances than the media have thought to detail in the report such as inadequate warning signs , had the bull shown signs of aggression to walkers before etc? Am going to show hubster this article as he has to advice farmers about such issues -
personally, if I saw a field with a bull in it or cows with calves at foot,  I don't think I'd choose to take a little wander through - footpath or not! but we have to assume the public are ignorant of livestock and potential problems, don't we  >:(

edited to add - just re-read it, 'sufficient evidence' and 'in the public interest' - legal speak to say "there is much more to this than we are currently disclosing...."
Title: Re: Farner charged with manslaughter over walker death
Post by: Rosemary on August 06, 2013, 11:22:15 am
Be interesting to see how this pans out. We don't have any footpaths over our land but it is an issue for many.
Title: Re: Farner charged with manslaughter over walker death
Post by: SallyintNorth on August 06, 2013, 11:35:53 am
It is generally considered bad practise to keep a bull on his own on a public footpath.  I wonder if this is what happened here.

Title: Re: Farner charged with manslaughter over walker death
Post by: john and helen on August 06, 2013, 11:43:04 am
Very sad that the guy lost his life, but i do feel sorry for the farmer
I often see people on the public footpath that borders my shooting ground...
in those cases i put the gun away, i guess putting a bull or any animal with young in a field with a public footpath should be thought through 1st..... its a shame when you can't rely on common sense anymore

I wouldn't dream of entering a field with cows, unless they where mine
Title: Re: Farner charged with manslaughter over walker death
Post by: jaykay on August 06, 2013, 12:03:57 pm
It's of course sad that he died.

So it effectively means you can't use your own fields?
Title: Re: Farner charged with manslaughter over walker death
Post by: lachlanandmarcus on August 06, 2013, 01:18:35 pm
It's not clear what the circumstances are eg was the farmer breaking the law by the bill being turned out alone in a field with a FP, or had there been previous incidents with the animal which meant he knew it was high risk temperament.


If not, then from a farming POV it is worrying, as normally while there is civil liability for any accidents and injuries (dealt with by insurance), there shouldn't be criminal charges,


Which makes me think, and hope, that the circumstances of this case might have aggravating features, if not it would be of great concern.
Title: Re: Farner charged with manslaughter over walker death
Post by: ShaunP on August 06, 2013, 01:32:57 pm
Just read a different report that adds 'The Wildlife and Countryside Act makes it an offence to keep a bull in a field which is crossed by a public right of way.

Read more: http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Landowner-faces-manslaughter-charge-man-killed/story-19619322-detail/story.html#ixzz2bBwgyxud (http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Landowner-faces-manslaughter-charge-man-killed/story-19619322-detail/story.html#ixzz2bBwgyxud)
Follow us: @thisisleics on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bPh6E6ayur4PbXacwqm_6r&u=thisisleics) | thisisleicestershire on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bPh6E6ayur4PbXacwqm_6r&u=thisisleicestershire)

Tragic indeed!!
Title: Re: Farner charged with manslaughter over walker death
Post by: Sbom on August 06, 2013, 01:51:08 pm
Gosh, I know him!
His brother farms near me.....
Title: Re: Farner charged with manslaughter over walker death
Post by: Fleecewife on August 06, 2013, 02:03:27 pm
He's being charged but not yet convicted, so this case might help clarify the law in this respect.   Whilst I would never walk through a field with a bull in it, nor would I put my bull, if I had one, in a field with a public right of way through it.  Since the public rights of access have changed, those who work in the countryside have to take the new rules into consideration.    I very much doubt there is only one field where the bull can be.    But lets see how the trial pans out.
Title: Re: Farner charged with manslaughter over walker death
Post by: suziequeue on August 06, 2013, 02:13:13 pm
Yes - certainly seems to be more to it than meets the eye.......
Title: Re: Farner charged with manslaughter over walker death
Post by: Hassle on August 06, 2013, 06:46:49 pm
So last year when the police shot 3 heifers because a walker with a dog went off piste and decided to walk along the edge of some pasture land and CPS says it wasn't in the public's interest to prosecuted.
And on the same page is the following story A police officer who hit and killed a trainee soldier on the A31 in Surrey while responding to an 999 call will not face charges.
Smells of one rule for one and another for everyone else.
Title: Re: Farner charged with manslaughter over walker death
Post by: shygirl on August 06, 2013, 06:50:49 pm
so what if someone exercises their "right to roam" and goes in your field with a bull present? we have a bull and although there is no official public right of way, we are very close to a village. im quite worried now.
what are the laws on putting up warning signs? the village surrounds our lan so not sure where to put the sign up??
Title: .
Post by: RUSTYME on August 06, 2013, 07:00:11 pm
Right in the middle of the field , in very tiny writing , with a ps : he's behind you !
Title: Re: Farner charged with manslaughter over walker death
Post by: lachlanandmarcus on August 06, 2013, 07:48:00 pm
Quote from: ShaunP on August 06, 2013, 01:32:57 pm
Just read a different report that adds 'The Wildlife and Countryside Act makes it an offence to keep a bull in a field which is crossed by a public right of way.

Read more: http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Landowner-faces-manslaughter-charge-man-killed/story-19619322-detail/story.html#ixzz2bBwgyxud (http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Landowner-faces-manslaughter-charge-man-killed/story-19619322-detail/story.html#ixzz2bBwgyxud)
Follow us: @thisisleics on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bPh6E6ayur4PbXacwqm_6r&u=thisisleics) | thisisleicestershire on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bPh6E6ayur4PbXacwqm_6r&u=thisisleicestershire)

Tragic indeed!!


lazy journalists grrr. This is not the case as such.


You cannot keep any breed of  bull alone!  without cows for company, in such a field, nor any bull of a recognised dairy breed (alone or with company cows). However a beef breed bull accompanied by cows is perfectly legal!


Here is the relevant section of the act. Look like the journalists only read the headline not the subsection.http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69/section/59 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69/section/59)





Title: Re: Farner charged with manslaughter over walker death
Post by: lachlanandmarcus on August 06, 2013, 08:01:34 pm
Talk on the farming forum suggests that the bull may have been a brown Swiss breed one.


 Interesting if so as I think they are a dairy breed.  but ........aren't one of of the listed recognised dairy breeds specified in the Act which is basically a list of UK dairy breeds. One wonders if the legislation has kept up with farming bloodstock policies. I was surprised that the act doesnt say 'recognised dairy breed (for example: x, y, z) rather than 'recognised dairy breed (x y z)'


Will be interesting to see the facts as they emerge. Just very sad someone lost their life and their wife badly injured and no doubt farmer also traumatised.
Title: .
Post by: RUSTYME on August 06, 2013, 08:20:58 pm
I may have got this wrong as i only use an old mobile to connect to the internet , but didn't this tragic event happen 3 years ago ? November 2010 i read .
So there should be plenty of details available online of what happened .
Title: Re: Farner charged with manslaughter over walker death
Post by: Hassle on August 06, 2013, 09:08:39 pm
Quote from: shygirl on August 06, 2013, 06:50:49 pm
what are the laws on putting up warning signs? the village surrounds our lan so not sure where to put the sign up??

You are not allowed to put up warning signs, this is because it means the bull maybe dangerous, so no more "Beware of the Bull", you are now only allowed to inform people that there is a "Bull in Field" (I am only aware of rules relating to England on this matter).

I put the signs on the foot path and vehicular entrances to my fields, although I do padlock those.
Title: Re: Farner charged with manslaughter over walker death
Post by: shygirl on August 06, 2013, 09:23:44 pm
Quote from: Hassle on August 06, 2013, 09:08:39 pm
Quote from: shygirl on August 06, 2013, 06:50:49 pm
what are the laws on putting up warning signs? the village surrounds our lan so not sure where to put the sign up??

You are not allowed to put up warning signs, this is because it means the bull maybe dangerous, so no more "Beware of the Bull", you are now only allowed to inform people that there is a "Bull in Field" (I am only aware of rules relating to England on this matter).

I put the signs on the foot path and vehicular entrances to my fields, although I do padlock those.

the gates by the village dont belong to me, i just have right of access through the gates. my gates are up by my house. i think i will get some signs asap.
anyone any idea about right to roam??
Title: Re: Farner charged with manslaughter over walker death
Post by: Fowgill Farm on August 07, 2013, 09:21:04 am
You can get signs from your local NFU office, we have them, our problem is that every field around us has a public footpath thro it, it would be a rare find to find a field that didn't and there's a woman in the village who makes sure they are all walked at least once a year so that they don't lapse(some of them have if not used for so many years they lapse clauses on them)
We normally have an Angus bull in with the summer heifers but they're a bit younger this year so not sure if he will be coming to stay. The sight of him certainly puts off most walkers and we do have less thro during the summer months. The path actually walks right past our sitting room window tho most people just cut across the middle of the field. You do get the odd nosy sod tho.
Mandy :pig:
 
Title: Re: Farner charged with manslaughter over walker death
Post by: SallyintNorth on August 08, 2013, 07:32:37 am
On liability and 'right to roam'...

There is no 'right to roam' in England.  What there is, is land designated as 'Open Access'.  On such land, the public is allowed to roam at will.  To walk on land not so designated would be trespass.

There seems to have been no thought given to public safety in introducing these changes.  For instance, on the moorland farm there are hundreds of acres now designated Open Access.  Many of them are fenced off and treacherous.  But now the public have a right to walk across them.  When one of them has an accident, or more likely loses a dog in a bog, will there be liability attaching to the farmer / landowner?  Defra tell us not - but sooner or later there will be a test case, no doubt.

When they were doing the designations, farmers could make representations as to why such and such a field should not be designated 'Open Access'.  I wasn't farming at that time but I think that one of the reasons you could give was that you needed that field as a bull field, where bulls may be kept without cows, or where dairy bulls may be at large.


I could get on my hobby horse again, and rant on  :rant: about people no longer being responsible for the consequences of making their own choices, or even knowing how to be responsible for making their own choices.  It's as though we want a society in which anything bad which happens is always someone else's fault and you can sue them for it.  When I holidayed in Hawaii I was taken aback that I wasn't allowed to trot or canter on a hack - clearly the owners were only happy to take responsibility for our safety at a walk.  Not why I hired a horse!  (Although the scenery was lovely from horseback.)  Don't want to live wrapped in cotton wool - too much like a padded cell for my taste...
Title: Re: Farner charged with manslaughter over walker death
Post by: Backinwellies on August 08, 2013, 10:38:12 am
I remember this case and think the case rests on whether the bull is concidered beef (and thus OK by law to be there) or dairy and there fore shouldn't be on footpath.   Very sad for the family but also for the farmer.

Title: Re: Farner charged with manslaughter over walker death
Post by: Marches Farmer on August 08, 2013, 02:01:23 pm
Hmm, so a beef breed is OK?  The legislators have clearly never encountered the Limousin breed!

Trouble is that when footpaths began it was the quick way for the locals to get to the smithy, the market, the well ...  Because they were local they would have known about bulls (and rams, too, at tupping time) and not getting between a cow and her calf .  Now those footpaths are walked by people who might, once, have owned a hamster, and just don't think about the territorial instincts of an animal weighing over half a tonne.  We don't have a footpath on the farm but I once found two young teenagers with their dog scrambling around the 1 in 3, 40 ft drop into our waterfall, next to our pregnant ewes, under the impression they had the right to be there. 
Title: Re: Farner charged with manslaughter over walker death
Post by: Copeson on August 11, 2013, 10:51:55 am
Hi we live just down the road from this farmer and it was a swiss bull and he was in the field with heifers so we have been told.
Title: Re: Farner charged with manslaughter over walker death
Post by: lachlanandmarcus on August 11, 2013, 11:53:30 am
Quote from: Copeson on August 11, 2013, 10:51:55 am
Hi we live just down the road from this farmer and it was a swiss bull and he was in the field with heifers so we have been told.


If that's the case then it will be an interesting court case - dairy bull should not have been out in a field with FP by law but definition of a dairy breed bull in the wording of the law appears to specify the breeds and that list doesn't include foreign dairy breeds.


I suspect that the baseline of no dairy breed in footpath field will prevail though, as even I knew that, and I don't own any cattle! Perhaps they may reduce the charge to a lesser one with the argument re the wording of the law however.


Very sad case for everyone involved, no winners whatever happens.



Title: Re: Farner charged with manslaughter over walker death
Post by: bloomer on August 11, 2013, 11:55:58 am
for those of us who don't know cattle whats the difference between a dairy and a beef bull?


why would there be a distinction?



Title: Re: Farner charged with manslaughter over walker death
Post by: doganjo on August 11, 2013, 11:57:11 am
Quote from: bloomer on August 11, 2013, 11:55:58 am
for those of us who don't know cattle whats the difference between a dairy and a beef bull?


why would there be a distinction?




You beat me to it, David - I was just going to ask the same thing - are Dairy bulls more aggressive as a whole?
Title: Re: Farner charged with manslaughter over walker death
Post by: SallyintNorth on August 11, 2013, 12:24:41 pm
On the whole, yes, dairy bulls are more aggressive than beef bulls.  A lot of beef bulls are very steady - Aberdeen Angus, Red Devon, Hereford leap to mind - while some others are a bit more touchy - Limousin, Simmental, Charolais, for instance.  (Yes there is a correlation between country of origin and temperament - I always think I'd be p***ed off if I was bred for the Limousin region of France and was being made to live out in Cumbria!   :D) 

Generally a beef bull with his cows and calves will take them to safety rather than confront a person - or dog - in the field with them.  And a bull running with stirks (steers) will be paternally in charge - I was once very grateful to a gentle Aberdeen Angus bull for rounding up and calming down a herd of boisterous bullocks who were 'playing' with our dogs out on an Exmoor moor...

I wonder whether one difference is that a beef bull's cows will generally have their calves with them, whereas the dairy calves will have been removed at a very young age?   :thinking:
Title: Re: Farner charged with manslaughter over walker death
Post by: lachlanandmarcus on August 11, 2013, 02:06:19 pm
The dairy bulls are worse temperament because they have been bred for many many generations with one factor (genetic propensity to produce high yielding cows) focused on to the exclusion of all others eg temperament....


In addition as SITN says,they may not be kept in natural family setups.


Jerseys are reputed to be the worst but none of them is reliable. Which is one reason that most dairy farmers use AI, both for the genetics and to not have the risk to themselves and others.


I do think the overall risk of attacks has increased with the larger and wilder continental beef breeds becoming dominant though. But there are also other factors. Beef cattle used to be handled using dogs and stockmen, and be used to obeying their instructions. But nowadays it's more likely to be quadbikes and pickup trucks, so the beef cattle are getting less close handling from their keepers and are less biddable as a result.


It should be said tho that in terms of the risk from cows, while some of the continentals have a risk for being a bit nuts and wild (eg Limousin), certain native breeds can be very dodgy just after giving birth (Galloways have this reputation) so it is wise to take care with all breeds.


I have to cross cattle every time I hack the horse (I would never take a dog through) and I prefer if when the Angus are in the field rather than the Charolais as I do find them calmer and they are smaller!
Title: Re: Farner charged with manslaughter over walker death
Post by: lachlanandmarcus on August 12, 2013, 08:41:06 am
More update on the legislation , apparently the Secretary of State can add breeds to the list specified in the Act so it MAY be that Brown Swiss bulls are on this supplementary list and therefore are specifically banned after all.


Farmers also saying on forums that dairy breed bulls poss have imbalance of hormones (hence why they produce such heavy milkers) and that they are normally raised by hand/bucket not on cow leading to a lack of natural fear of humans making them more dangerous.  Beef bulls if kept entire usually better as they are likely to be sold as a stock bull for either dairy or beef herd and so have to be shown to be manageable.
Title: Re: Farner charged with manslaughter over walker death
Post by: devonlad on August 12, 2013, 10:54:33 am
I've always believed ( based on what, i don't know) that "dangerous" livestock (particularly bulls) cannot be kept on footpath fields.
Obviously it is terribly sad that this poor chap lost his life. As a keen walker I have developed a keen awareness that any farmers field has the potential to have dangers within it. Sadly we no longer live in a world where personal responsibility is encouraged- or a world where an "accident" ever happens.
There is a bridle path running along the other side of the hedge, the length of our field. since we moved in several years ago we have become used to the occasional rambler missing the sign and climbing over our gate and walking through our field. until this year it has generally only ever been a source of amusement and something we quite happily put right. HOWEVER, we now own a ram- and he is not a friendly ram !!!. A couple of weeks ago i glanced over and saw a chap fending off Arthur with his rucksack. I went haring over and managed to rescue the poor fella. whio promptly began yelling at me and threatening all sorts of repercussions. I'm sure he was a bit shell shocked which explained his total lack of reason. I became responsible for the fact that he had climbed the wrong gate, responsible for the fact that the sign has become overgrown (its not on my land or anything to do with me) responsible for the fact that he couldn't read a map and responsible for the fact that he climbed over a gate that is clearly tied up and padlocked (adjacent to one that is not !) into a field with a large curly horned snorting individual- we did not part on friendly terms.
Despite my being distinclty unimpressed by his stupidity and his language, I would feel far far worse should anyone be hurt by my ram- and I'm not sure in this day and age whether i might even be found to be culpable. last week I took a pot of white paint and wrote on the gate " PRIVATE- NOT BRIDLEPATH" plus I cut back all the growth around the sign to make it more visible to ensure that no-one would go the wrong way. Yesterday afternoon I intercepted someone climbing the gate-how do you ever insure against idiots ?
Title: Re: Farner charged with manslaughter over walker death
Post by: jaykay on August 12, 2013, 11:06:09 am
You do have to use a bit of common sense.

Daisy and I had three cut-short attempts at a walk yesterday. The first, on a bridleway, was interrupted by a very large Shire-type gelding. He seemed quite friendly over the gate, but I didn't know him and I didn't know how he would feel about us walking through his patch, so we didn't.

Then we tried the next footpath along, but as we came over a rise, there were cows with calves, so we beat a hasty retreat.

Then finally we did get a decent walk along a bridleway but we turned back when we reached a tup field (Leicesters and Rough Fells) - again, they were probably fine but I didn't know how they'd react to the dog and the Roughs are big, and horned.

We could have carried on regardless in all three cases, and added to the 'Darwin award' statistics. But we preferred being sensible and remaining undamaged to walk another day!
Title: Re: Farner charged with manslaughter over walker death
Post by: Marches Farmer on August 12, 2013, 11:55:24 am
I think the familiarity with humans and natural upbringing thing is a factor.  We used to do  calf-rearing in the lambing sheds through the summer and autumn, taking British Blue X British Friesian heifer calves on with a view to them becoming suckler cows.  They came from a small family dairy farm and were a delight to keep.  Bull calves raised by people will consider them as part of their herd and seek to dominate them as they mature.  The most dangerous animal on the farm is the one you trust the most.
Title: Re: Farner charged with manslaughter over walker death
Post by: lachlanandmarcus on August 12, 2013, 01:00:59 pm
Quote from: devonlad on August 12, 2013, 10:54:33 am
I've always believed ( based on what, i don't know) that "dangerous" livestock (particularly bulls) cannot be kept on footpath fields.
Obviously it is terribly sad that this poor chap lost his life. As a keen walker I have developed a keen awareness that any farmers field has the potential to have dangers within it. Sadly we no longer live in a world where personal responsibility is encouraged- or a world where an "accident" ever happens.
There is a bridle path running along the other side of the hedge, the length of our field. since we moved in several years ago we have become used to the occasional rambler missing the sign and climbing over our gate and walking through our field. until this year it has generally only ever been a source of amusement and something we quite happily put right. HOWEVER, we now own a ram- and he is not a friendly ram !!!. A couple of weeks ago i glanced over and saw a chap fending off Arthur with his rucksack. I went haring over and managed to rescue the poor fella. whio promptly began yelling at me and threatening all sorts of repercussions. I'm sure he was a bit shell shocked which explained his total lack of reason. I became responsible for the fact that he had climbed the wrong gate, responsible for the fact that the sign has become overgrown (its not on my land or anything to do with me) responsible for the fact that he couldn't read a map and responsible for the fact that he climbed over a gate that is clearly tied up and padlocked (adjacent to one that is not !) into a field with a large curly horned snorting individual- we did not part on friendly terms.
Despite my being distinclty unimpressed by his stupidity and his language, I would feel far far worse should anyone be hurt by my ram- and I'm not sure in this day and age whether i might even be found to be culpable. last week I took a pot of white paint and wrote on the gate " PRIVATE- NOT BRIDLEPATH" plus I cut back all the growth around the sign to make it more visible to ensure that no-one would go the wrong way. Yesterday afternoon I intercepted someone climbing the gate-how do you ever insure against idiots ?


 Beef breed bulls accompanied by cows can perfectly legally be in fields with rights of way.


 They can't be alone without cows, and no dairy breed bull is ever allowed in such a field whether alone or not, which is where the criminal prosecution is arising in the post stems from (bull thought to be brown Swiss which is a dairy breed)


Re the walkers, if they shouldn't legally be where they are , ie  off ROW in England and Wales, then liability would probably be limited even if it were a dairy bull, probably civil liability as there's strict liability in civil law for damage or injuries caused by horses or livestock in most circumstances, with the damages reduced potentially by contributory negligence on the part of the walker if it was shown they knew they were where they shouldn't be or where there was a warned about danger.


The issue up here in Scotland is that the access legislation mean pretty much every field is legally accessible by walkers etc, so dairy bulls would I imagine rarely be let out in a field to graze :-(

Title: Re: Farner charged with manslaughter over walker death
Post by: Marches Farmer on August 12, 2013, 02:56:22 pm
Always imagined the people who framed the access legislation having a nice daydream about folks having jolly picnics in a hayfield (irrespective of the fact it's meant to feed stock through the winter).  I consider I first and foremost farm grass - it's what I keep on it and how well I manage it that determines whether the family eats or not.  I wouldn't go into a car factory and sit down for a picnic so ......
Title: Re: Farner charged with manslaughter over walker death
Post by: sabrina on August 12, 2013, 03:15:35 pm
I look at it this way. Farmer is the owner of the land or maybe renting. He then should be able to use this land to suit him. Now if there is a right of way through this land it should be up to the person who decides to walk on this path to check that it is safe to do so. Phone call to check would not be hard, The right to roam should not mean you can go anywhere and if anything happens to you it is not your fault but the farmer. We have the right to swim in the sea but who in their right mind would do this if there is swarms of jellyfish or sharks. Common sense is all that is needed. I have seen bullocks take a fence down and go all because there was a dog in the field. Just as dangerous as nothing will stop them. I had a mare that was so foal proud for the first 2wks that she would attack anything that dared to go near her baby yet people staying at the local B&B climbed the gate to go and see the foal. Only did it once. Now I have the electric fence on all the time with warning signs. People are responsible for their own actions. What farmer can afford not to use his land.