UKH

99.999% of climbers are happy to follow the restrictions that are put in place each spring to protect nesting peregrines in The Lake District. However there is a tiny minority who, through ignorance of the restrictions or selfishness, risk damaging the excellent relationships that have been built up over many years between the Lakeland climbing and conservation communities. I was copied into this email earlier today, the other recipients being Lake District National Park and The BMC:

'Climbers at Stonestar Crag, Broughton in Furness. Right by the Peregrine Falcon nest. Asked them to come down. Still up there.'

Stonestar has been a regular and succesfull peregrine nest site for many years so this isn't a case of a restriction being applied to a crag for the first time, there has been a restriction every year for as long as I can remember. Given the racket the birds will have made when they were disturbed it would be clear to anyone that they were disturbing a nest which is a criminal offence regardless of the species involved. In these circumstances an orderly retreat at the first safe opportunity should be the response, lowering from a solid runner is appropriate.

There is a vast amount of high quality climbing in the Duddon, over 300 pages worth in the new guidebook so why visit the only worthwhile crag in the valley that does have a restriction? The routes will still be there on 1st July.

Please check the FRCC website or BMC RAD when planning your next adventure during the nesting season, it isn't a lot to ask.

If I sound hacked off it is because I am.

In reply to Trevor Langhorne:

Are the boulders included in the restriction too? I’ve not been but assume they would be. Someone has logged an ascent there in April. 

In reply to Trevor Langhorne:

Oh dear, I still don’t feel the RAD is well enough known. It should be and we should all help spread the word. Where people do know and choose to ignore… unforgivable.

More positively we’ve been hearing at the NW meeting about the agreement working well at Warton Main and both ravens and peregrines fledging.

In reply to Trevor Langhorne:

As a matter of interest is there a "restricted" sign in the obvious parking below Stonestar? - I seem to remember there used to be one in years gone by.

Having said that, this sounds like an outright refusal to desist, in which case a sign would likely have made no difference.

In reply to Michael Hood:

There was last year iirc, and as you say it's been there years gone by. Not been there recently so not sure if it's there currently.

In reply to Trevor Langhorne:

It would be interesting to hear if the police have been informed and if they have, whether they do anything about it. This type of incident must be a hard one to investigate and prosecute, though that would help to deter.

In reply to Si Witcher:

Yes to this. Even if it’s as simple as the local WCO posting that they’re investigating a disturbance it’ll be shared locally on social media and should make all but the biggest imbeciles think twice. Especially so if local media pick up on it too. Folk go about doing this because they think no one will notice.

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

The person who asked them to come down could take a photo of the climbers and a photo of any parked cars.

The problem would be the police being able to prove that the car belonged to those climbers.

Would need several photos showing the same climbers returning to the parked car, maybe hours later, and presumably a witness statement from the "observer".

Unfortunately I can't see an easier way of getting enough evidence so that the police would pursue a prosecution. Presumably there's no local bobby who can turn up in time to actually witness the offence.

In reply to Michael Hood:

Could have waited to see if they're daft enough to log on UKC....

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

Or let a tyre down and see if they post about w*nkers letting their tyre down whilst they were climbing on Stonestar.

In reply to Trevor Langhorne:

We have this every year, people are excited to get out and forget about RAD.

Clubs could and maybe should put reminders in News Letters, we are in a couple of the same clubs, and nothing about RAD in those, also clubs could put up a reminder poster in Huts.

I doubt many are wilful, people just do not think.

Having said that, we went to Stonestar last year, and did not check RAD, and their was no sign, but we had not walked far towards the crag before the Peregrine's made their presence known, and we turned round and went to Wallabarrow.

Maybe some posters in Climbing Walls too🤷

In reply to Trevor Langhorne:

Not seeking to defend the climbers, as they should know better (esp. given that pergrines are very audible), but the Wired Guide doesn't have any sort of bird restriction notice on its page for Stonestar. The new Duddon guidebook does, but it's all very small. Guidebooks could do a bit better. Not all climbers are as savvy, experienced or plugged into online platforms.

In reply to Trevor Langhorne:

I have re read this posting and the pertinent section seems to be

No mention of reporting to the authorities or whatever. These people seem to have gone beyond innocent mistake and are moving into wilful action.
I would have thought take a photo of them and the cars in the parking lot and report, too I assume the Police. Who do you report this too, is it a criminal offence ?
This is not about climbing per se, it is about preventing wilful disturbance of the Peregrines.

In reply to Godwin:

Thanks everyone's feedback. Signage is a problem, they get put out and they sometimes disappear. New sign has been installed at Stonestar.

Getting the message out to the wider climbing community is probably getting more challenging as I get the impression that fewer climbers are involved with clubs where knowledge is easily shared. We post restrictions information on here, on the RAD and on the CC and FRCC websites. I am uncertain what else we can do given how widely travelled climbers are. All ideas gratefully received.

Guidebooks have an important part to play and flagging up restrictions should be clearer, I have contacted the FRCC Guidebook Editor to ask for clearer advice. Rockfax has the restriction in the access text, Duddon & Wrynose has an easy to miss icon on the crag details page and I don't know why the 2015 Lake District Rock doesn't show the restriction.

I guess that reporting would be direct to the police but I suspect that the response time to get a car to somewhere like Stonestar would best be measured with a sundial and the culprits would have been long gone. Taking their photos might put you at risk as the offenders may not be best pleased. Unless we live in a police state where everyone's photo is on the state database then pictures won't be much use, however a photo of their car showing the registration number could be useful as long as the wildlife protection officer(s) can follow up.

In reply to Godwin: ...is it a criminal offence ?

From Google, yes:

"Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 all wild birds, their nests and eggs are protected species.

It is an offence for a person to do any of the following:

<...>

Intentionally or recklessly

disturbs any wild bird included in Schedule 1 while it is building a nest or is in, on or near a nest containing eggs or young; or

disturbs dependent young of such a bird

<...>

Penalties that can be imposed for criminal offences in respect of a single bird, nest or egg contrary to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is an unlimited fine, up to six months imprisonment or both."

There's an interesting report here: https://www.wcl.org.uk/docs/WCL_Wildlife_Crime_Report_Nov_21.pdf

including a section on raptor persecution which provides a table stating that for 2020, there were 104 incidents of confirmed criminal offending relating to raptor persecution in England and Wales total, but only 1 conviction. The majority of these incidents were in the vicinity of game moors. 

In reply to Si Witcher:

Unfortunately there is a huge gap between knowing who committed an offence and being able to prove that they committed said offence.

In reply to Trevor Langhorne:

Thanks as always for your efforts, Trevor.

In reply to Trevor Langhorne:

Before Peregrines recolonised lots of crags, most in Derbyshire unbeknown to the wider public nested in working quarries with all the attendant noise and even blasting, but crucially protection. I well remember one perching on a 4m drill mast on the top of the quarry where it gained a little extra height to survey the scene. DTH drills are very noisy. I’m not saying voluntary bans should be ignored, but the birds are probably more resilient than most people think. They nest all over inner cities, as pigeon fanciers will testify and I spotted a nest within 100m of Old Trafford football ground.

In reply to Philb1950:

They may be ‘resilient’ to passing humans who are flouting the voluntary bans but they’ll spend time and energy making a lot of noise in protecting their nest. Time and energy that’d be better spent hunting and providing for their offspring. 

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

My understanding is also that their tolerance to disturbance is high. Furthermore, it seems to me that peregrines no longer deserve the special protection status they once deserved as they are populous now. There is, however, no mechanism to be demoted. Notwithstanding the rules should be followed for wider reasons even if they are an ass.

In reply to UKB Shark:

What a terribly poor view on the matter. Whilst persecution still occurs despite their protection, that’ll only ever increase without the deterrent and then you return to square one. Besides which, this completely fails to engage with the point raised. Do chicks deserve to be put in danger because their parents are spending more time fending off harmless ‘disturbance’? The birds don’t know you’re there to simply pass by and will defend their nest with the same energy they would if you were intent on harm. 

You’re probably the type that comes across ground nesting birds and finds their loud chirping to be somewhat charming, completely unaware that it’s a distraction technique to draw you away from their nest, not realising they are actually in distress.. 

Even without the protection offered by schedule 1, it’s still a criminal offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act to intentionally and recklessly disturb any nesting bird. Climbing on a crag known for any nesting bird during nesting season would quite easily fall under ‘recklessly’ and thankfully, ignorance is no defence.

In reply to UKB Shark:

Can't comment on the situation in the UK. But currently in some areas of the USA (thinking NH in particular) the access restrictions seem pretty unreasonable and really need to be re-calibrated to reflect the strength of current peregrine populations.
It's also worth pointing out (again can only comment on the US rather then UK) that the buffer zones that nesting pairs were given was primarily a response to the poaching problem that had reared its ugly head when peregrines were very rare. In the mid/late 80's a fish & game cop in New Hampshire once told me that fledglings were selling for $30k thanks to the market in the middle east.

In reply to redjerry:

I wouldn't be surprised if the price for peregrine fledglings was still at that level (or more).

Re disturbance: peregrines chose their nest sites before laying eggs - obviously. If the level of disturbance (when on eggs or with chicks) remains as it was when the nest site was chosen, then they'll probably tolerate that. If the level of disturbance increases, then they'll probably get distressed (which you can see and hear).

So peregrines that nest in urban areas are likely to be pretty tolerant of human activity throughout.

Peregrines that nest on crags are likely to be less tolerant (of climbers) simply because there may have been no climbing activity when they chose that nest site (too early in the year, too cold).

Places like Malham have a lot of year round human activity so the pair there are fairly tolerant.

Re restrictions: how necessary these are depends on what the restrictions are for:

1. To protect peregrine population
2. To stop poaching
3. To protect individual nests

The requirements of each of these are different and in reality any restriction is to some extent covering all of these.

1 requires harsher restrictions, 2 would be best addressed by stopping the demand for chicks (difficult because it's international). Where 1 & 2 aren't an issue, peregrines may not require any special protection beyond other bird species.

In reply to Michael Hood:

This is also my understanding.

Individual birds will be habituated to what is typical at a given site. So for instance a bird at Malham is likely to see lots of human activity during the day as normal and not see it as a threat, whereas a bird in a more remote location may typically see no human activity and hence see the arrival of one set of climbers as abnormal and therefore a threat.

In reply to UKB Shark:

Oh come off it - you think that wildlife only requires consideration if we've already driven them to the point of endangerment? Or is it merely that your drive to climb rock outsizes your empathy for other life?

In reply to tehmarks:

Pergrines live all over the globe - they were never an endangered species. The population in the UK was in decline because of gamekeepers and egg collectors (not climbers) and consequently they got schedule 1 status. They are prolific in the UK now and should be considered as a candidate to be bumped off the list in favour of other more deserving declining species.

There’s a balance to be had in all this. Climbing affects habitats (as does all outdoor recreation)  and rarer species and habitats deserve more protection than common species and habitats.  

In reply to UKB Shark:

Main decline was due to pesticides, these accumulate at the top of the food chain (peregrines) causing thin egg shells which led to zero successful hatchings.

Whilst there's an argument for birds coming off schedule 1, I don't think peregrines are quite there yet. They're not yet prolific, just very visible in some locations especially to us folk who go into the hills.

In reply to Michael Hood:
Not pesticides in general, but DDT in particular which has long since been banned. 
In the US, current peregrine populations exceed what was previously considered the natural maximum density thanks to full recovery of the population combined with successful adaption to new habitats.

In reply to UKB Shark:

I don't understand why your right to outdoor recreation beats the right of other life to not be distressed? Regardless of the law, why do you think it's okay, morally, to cause nesting animals stress just because you particularly fancy climbing that particular bit of rock on that particular day?

In reply to tehmarks:

Perhaps you should start a new thread proposing to ban climbing the Old Man of Hoy 

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

As I wrote on the other thread, this is incorrect.

Intentional disturbance is only an offence for Schedule 1 species - for climbers, most likely crag nesting species are Peregrines, Eagles, Chough, Barn Owls. For most birds, it doesn't apply. If it were, spring would effectively be a complete close season for outdoor climbing, as birds like tits or jackdaws nest in the cracks on the majority of crags and you couldn't guarantee not disturbing them.

The relevant legislation reads: 

All birds, their nests and eggs are protected by law and it is thus an offence, with certain exceptions (see Exceptions), to: 

Intentionally kill, injure or take any wild bird.

Intentionally take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while it is in use or being built.

Intentionally take or destroy the egg of any wild bird. 

For Schedule 1 this is elevated to:

Intentionally or recklessly disturb any wild bird listed on Schedule 1 while it is nest building, or at a nest containing eggs or young, or disturb the dependent young of such a bird.

https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/advice/wildlife-and-the-law/wild...

I think most conservation professionals would agree the Schedule 1 list (drawn up in 1981) contains some dated choices, and would make far more sense if updated on, say, a decadal basis to take account of changes in numbers. Ring Ouzel, for example, is not listed despite huge declines and, whereas Cetti's Warbler is despite a steady increase. However given the current government's record for now it's best to be thankful it exists at all.

I have sympathy with the sentiment here, but how far you go with this is another question. Just being in the outdoors affects the wildlife and I don't see folk wearing those buddhist sandals so as not to crush less ants. For distress it is often possible to make an assessment on site. Birds in my experience can be (as others have said) happily habituated to humans and can even be quite canny at assessing your intentions. It's not unusual to see Ring Ouzels feeding happily near boulderers for example, while giving bird photographers a wide berth. Jackdaws seem particularly unflappable in my experience, but not everyone is experienced in assessing bird behaviour and if in doubt discretion is always the best option.

In reply to UKB Shark:

I have climbed the Old Man but it was after nesting time. There was the odd puking fulmar about but the pair in front got the worst of it. If, for some unaccountable reason, I had showed up in the breeding season I would not climb it for the simple reason of consideration for the birds outweighing my desire to climb it. It's really that simple - give the birds every chance. Heaven knows we're screwing them up in so many ways and means (as well as ourselves).

In reply to Adam Long:

No it isn’t.

Tits do not nest in cracks on the majority of crags. Certainly so in grit country. They’re woodland birds. Jackdaws do, but again their regular nesting spots are well documented and presence well made so any foray in to their territory is unlikely ‘intentionally’.

It is entirely possible to damage a nest by disturbing the adults enough that they don’t return. The law does not differentiate between physical and behavioural damage.

Agreed, but where are we where we are.

Definitely agreed.

In reply to Michael Hood:

Or nick all four low profile alloy wheels…

In reply to Trevor Langhorne:

This has been an interesting conversation and I'd like to pull it back to the starting point: an incidence of disturbance of a pair of nesting Peregrines which, beyond all doubt, is an offence. This is regardless of what we think about geographic distribution, population size (global and national), possibility of relaxing restrictions and degree of toleration of humans in the vicinity of the nest site. Obviously discussion of how best to get the message out is very worthwhile and useful. One response to this thread is that when I raised the issue with the FRCC guudebook editor he agreed that they  will show restrictions more prominently in future guides.

I thought it best to consult members of the Lakes group that agrees the restrictions and who are more knowledgeable than me with respect to all matters peregrine and this is the information that I received:

1. yes different pairs of peregrines in different locations respond differently to the presence of people in the vicinity of the nest. Birds nesting on crags have normally established their nest sites before the climbing season gets underway and are sensitive. Birds that choose an urban nest site have done so accepting the busy location.

2. While there has been no formal survey of the population size in the Lakes evidence in the from the number of formally regular nest sites that are no longer or very infrequently used suggests that the Birds are not holding their own for whatever reason. BTO did a national survey in 2014 and estimated the UK population at ~1750 pairs.

It seems obvious to me that if we didn't restrict a tiny number of often minor crags it wouldn't be long before the Lakes peregrine population would be in real trouble. If I count correctly there are 13 active restrictions across the entire district, check out which crags they are on. What the climbing community does by respecting restrictions is a great help in maintaining a healthy population of these magnificent birds. Let's keep the effort up.

In reply to Trevor Langhorne:

Thankfully the disturbance wasn't fatal for the nest and the birds now have young. 

In reply to Trevor Langhorne:

Checked them out for a few minutes on the way back today.

Female sitting right at the top of crag in plain view. After a few minutes she flies off, then I realise she's intercepting the male on his way back with a kill. Mid flight transfer, then the male flies off again (go get more food for the kids I presume), female flies into the crag (presumably the nest site, hidden from below but quite exposed) and then flies off as well. When there's no traffic I can hear the chicks squealing. They must be a reasonable size to be left unattended (although one of the parents - unseen by me - might have still had them in sight).

In reply to Michael Hood:

If any climber truly believe that their personal facile enjoyment out trumps the life of wildlife they need to truly get a ffing grip…

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

Just to make sure that people know where they stand and not to panic/misinterpret RAD advice/worry about being threatened etc: Adam Long is right. It is not an offence to disturb nesting bird species or their young unless they’re on Schedule 1. A quick google will give the list. We’d probably all be guilty by now if it were! I’m all for temporarily closing routes due to nests of any species regardless of legal status but sometimes you just bump into one by mistake. Intentionally causing damage to a nest (or killing/injury) is, as has already been pointed out, a different matter.  

Oh, and I’ve counted at least six tit nests in limestone cracks and pockets this year so far alone! Rather than describing them as woodland birds, I’d just characterise them as cavity nesters…

Great to see this lakeland peregrine pair having some success - thanks for the monitoring and updates.

In reply to badgerjockey:

Adam Long is right and the BMC and MScot, and relevant anuthorities are wrong, is what you’re saying. That’s some claim.

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

Yes

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

Adam (a BMC access volunteer) and the BMC and the law all look consistent to me.

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/access-skills-bird-restrictions

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/wild-birds-protection-surveys-and-licences

In reply to Offwidth:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/nesting-birds-advice-for-climbers

https://www.mountaineering.scot/assets/contentfiles/pdf/nesting-birds-Guide...

Would you do me the honour of reminding me which post of mine was deleted by the way? You went quiet on that. 

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

Nah, hes just saying you're wrong; as you were on the other thread...

In reply to spidermonkey09:

Yea but no. 

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

The MScot doc you linked to doesn't support what you are trying to say. Have a good read of it.

Your linked BMC article is just misleading. But the two more recent articles on the subject (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/climbing-nesting-restrictions-explained and https://www.thebmc.co.uk/access-skills-bird-restrictions) are correct, as well as their really good policy leaflet https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1814.

I don't know why I bother, really...

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

Just a simple question: How is your interpretation of the law compatible with any human activity around any bird nests, at all? A road could be disturbing to the adult birds in a a nest, you having a BBQ in your garden could be disturbing to the adult birds in a nest. If any potential potential disturbance around any nests of any birds in the country, rather than just Schedule 1, isn’t allowed, no human activity is allowed anywhere during nesting season. Clearly that’s not true.

In reply to Alkis:

A road was there before birds in the nest. You're active in your garden daily, or at least in the close vicinity of your house and the birds still chose to nest. Two poor examples, and not in the slightest bit close to a climber on a route that gets climbed once or twice a year, leaving the site an otherwise perfect sanctuary. Come on.. it's not that difficult to understand is it? The whole point is proactively disturbing a nesting bird, despite having foreknowledge that they're there (or that was certainly the point in the other Heptonstall thread). All birds, their eggs and nests are protected by law. If your activity causes a nest to fail, that nest is classed as damaged.. even if you didn't touch it. It's half the reason building developers have been highlighted having netted trees in late winter so that their building works won't be impeded by feathery critters (the other half being that they plan on removing said hedging/trees). It's obviously difficult to impossible to prove a road, or a BBQ was responsible for a failed nest, and there's mitigating circumstances as above - ie, you were there first. Not so if you knowingly climb a route with nesting birds on. 

In reply to badgerjockey:

Article 1:

"Climbing itself isn’t illegal, but if it causes damage (or in the case of Schedule 1 species disturbance), it is those actions that are illegal. All wild birds, their nests and eggs are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Countryside Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000. What this means is that for a wild bird with no further protection, the nest itself, eggs or young and the birds themselves are protected by law – so any damage to these is an offence."

A nest that is abandoned due to a climber is a damaged nest, even if it wasn't touched.

Article 2:

"All wild-nesting birds have a level of protection under the law, but there is special protection for particularly rare species – known as "Schedule 1" species. The Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 makes the destruction of nests or eggs of any wild-nesting bird an offence, and, additionally, Schedule 1 rare species cannot be disturbed at the nest."

Same point. It's not the disturbance that's illegal, but if the disturbance leads to abandonment then you've damaged the nest, again, even without touching it. I don't understand how that's so hard to understand?

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

This has been discussed time and again in ecology circles. This is not defined in law, nor is it clarified by any case law. There is no precedent. It’s a nice idea, and in principle I agree with it certainly in terms of mindless knobbishness or just plain cruelty, but enforcing your reading of it just isn’t compatible with or proportionate to people’s day to day life. 

In reply to badgerjockey:

It’s entirely compatible in terms of rock climbing. 

In reply to badgerjockey:

I decided to take it upon myself to seek a little clarification from the RSPB and received the following:

“Whilst all other birds not listed under Schedule 1 are not protected from disturbance, it is strongly advised that this is avoided as best possible. It is also important to note that if a bird is blocked access from their active nest, this is still considered an offence, Schedule 1 or not. For example, if nesting Jackdaws were deterred from their nest and could not return, this would be illegal.

In the example you give, this would unlikely be considered an offence if the Jackdaws could access their nest once rock climbers had moved on. However, anyone who does this, would be going against our advice and it would be regarded as extremely bad practice. We would advise avoiding the immediate area surrounding the nest to ensure the birds can continue without disturbance.”

So it’s not illegal to climb past a jackdaw nest, but is most certainly against their advice and would be considered extremely bad practice. If the bird did not return, it would be considered illegal. As I said, the nest would be classed as damaged and therefore a crime would have been committed. So by climbing past a non-Schedule 1 nest you’re taking a gamble on your actions not resulting in abandonment. Prosecution obviously not likely in any situation, but that’s life. Thank you and good night. 

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

So Adam Long, BMC et al are correct. Non Schedule 1 birds do not have legal protection from disturbance. No surprise the RSPB advocate doing absolutely nothing that would disturb the birds; they don't have to balance outdoor recreation and public access against their raison d'etre. They're a bird advocacy group and good luck to them.

Jackdaws are a particularly poor example given they tend to protect their nests pretty vociferously and climbing past them isn't that pleasant anyway given the dive bombing that ensues. I can't think of a bird more tolerant to climbers climbing past.

The standard don't be a dick rules apply but I'm completely comfortable with the BMC and Adams advice, and whilst taking the RSPB advice on board, it is not the law; which is what the thread was discussing. 

In reply to spidermonkey09:

If the legal disturbance results in abandonment then it was illegal. Still having trouble understand it? 
The use of jackdaw was purely as a suggestion of a non-schedule 1 bird that is often found to be nesting on crags throughout the UK. It doesn’t particularly matter if it defends its nest with gusto. The end result is all that matters.

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

I don't get that. You do something legal that at some point when you're not there later, retrospectively, becomes illegal?

Your advice from the RSPB talks about "blocked access", so if you took a belay, or bivvied on a ledge next to nest isn't that blocking the access? But climbing past doesn't seem to be. My suspicion is the RSPB advice is using different language from the legislation.

In reply to TobyA:

It is a bit different in that the offence depends on the outcome rather than the action.

I think the point is that regardless of the species, if you climb past a nest, belay near it, whatever and that action causes the nest to fail then technically you've committed an offence.

However, it would be extremely difficult to prove that this action (unless you were doing something stupid like giving the nest a good kicking as you went past) was the decisive action that caused the nest to fail. The RSPB can hardly give that out as official guidance so they're left with saying "better to just not climb past/near any nest".

Of course schedule 1 birds the offence doesn't depend on the end result, merely the "disturbance" action.

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

Haha. Where in the RSPB’s response does it say that if legal disturbance results in abandonment then it is illegal? It seems you’re seeing what you want to see.
 

They refer to a legal clarification on blocking access to a nest derived from homeowners who block up openings used by cavity nesters like house sparrows, starlings and jackdaws. This is different to the disturbance/abandonment issue we are taking about in this thread. I take their point about not being a dick, but ultimately they don’t write the legislation.