Was this sentence too draconian?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....poaching-sixties.html

No this didn't happen in Dickens's time, but in the 21st century.

Should any person have the right to own a stretch of natural waterway?

[jno]

well, the court thought so. That's what appeal courts are for.

We shall see if he does it again.

[Ankou]

cool, nice link aog, especially the link to sports illustrated swimsuit issue, front covers through the ages. wowsers.

[Gromit]

Let's see. I am supposed to have sympathy for this former criminal and turn a blind eye to him harassing Mr. Paton who owned the stretch of river. Old age is not a valid defence for disobeying a valid court order.

A jail term is excessive, but he deserved it by his persistent annoyance.

[FredPuli43]

Salmon fishing rights are very valuable. The Scottish court obviously thinks that unlawfully taking salmon from a river where they apply is very serious.
The 'owner' doesn't necessarily own a river itself but he may have certain exclusive rights in respect of it, such as the right to take fish along its banks, where it flows through his land.

[d9f1c7]

I'm amazed they still remembered him!

[Ankou]

"it is said that drakon himself, when asked why he had fixed the punishment of death for most offences, answered that he considered these lesser crimes to deserve it, and he had no greater punishment for more important ones"

hardly draconian then, this old bloke just got a telling off.

[jno]

no, no, he spent 18 days in Aberdeen’s tough Craiginches Prison. The judge told him to obtemper the law, which is a new word to me and makes the whole sentence worthwhile.

[Gromit]

jno

I wonder if the school children at that Sheffield school plan to 'obtemper' the law. Would they be allowed to use the word in everyday usage?

[jno]

only on "Talk Scottish" Day.

[craft1948]

I was considering buying a property with river frontage then realised it cost x thousands more than other places I'd looked at as it included all fishing rights for that stretch of river.
So yes if someone has paid for exclusive fishing rights why should someone else enjoy them for free..............it's stealing.

[Ankou]

of course they would be able to use the word in school. evenings and weekends they'd say....

obtmpr lol omg, gr8, What The Funicular

[andy-hughes]

AOG - as advised, the land owner does not 'own' the stretch of river, but he does own the fishing rights to them, and failure to observe them is a crime, for which the offender was punished.

So if I interperet the thrust of your point correctly, you appear to see this as an old gentleman indulging in a little fishing and being collared by the nasty rich landowner, wheras in reality, the law has been applied fairly and correctly.

[cathfromsaron]

good enough! theft is theft!

cath x

[chaptazbru]

Yes, I think it's draconian. Far worse things go on in this world. He poached fish many years ago, so what! He didn't murder anyone, he's not a threat to our way of life (unlike that hate preacher who's just been released and who we are spending millions on to keep safe).

[Ankou]

he murdered some fish that weren't his to murder.

[andy-hughes]

chaptazbru - defence of one crime by outweighing it with the increased severity of another is never a valid defence.

If it were, then you would have very few crimes below that of murder or child abuse prosecuted, because almost every crime would be considered below them in severity, so the logis fails to hold up.

[boxtops]

Yep, my BIL owns a little bit of river in Scotland.

[chaptazbru]

Stand by what I said .....

[boxtops]

My yep was to the land ownership, not to the prison sentence, which seems way over the top.

[ludwig]

A prison sentence is ridiculous.