RSPB and DOE setting up falcon breeder's

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

Can I just thank the moderators of this site and forum for their time in allowing this thread to run.

It is in the public interest to allow it to be voiced and seen.

 

Had this been the IFF or WFF, it would have been axed by the spineless moderators who dominate them said sites.

 

This way, we all see the truth of the matter.

 

I have been following this thread with interest..as I am sure have many others..I do not know either Derek Canning or Neil Hunter personally but via friends have heard of both..and I thought not to get involved but..some of the things said by annonymous others have in my opinion been cowardly and less than helpful..thrown fuel on the inferno..

 

Trying to look at it from both perspectives..on the face of it there are two people who are both obviously very hurt and very angry because of what they allege the other has done to them..

 

The nature of the allegations initially made by Derek and the subsequent very strong refutation by Neil..which is in total contradiction to what Derek has said would suggest that obviously one of the two is being dishonest..these are irreconcilable differences (of opinion or fact)..two people saying quite the opposite..

 

Derek Canning appears to be trying hard to produce his evidence and lets hope it comes sooner rather than later..if there is any to produce.. Niel Hunter is saying Derek has no credible evidence..Until this unfolds and the full facts are known and established beyond doubt.. let us bystanders try to be more objective about the whole thing and confine ourselves to asking sensible questions of either party..or otherwise not comment..

 

I would suggest that those who have done so already..refrain from making comments such as calling someone a liar or thief or other such libelous and nasty names...or at least if you feel you must resort to this type of claptrap in the hope that it will win a few supporters.. then at least have the bottle to make yourself known via your proper name..any coward can say things sitting at home anonymously behind a keyboard..but acts of this nature smack of fake courage and dishonesty in its zenith..

 

This is obviously a very highly emotive subject for both people concerned..Neil and Derek..both have said unpleasant things about each other which while they may not help reconcile the matter..I would say it is understandable in the circumstances..and at least both have had the integrity to sign and stand publicly behind their own names..I for one am pleased that the Hunting Life Forum had the guts to let the thread run its course..but the sooner this matter is ended the better for everyone..it is impossible on the face of it for any of us to make a judgement on the word or evidence of ether party as it now stands..and besides who are any of us to stand in moral judgement of others..

 

The possibility that Derek may be an egg thief is irrelevent here..as is where the cable tied falcon came from in the first place..forget that..it may be a catalyst in some ways but in other ways it seems to me to be obscuring the facts of this dispute..(if I have read things correctly)..it is what happened afterwards and the conflicting word of two people about the transaction of the falcon that is in dispute..the courts have dealt with the other bits..it is a fact that there are plenty of people wrongfully convicted of crimes every day..likewise..there are plenty of bent policemen in jail..thats also a fact..so the outcome of this could go either way..and so lets wait and see what further undisputable facts unfold..and then lets leave it there..

 

all the best

 

A very fair post. Just to add.Mr Canning was convicted by a jury of the offences.Not just one peregrine was involved but upwards of 20. Mysteriously the parent birds were stolen,from him, just before the raid on his premises. Mr Canning has failed in every attempt to overturn is conviction.He failed in his attempt to sue me civilly for the peregrine I purchased from him. The judge/magistrate in the civil case referred to Mr Canning as a compulsive liar and found in my favour. Mr Canning complained about me, not once, but twice, to my senior officers in the police ,stating I had committed perjury during his trial,even although I was not called to give evidence as my evidence had been accepted. It is impossible to committ perjury without giving evidence.

 

The truth has already been proved.I have nothing to prove,but 15 years on I get contacted to be told I am once again being attacked on a public forum by Derek Canning. It is the same questions that have been asked, and answered time and time again. The answers will not change.

I have answered the Mark Robb situation giving my reasons. That has nothing to do with anyone except me and Mark Robb. I will happily sort it all out with Mark Robb but he is so unreasonable and blinkered that will never happen.

 

All the questions that I have answered on this thread will no doubt be asked again.As far as I am concerned this thread has now run its course and I feel I am banging my head against a brick wall.

 

 

Regards,

Neil Hunter

Neil Hunter you have avoided answering the most fundamental and vital question; did

you tick the registration document to say the bird you received from me was a gift? The answer is yes or no. STOP using your brother and friends as a smoke screen and just answer the question yes or no nothing else really matters; yes or no Neil Hunter

 

 

LET USE SEE A COPY OF WHAT YOU SAID TO YOUR CASE OFFICER AS I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE PHONE CALL WAS MADE.

As stated I was found not guilty of selling Neil Hunter a cable tied bird at Hexham Magistrates court. Do you accept that Neil Hunter?

[Johnjo 0]

Can I just thank the moderators of this site and forum for their time in allowing this thread to run.

It is in the public interest to allow it to be voiced and seen.

 

Had this been the IFF or WFF, it would have been axed by the spineless moderators who dominate them said sites.

 

This way, we all see the truth of the matter.

 

I have been following this thread with interest..as I am sure have many others..I do not know either Derek Canning or Neil Hunter personally but via friends have heard of both..and I thought not to get involved but..some of the things said by annonymous others have in my opinion been cowardly and less than helpful..thrown fuel on the inferno..

 

Trying to look at it from both perspectives..on the face of it there are two people who are both obviously very hurt and very angry because of what they allege the other has done to them..

 

The nature of the allegations initially made by Derek and the subsequent very strong refutation by Neil..which is in total contradiction to what Derek has said would suggest that obviously one of the two is being dishonest..these are irreconcilable differences (of opinion or fact)..two people saying quite the opposite..

 

Derek Canning appears to be trying hard to produce his evidence and lets hope it comes sooner rather than later..if there is any to produce.. Niel Hunter is saying Derek has no credible evidence..Until this unfolds and the full facts are known and established beyond doubt.. let us bystanders try to be more objective about the whole thing and confine ourselves to asking sensible questions of either party..or otherwise not comment..

 

I would suggest that those who have done so already..refrain from making comments such as calling someone a liar or thief or other such libelous and nasty names...or at least if you feel you must resort to this type of claptrap in the hope that it will win a few supporters.. then at least have the bottle to make yourself known via your proper name..any coward can say things sitting at home anonymously behind a keyboard..but acts of this nature smack of fake courage and dishonesty in its zenith..

 

This is obviously a very highly emotive subject for both people concerned..Neil and Derek..both have said unpleasant things about each other which while they may not help reconcile the matter..I would say it is understandable in the circumstances..and at least both have had the integrity to sign and stand publicly behind their own names..I for one am pleased that the Hunting Life Forum had the guts to let the thread run its course..but the sooner this matter is ended the better for everyone..it is impossible on the face of it for any of us to make a judgement on the word or evidence of ether party as it now stands..and besides who are any of us to stand in moral judgement of others..

 

The possibility that Derek may be an egg thief is irrelevent here..as is where the cable tied falcon came from in the first place..forget that..it may be a catalyst in some ways but in other ways it seems to me to be obscuring the facts of this dispute..(if I have read things correctly)..it is what happened afterwards and the conflicting word of two people about the transaction of the falcon that is in dispute..the courts have dealt with the other bits..it is a fact that there are plenty of people wrongfully convicted of crimes every day..likewise..there are plenty of bent policemen in jail..thats also a fact..so the outcome of this could go either way..and so lets wait and see what further undisputable facts unfold..and then lets leave it there..

 

all the best

 

A very fair post. Just to add.Mr Canning was convicted by a jury of the offences.Not just one peregrine was involved but upwards of 20. Mysteriously the parent birds were stolen,from him, just before the raid on his premises. Mr Canning has failed in every attempt to overturn is conviction.He failed in his attempt to sue me civilly for the peregrine I purchased from him. The judge/magistrate in the civil case referred to Mr Canning as a compulsive liar and found in my favour. Mr Canning complained about me, not once, but twice, to my senior officers in the police ,stating I had committed perjury during his trial,even although I was not called to give evidence as my evidence had been accepted. It is impossible to committ perjury without giving evidence.

 

The truth has already been proved.I have nothing to prove,but 15 years on I get contacted to be told I am once again being attacked on a public forum by Derek Canning. It is the same questions that have been asked, and answered time and time again. The answers will not change.

I have answered the Mark Robb situation giving my reasons. That has nothing to do with anyone except me and Mark Robb. I will happily sort it all out with Mark Robb but he is so unreasonable and blinkered that will never happen.

 

All the questions that I have answered on this thread will no doubt be asked again.As far as I am concerned this thread has now run its course and I feel I am banging my head against a brick wall.

 

 

Regards,

Neil Hunter

Neil Hunter you have avoided answering the most fundamental and vital question; did

you tick the registration document to say the bird you received from me was a gift? The answer is yes or no. STOP using your brother and friends as a smoke screen and just answer the question yes or no nothing else really matters; yes or no Neil Hunter

 

Derek

I am not sure which part of the answer Neil has given you do not understand he has stated numerous times that the Section was ticked prior to him receiving the form.

This was brought out and verified by Neil and his wife at Newcastle Court. He has answered the question numersous times

you asking the same question over and over is not gooing to change that. I am not sure what you expect.

That evidence was given on Oath at Judicial Proceedings and was accpted by the presiding judge as correct.

As at your first trial again during which you were found GUILTY, not just on the back of Neils evidence and by your peers who

listened to the facts and deemed then that you were a liar.

Your defence team then accepted the evidence given by Neil and he was not called as a witness.

I am sure there must have been some dialogue between you and your defence before that decision was made.

You say Neil is guilty of Perjury and you are well aware that you have to give evidence to commit perjury.Why did your team accept

his evidence then?

 

Now answer the question which I have now put to you 5 times, did you produce a letter at Court in Newcastle

allegedly from Neil which was read out, shown to the Judge, Neils wife, Me which contained child like spelling errors

including the wrong spelling of Neils name

 

YES or NO

 

If you do not answer the question I think people will see you for what you are.

[Johnjo 0]

What worries you is that I may be able to get a copy of that letter or the transcripts

 

is that not the case

[Neil Hunter 0]

Can I just thank the moderators of this site and forum for their time in allowing this thread to run.

It is in the public interest to allow it to be voiced and seen.

 

Had this been the IFF or WFF, it would have been axed by the spineless moderators who dominate them said sites.

 

This way, we all see the truth of the matter.

 

I have been following this thread with interest..as I am sure have many others..I do not know either Derek Canning or Neil Hunter personally but via friends have heard of both..and I thought not to get involved but..some of the things said by annonymous others have in my opinion been cowardly and less than helpful..thrown fuel on the inferno..

 

Trying to look at it from both perspectives..on the face of it there are two people who are both obviously very hurt and very angry because of what they allege the other has done to them..

 

The nature of the allegations initially made by Derek and the subsequent very strong refutation by Neil..which is in total contradiction to what Derek has said would suggest that obviously one of the two is being dishonest..these are irreconcilable differences (of opinion or fact)..two people saying quite the opposite..

 

Derek Canning appears to be trying hard to produce his evidence and lets hope it comes sooner rather than later..if there is any to produce.. Niel Hunter is saying Derek has no credible evidence..Until this unfolds and the full facts are known and established beyond doubt.. let us bystanders try to be more objective about the whole thing and confine ourselves to asking sensible questions of either party..or otherwise not comment..

 

I would suggest that those who have done so already..refrain from making comments such as calling someone a liar or thief or other such libelous and nasty names...or at least if you feel you must resort to this type of claptrap in the hope that it will win a few supporters.. then at least have the bottle to make yourself known via your proper name..any coward can say things sitting at home anonymously behind a keyboard..but acts of this nature smack of fake courage and dishonesty in its zenith..

 

This is obviously a very highly emotive subject for both people concerned..Neil and Derek..both have said unpleasant things about each other which while they may not help reconcile the matter..I would say it is understandable in the circumstances..and at least both have had the integrity to sign and stand publicly behind their own names..I for one am pleased that the Hunting Life Forum had the guts to let the thread run its course..but the sooner this matter is ended the better for everyone..it is impossible on the face of it for any of us to make a judgement on the word or evidence of ether party as it now stands..and besides who are any of us to stand in moral judgement of others..

 

The possibility that Derek may be an egg thief is irrelevent here..as is where the cable tied falcon came from in the first place..forget that..it may be a catalyst in some ways but in other ways it seems to me to be obscuring the facts of this dispute..(if I have read things correctly)..it is what happened afterwards and the conflicting word of two people about the transaction of the falcon that is in dispute..the courts have dealt with the other bits..it is a fact that there are plenty of people wrongfully convicted of crimes every day..likewise..there are plenty of bent policemen in jail..thats also a fact..so the outcome of this could go either way..and so lets wait and see what further undisputable facts unfold..and then lets leave it there..

 

all the best

 

A very fair post. Just to add.Mr Canning was convicted by a jury of the offences.Not just one peregrine was involved but upwards of 20. Mysteriously the parent birds were stolen,from him, just before the raid on his premises. Mr Canning has failed in every attempt to overturn is conviction.He failed in his attempt to sue me civilly for the peregrine I purchased from him. The judge/magistrate in the civil case referred to Mr Canning as a compulsive liar and found in my favour. Mr Canning complained about me, not once, but twice, to my senior officers in the police ,stating I had committed perjury during his trial,even although I was not called to give evidence as my evidence had been accepted. It is impossible to committ perjury without giving evidence.

 

The truth has already been proved.I have nothing to prove,but 15 years on I get contacted to be told I am once again being attacked on a public forum by Derek Canning. It is the same questions that have been asked, and answered time and time again. The answers will not change.

I have answered the Mark Robb situation giving my reasons. That has nothing to do with anyone except me and Mark Robb. I will happily sort it all out with Mark Robb but he is so unreasonable and blinkered that will never happen.

 

All the questions that I have answered on this thread will no doubt be asked again.As far as I am concerned this thread has now run its course and I feel I am banging my head against a brick wall.

 

 

Regards,

Neil Hunter

Neil Hunter you have avoided answering the most fundamental and vital question; did

you tick the registration document to say the bird you received from me was a gift? The answer is yes or no. STOP using your brother and friends as a smoke screen and just answer the question yes or no nothing else really matters; yes or no Neil Hunter

Derek ,

Page 12 , post 176. I have answered the question.You should really read the thread before start repeating yourself.

Edited March 27, 2008 by Neil Hunter

[Johnjo 0]

Can I just thank the moderators of this site and forum for their time in allowing this thread to run.

It is in the public interest to allow it to be voiced and seen.

 

Had this been the IFF or WFF, it would have been axed by the spineless moderators who dominate them said sites.

 

This way, we all see the truth of the matter.

 

I have been following this thread with interest..as I am sure have many others..I do not know either Derek Canning or Neil Hunter personally but via friends have heard of both..and I thought not to get involved but..some of the things said by annonymous others have in my opinion been cowardly and less than helpful..thrown fuel on the inferno..

 

Trying to look at it from both perspectives..on the face of it there are two people who are both obviously very hurt and very angry because of what they allege the other has done to them..

 

The nature of the allegations initially made by Derek and the subsequent very strong refutation by Neil..which is in total contradiction to what Derek has said would suggest that obviously one of the two is being dishonest..these are irreconcilable differences (of opinion or fact)..two people saying quite the opposite..

 

Derek Canning appears to be trying hard to produce his evidence and lets hope it comes sooner rather than later..if there is any to produce.. Niel Hunter is saying Derek has no credible evidence..Until this unfolds and the full facts are known and established beyond doubt.. let us bystanders try to be more objective about the whole thing and confine ourselves to asking sensible questions of either party..or otherwise not comment..

 

I would suggest that those who have done so already..refrain from making comments such as calling someone a liar or thief or other such libelous and nasty names...or at least if you feel you must resort to this type of claptrap in the hope that it will win a few supporters.. then at least have the bottle to make yourself known via your proper name..any coward can say things sitting at home anonymously behind a keyboard..but acts of this nature smack of fake courage and dishonesty in its zenith..

 

This is obviously a very highly emotive subject for both people concerned..Neil and Derek..both have said unpleasant things about each other which while they may not help reconcile the matter..I would say it is understandable in the circumstances..and at least both have had the integrity to sign and stand publicly behind their own names..I for one am pleased that the Hunting Life Forum had the guts to let the thread run its course..but the sooner this matter is ended the better for everyone..it is impossible on the face of it for any of us to make a judgement on the word or evidence of ether party as it now stands..and besides who are any of us to stand in moral judgement of others..

 

The possibility that Derek may be an egg thief is irrelevent here..as is where the cable tied falcon came from in the first place..forget that..it may be a catalyst in some ways but in other ways it seems to me to be obscuring the facts of this dispute..(if I have read things correctly)..it is what happened afterwards and the conflicting word of two people about the transaction of the falcon that is in dispute..the courts have dealt with the other bits..it is a fact that there are plenty of people wrongfully convicted of crimes every day..likewise..there are plenty of bent policemen in jail..thats also a fact..so the outcome of this could go either way..and so lets wait and see what further undisputable facts unfold..and then lets leave it there..

 

all the best

 

A very fair post. Just to add.Mr Canning was convicted by a jury of the offences.Not just one peregrine was involved but upwards of 20. Mysteriously the parent birds were stolen,from him, just before the raid on his premises. Mr Canning has failed in every attempt to overturn is conviction.He failed in his attempt to sue me civilly for the peregrine I purchased from him. The judge/magistrate in the civil case referred to Mr Canning as a compulsive liar and found in my favour. Mr Canning complained about me, not once, but twice, to my senior officers in the police ,stating I had committed perjury during his trial,even although I was not called to give evidence as my evidence had been accepted. It is impossible to committ perjury without giving evidence.

 

The truth has already been proved.I have nothing to prove,but 15 years on I get contacted to be told I am once again being attacked on a public forum by Derek Canning. It is the same questions that have been asked, and answered time and time again. The answers will not change.

I have answered the Mark Robb situation giving my reasons. That has nothing to do with anyone except me and Mark Robb. I will happily sort it all out with Mark Robb but he is so unreasonable and blinkered that will never happen.

 

All the questions that I have answered on this thread will no doubt be asked again.As far as I am concerned this thread has now run its course and I feel I am banging my head against a brick wall.

 

 

Regards,

Neil Hunter

Neil Hunter you have avoided answering the most fundamental and vital question; did

you tick the registration document to say the bird you received from me was a gift? The answer is yes or no. STOP using your brother and friends as a smoke screen and just answer the question yes or no nothing else really matters; yes or no Neil Hunter

 

 

LET USE SEE A COPY OF WHAT YOU SAID TO YOUR CASE OFFICER AS I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE PHONE CALL WAS MADE.

 

Derek

The judge believed it, if that was a contentious issue, why did you or your defence team not call Neil as a witness at your trial

and accept his evidence. If you had caled him as a witness he could have been questioned about it.

The reply would have been the same, you ticked the box and sent the same green pen to Neil.

 

I am not sure if a statemnt was ever obtained from Simon Liebert, I know what their policy is and if Simon Liebert

failed to note down the phone call I really feel that is an issue only he can answer, perhaps you should contact him.

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

Can I just thank the moderators of this site and forum for their time in allowing this thread to run.

It is in the public interest to allow it to be voiced and seen.

 

Had this been the IFF or WFF, it would have been axed by the spineless moderators who dominate them said sites.

 

This way, we all see the truth of the matter.

 

I have been following this thread with interest..as I am sure have many others..I do not know either Derek Canning or Neil Hunter personally but via friends have heard of both..and I thought not to get involved but..some of the things said by annonymous others have in my opinion been cowardly and less than helpful..thrown fuel on the inferno..

 

Trying to look at it from both perspectives..on the face of it there are two people who are both obviously very hurt and very angry because of what they allege the other has done to them..

 

The nature of the allegations initially made by Derek and the subsequent very strong refutation by Neil..which is in total contradiction to what Derek has said would suggest that obviously one of the two is being dishonest..these are irreconcilable differences (of opinion or fact)..two people saying quite the opposite..

 

Derek Canning appears to be trying hard to produce his evidence and lets hope it comes sooner rather than later..if there is any to produce.. Niel Hunter is saying Derek has no credible evidence..Until this unfolds and the full facts are known and established beyond doubt.. let us bystanders try to be more objective about the whole thing and confine ourselves to asking sensible questions of either party..or otherwise not comment..

 

I would suggest that those who have done so already..refrain from making comments such as calling someone a liar or thief or other such libelous and nasty names...or at least if you feel you must resort to this type of claptrap in the hope that it will win a few supporters.. then at least have the bottle to make yourself known via your proper name..any coward can say things sitting at home anonymously behind a keyboard..but acts of this nature smack of fake courage and dishonesty in its zenith..

 

This is obviously a very highly emotive subject for both people concerned..Neil and Derek..both have said unpleasant things about each other which while they may not help reconcile the matter..I would say it is understandable in the circumstances..and at least both have had the integrity to sign and stand publicly behind their own names..I for one am pleased that the Hunting Life Forum had the guts to let the thread run its course..but the sooner this matter is ended the better for everyone..it is impossible on the face of it for any of us to make a judgement on the word or evidence of ether party as it now stands..and besides who are any of us to stand in moral judgement of others..

 

The possibility that Derek may be an egg thief is irrelevent here..as is where the cable tied falcon came from in the first place..forget that..it may be a catalyst in some ways but in other ways it seems to me to be obscuring the facts of this dispute..(if I have read things correctly)..it is what happened afterwards and the conflicting word of two people about the transaction of the falcon that is in dispute..the courts have dealt with the other bits..it is a fact that there are plenty of people wrongfully convicted of crimes every day..likewise..there are plenty of bent policemen in jail..thats also a fact..so the outcome of this could go either way..and so lets wait and see what further undisputable facts unfold..and then lets leave it there..

 

all the best

 

A very fair post. Just to add.Mr Canning was convicted by a jury of the offences.Not just one peregrine was involved but upwards of 20. Mysteriously the parent birds were stolen,from him, just before the raid on his premises. Mr Canning has failed in every attempt to overturn is conviction.He failed in his attempt to sue me civilly for the peregrine I purchased from him. The judge/magistrate in the civil case referred to Mr Canning as a compulsive liar and found in my favour. Mr Canning complained about me, not once, but twice, to my senior officers in the police ,stating I had committed perjury during his trial,even although I was not called to give evidence as my evidence had been accepted. It is impossible to committ perjury without giving evidence.

 

The truth has already been proved.I have nothing to prove,but 15 years on I get contacted to be told I am once again being attacked on a public forum by Derek Canning. It is the same questions that have been asked, and answered time and time again. The answers will not change.

I have answered the Mark Robb situation giving my reasons. That has nothing to do with anyone except me and Mark Robb. I will happily sort it all out with Mark Robb but he is so unreasonable and blinkered that will never happen.

 

All the questions that I have answered on this thread will no doubt be asked again.As far as I am concerned this thread has now run its course and I feel I am banging my head against a brick wall.

 

 

Regards,

Neil Hunter

Neil Hunter you have avoided answering the most fundamental and vital question; did

you tick the registration document to say the bird you received from me was a gift? The answer is yes or no. STOP using your brother and friends as a smoke screen and just answer the question yes or no nothing else really matters; yes or no Neil Hunter

 

 

LET USE SEE A COPY OF WHAT YOU SAID TO YOUR CASE OFFICER AS I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE PHONE CALL WAS MADE.

 

Derek

The judge believed it, if that was a contentious issue, why did you or your defence team not call Neil as a witness at your trial

and accept his evidence. If you had caled him as a witness he could have been questioned about it.

The reply would have been the same, you ticked the box and sent the same green pen to Neil.

 

I am not sure if a statemnt was ever obtained from Simon Liebert, I know what their policy is and if Simon Liebert

failed to note down the phone call I really feel that is an issue only he can answer, perhaps you should contact him.

Neil Hunter you need to explain this. Do not ask you brother to explain Roy Pitt’s email; you need to stand on you two feet. I am the only one supplying documented evidence so the least that you can do is reply personally and stop hiding behind your brother and friend so you do not incriminate yourself

 

Subject: RE: DEREK CANNING

Date: 27/03/2008 15:44:32 GMT Standard Time

From: roy.pitt@animalhealth.gsi.gov.uk

 

 

 

To: DEREKCANNING

 

CC: Chris.Cotterill@animalhealth.gsi.gov.uk, Barry.Ellis@animalhealth.gsi.gov.uk, john.hounslow@animalhealth.gsi.gov.uk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from the Internet (Details)

 

 

 

 

Dear Mr Canning

 

I refer to your further email below. I have spoken to both Lynn Garvey and Simon Liebert, neither of whom can recall any telephone conversations with Neil Hunter about a bird he obtained from you in 1993.

 

I can confirm that we would not advise anyone to make a false claim or declaration. If a keeper made us aware of a discrepancy, it is likely we would suggest they advise us, when they return the registration document, of any circumstances they did not consider reflected the true situation; we would then consider what action, if any, needed to be taken.

 

Roy Pitt

 

________________________________________

From: DEREK CANNING [mailto:DEREKCANNING]

Sent: 27 March 2008 12:32

To: Pitt, Roy (AH)

Subject: DEREK CANNING

 

Look at the letter from Hayley Wharmby who confirms on July 1998 13:50 she can find no recorded of Neil Hunter’s claimed phone call and I have a statement Lynn Garvey that confirms if there was any phone call by anyone complaining about irregularities with a registration document there would be a note made.

 

Now look at what Neil Hunter said about phoning the DOE to complain about me ticking the gift box and that none of the parent ring numbers were on the form and that he had bought a cable tied bird that I had no legally right to sell. In short, if Neil Hunter was telling the truth the DOE would have contacted me and I would have been reported for selling a cabled tied bird at that point in time.

 

 

I will now look for the Magistrate’s acquittal relation to the bird that I gave Neil Hunter.

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

Can I just thank the moderators of this site and forum for their time in allowing this thread to run.

It is in the public interest to allow it to be voiced and seen.

 

Had this been the IFF or WFF, it would have been axed by the spineless moderators who dominate them said sites.

 

This way, we all see the truth of the matter.

 

I have been following this thread with interest..as I am sure have many others..I do not know either Derek Canning or Neil Hunter personally but via friends have heard of both..and I thought not to get involved but..some of the things said by annonymous others have in my opinion been cowardly and less than helpful..thrown fuel on the inferno..

 

Trying to look at it from both perspectives..on the face of it there are two people who are both obviously very hurt and very angry because of what they allege the other has done to them..

 

The nature of the allegations initially made by Derek and the subsequent very strong refutation by Neil..which is in total contradiction to what Derek has said would suggest that obviously one of the two is being dishonest..these are irreconcilable differences (of opinion or fact)..two people saying quite the opposite..

 

Derek Canning appears to be trying hard to produce his evidence and lets hope it comes sooner rather than later..if there is any to produce.. Niel Hunter is saying Derek has no credible evidence..Until this unfolds and the full facts are known and established beyond doubt.. let us bystanders try to be more objective about the whole thing and confine ourselves to asking sensible questions of either party..or otherwise not comment..

 

I would suggest that those who have done so already..refrain from making comments such as calling someone a liar or thief or other such libelous and nasty names...or at least if you feel you must resort to this type of claptrap in the hope that it will win a few supporters.. then at least have the bottle to make yourself known via your proper name..any coward can say things sitting at home anonymously behind a keyboard..but acts of this nature smack of fake courage and dishonesty in its zenith..

 

This is obviously a very highly emotive subject for both people concerned..Neil and Derek..both have said unpleasant things about each other which while they may not help reconcile the matter..I would say it is understandable in the circumstances..and at least both have had the integrity to sign and stand publicly behind their own names..I for one am pleased that the Hunting Life Forum had the guts to let the thread run its course..but the sooner this matter is ended the better for everyone..it is impossible on the face of it for any of us to make a judgement on the word or evidence of ether party as it now stands..and besides who are any of us to stand in moral judgement of others..

 

The possibility that Derek may be an egg thief is irrelevent here..as is where the cable tied falcon came from in the first place..forget that..it may be a catalyst in some ways but in other ways it seems to me to be obscuring the facts of this dispute..(if I have read things correctly)..it is what happened afterwards and the conflicting word of two people about the transaction of the falcon that is in dispute..the courts have dealt with the other bits..it is a fact that there are plenty of people wrongfully convicted of crimes every day..likewise..there are plenty of bent policemen in jail..thats also a fact..so the outcome of this could go either way..and so lets wait and see what further undisputable facts unfold..and then lets leave it there..

 

all the best

 

A very fair post. Just to add.Mr Canning was convicted by a jury of the offences.Not just one peregrine was involved but upwards of 20. Mysteriously the parent birds were stolen,from him, just before the raid on his premises. Mr Canning has failed in every attempt to overturn is conviction.He failed in his attempt to sue me civilly for the peregrine I purchased from him. The judge/magistrate in the civil case referred to Mr Canning as a compulsive liar and found in my favour. Mr Canning complained about me, not once, but twice, to my senior officers in the police ,stating I had committed perjury during his trial,even although I was not called to give evidence as my evidence had been accepted. It is impossible to committ perjury without giving evidence.

 

The truth has already been proved.I have nothing to prove,but 15 years on I get contacted to be told I am once again being attacked on a public forum by Derek Canning. It is the same questions that have been asked, and answered time and time again. The answers will not change.

I have answered the Mark Robb situation giving my reasons. That has nothing to do with anyone except me and Mark Robb. I will happily sort it all out with Mark Robb but he is so unreasonable and blinkered that will never happen.

 

All the questions that I have answered on this thread will no doubt be asked again.As far as I am concerned this thread has now run its course and I feel I am banging my head against a brick wall.

 

 

Regards,

Neil Hunter

Neil Hunter you have avoided answering the most fundamental and vital question; did

you tick the registration document to say the bird you received from me was a gift? The answer is yes or no. STOP using your brother and friends as a smoke screen and just answer the question yes or no nothing else really matters; yes or no Neil Hunter

 

 

LET USE SEE A COPY OF WHAT YOU SAID TO YOUR CASE OFFICER AS I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE PHONE CALL WAS MADE.

 

Derek

The judge believed it, if that was a contentious issue, why did you or your defence team not call Neil as a witness at your trial

and accept his evidence. If you had caled him as a witness he could have been questioned about it.

The reply would have been the same, you ticked the box and sent the same green pen to Neil.

 

I am not sure if a statemnt was ever obtained from Simon Liebert, I know what their policy is and if Simon Liebert

failed to note down the phone call I really feel that is an issue only he can answer, perhaps you should contact him.

Neil Hunter you need to explain this. Do not ask you brother to explain Roy Pitt’s email; you need to stand on you two feet. I am the only one supplying documented evidence so the least that you can do is reply personally and stop hiding behind your brother and friend so you do not incriminate yourself

 

Subject: RE: DEREK CANNING

Date: 27/03/2008 15:44:32 GMT Standard Time

From: roy.pitt@animalhealth.gsi.gov.uk

 

 

 

To: DEREKCANNING

 

CC: Chris.Cotterill@animalhealth.gsi.gov.uk, Barry.Ellis@animalhealth.gsi.gov.uk, john.hounslow@animalhealth.gsi.gov.uk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from the Internet (Details)

 

 

 

 

Dear Mr Canning

 

I refer to your further email below. I have spoken to both Lynn Garvey and Simon Liebert, neither of whom can recall any telephone conversations with Neil Hunter about a bird he obtained from you in 1993.

 

I can confirm that we would not advise anyone to make a false claim or declaration. If a keeper made us aware of a discrepancy, it is likely we would suggest they advise us, when they return the registration document, of any circumstances they did not consider reflected the true situation; we would then consider what action, if any, needed to be taken.

 

Roy Pitt

 

________________________________________

From: DEREK CANNING [mailto:DEREKCANNING]

Sent: 27 March 2008 12:32

To: Pitt, Roy (AH)

Subject: DEREK CANNING

 

Look at the letter from Hayley Wharmby who confirms on July 1998 13:50 she can find no recorded of Neil Hunter’s claimed phone call and I have a statement Lynn Garvey that confirms if there was any phone call by anyone complaining about irregularities with a registration document there would be a note made.

 

Now look at what Neil Hunter said about phoning the DOE to complain about me ticking the gift box and that none of the parent ring numbers were on the form and that he had bought a cable tied bird that I had no legally right to sell. In short, if Neil Hunter was telling the truth the DOE would have contacted me and I would have been reported for selling a cabled tied bird at that point in time.

 

 

I will now look for the Magistrate’s acquittal relation to the bird that I gave Neil Hunter.

 

 

TO ALL THE POLICE WHO ARE MONITORING THIS FORUM I WOULD INVITE YOU TO DO YOUR JOB AND INVESTIGATE MY ALLEGATIONS AGAINST NEIL HUNTER FOR PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE. THIS IS A LEGAL DUTY UNDER THE POLICE REFORM ACT AND IT MUST BE WITHIN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. I have been asking for a police inquiry for many years and it is well over due. No one should be above the law of the land not even the police or an ex-police man police.

 

WE COULD BE ON THE VERGE OF SOMETHING HISTORIC: JUSTICE DUE TO A FORUM.

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

Can I just thank the moderators of this site and forum for their time in allowing this thread to run.

It is in the public interest to allow it to be voiced and seen.

 

Had this been the IFF or WFF, it would have been axed by the spineless moderators who dominate them said sites.

 

This way, we all see the truth of the matter.

 

I have been following this thread with interest..as I am sure have many others..I do not know either Derek Canning or Neil Hunter personally but via friends have heard of both..and I thought not to get involved but..some of the things said by annonymous others have in my opinion been cowardly and less than helpful..thrown fuel on the inferno..

 

Trying to look at it from both perspectives..on the face of it there are two people who are both obviously very hurt and very angry because of what they allege the other has done to them..

 

The nature of the allegations initially made by Derek and the subsequent very strong refutation by Neil..which is in total contradiction to what Derek has said would suggest that obviously one of the two is being dishonest..these are irreconcilable differences (of opinion or fact)..two people saying quite the opposite..

 

Derek Canning appears to be trying hard to produce his evidence and lets hope it comes sooner rather than later..if there is any to produce.. Niel Hunter is saying Derek has no credible evidence..Until this unfolds and the full facts are known and established beyond doubt.. let us bystanders try to be more objective about the whole thing and confine ourselves to asking sensible questions of either party..or otherwise not comment..

 

I would suggest that those who have done so already..refrain from making comments such as calling someone a liar or thief or other such libelous and nasty names...or at least if you feel you must resort to this type of claptrap in the hope that it will win a few supporters.. then at least have the bottle to make yourself known via your proper name..any coward can say things sitting at home anonymously behind a keyboard..but acts of this nature smack of fake courage and dishonesty in its zenith..

 

This is obviously a very highly emotive subject for both people concerned..Neil and Derek..both have said unpleasant things about each other which while they may not help reconcile the matter..I would say it is understandable in the circumstances..and at least both have had the integrity to sign and stand publicly behind their own names..I for one am pleased that the Hunting Life Forum had the guts to let the thread run its course..but the sooner this matter is ended the better for everyone..it is impossible on the face of it for any of us to make a judgement on the word or evidence of ether party as it now stands..and besides who are any of us to stand in moral judgement of others..

 

The possibility that Derek may be an egg thief is irrelevent here..as is where the cable tied falcon came from in the first place..forget that..it may be a catalyst in some ways but in other ways it seems to me to be obscuring the facts of this dispute..(if I have read things correctly)..it is what happened afterwards and the conflicting word of two people about the transaction of the falcon that is in dispute..the courts have dealt with the other bits..it is a fact that there are plenty of people wrongfully convicted of crimes every day..likewise..there are plenty of bent policemen in jail..thats also a fact..so the outcome of this could go either way..and so lets wait and see what further undisputable facts unfold..and then lets leave it there..

 

all the best

 

A very fair post. Just to add.Mr Canning was convicted by a jury of the offences.Not just one peregrine was involved but upwards of 20. Mysteriously the parent birds were stolen,from him, just before the raid on his premises. Mr Canning has failed in every attempt to overturn is conviction.He failed in his attempt to sue me civilly for the peregrine I purchased from him. The judge/magistrate in the civil case referred to Mr Canning as a compulsive liar and found in my favour. Mr Canning complained about me, not once, but twice, to my senior officers in the police ,stating I had committed perjury during his trial,even although I was not called to give evidence as my evidence had been accepted. It is impossible to committ perjury without giving evidence.

 

The truth has already been proved.I have nothing to prove,but 15 years on I get contacted to be told I am once again being attacked on a public forum by Derek Canning. It is the same questions that have been asked, and answered time and time again. The answers will not change.

I have answered the Mark Robb situation giving my reasons. That has nothing to do with anyone except me and Mark Robb. I will happily sort it all out with Mark Robb but he is so unreasonable and blinkered that will never happen.

 

All the questions that I have answered on this thread will no doubt be asked again.As far as I am concerned this thread has now run its course and I feel I am banging my head against a brick wall.

 

 

Regards,

Neil Hunter

Neil Hunter you have avoided answering the most fundamental and vital question; did

you tick the registration document to say the bird you received from me was a gift? The answer is yes or no. STOP using your brother and friends as a smoke screen and just answer the question yes or no nothing else really matters; yes or no Neil Hunter

 

 

LET USE SEE A COPY OF WHAT YOU SAID TO YOUR CASE OFFICER AS I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE PHONE CALL WAS MADE.

 

Derek

The judge believed it, if that was a contentious issue, why did you or your defence team not call Neil as a witness at your trial

and accept his evidence. If you had caled him as a witness he could have been questioned about it.

The reply would have been the same, you ticked the box and sent the same green pen to Neil.

 

I am not sure if a statemnt was ever obtained from Simon Liebert, I know what their policy is and if Simon Liebert

failed to note down the phone call I really feel that is an issue only he can answer, perhaps you should contact him.

Neil Hunter you need to explain this. Do not ask you brother to explain Roy Pitt’s email; you need to stand on you two feet. I am the only one supplying documented evidence so the least that you can do is reply personally and stop hiding behind your brother and friend so you do not incriminate yourself

 

Subject: RE: DEREK CANNING

Date: 27/03/2008 15:44:32 GMT Standard Time

From: roy.pitt@animalhealth.gsi.gov.uk

 

 

 

To: DEREKCANNING

 

CC: Chris.Cotterill@animalhealth.gsi.gov.uk, Barry.Ellis@animalhealth.gsi.gov.uk, john.hounslow@animalhealth.gsi.gov.uk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from the Internet (Details)

 

 

 

 

Dear Mr Canning

 

I refer to your further email below. I have spoken to both Lynn Garvey and Simon Liebert, neither of whom can recall any telephone conversations with Neil Hunter about a bird he obtained from you in 1993.

 

I can confirm that we would not advise anyone to make a false claim or declaration. If a keeper made us aware of a discrepancy, it is likely we would suggest they advise us, when they return the registration document, of any circumstances they did not consider reflected the true situation; we would then consider what action, if any, needed to be taken.

 

Roy Pitt

 

________________________________________

From: DEREK CANNING [mailto:DEREKCANNING]

Sent: 27 March 2008 12:32

To: Pitt, Roy (AH)

Subject: DEREK CANNING

 

Look at the letter from Hayley Wharmby who confirms on July 1998 13:50 she can find no recorded of Neil Hunter’s claimed phone call and I have a statement Lynn Garvey that confirms if there was any phone call by anyone complaining about irregularities with a registration document there would be a note made.

 

Now look at what Neil Hunter said about phoning the DOE to complain about me ticking the gift box and that none of the parent ring numbers were on the form and that he had bought a cable tied bird that I had no legally right to sell. In short, if Neil Hunter was telling the truth the DOE would have contacted me and I would have been reported for selling a cabled tied bird at that point in time.

 

 

I will now look for the Magistrate’s acquittal relation to the bird that I gave Neil Hunter.

 

 

TO ALL THE POLICE WHO ARE MONITORING THIS FORUM I WOULD INVITE YOU TO DO YOUR JOB AND INVESTIGATE MY ALLEGATIONS AGAINST NEIL HUNTER FOR PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE. THIS IS A LEGAL DUTY UNDER THE POLICE REFORM ACT AND IT MUST BE WITHIN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. I have been asking for a police inquiry for many years and it is well over due. No one should be above the law of the land not even the police or an ex-police man police.

 

WE COULD BE ON THE VERGE OF SOMETHING HISTORIC: JUSTICE DUE TO A FORUM.

 

 

CAME ON NEIL HUNTER YOU STAND ACCUSED DEFEND YOURSELF PERSONALLY AND EXPLAIN YOUR SIDE, I AM BURST TO HEAR YOUR EXPLANATION.

Edited March 27, 2008 by DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS]

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

Can I just thank the moderators of this site and forum for their time in allowing this thread to run.

It is in the public interest to allow it to be voiced and seen.

 

Had this been the IFF or WFF, it would have been axed by the spineless moderators who dominate them said sites.

 

This way, we all see the truth of the matter.

 

I have been following this thread with interest..as I am sure have many others..I do not know either Derek Canning or Neil Hunter personally but via friends have heard of both..and I thought not to get involved but..some of the things said by annonymous others have in my opinion been cowardly and less than helpful..thrown fuel on the inferno..

 

Trying to look at it from both perspectives..on the face of it there are two people who are both obviously very hurt and very angry because of what they allege the other has done to them..

 

The nature of the allegations initially made by Derek and the subsequent very strong refutation by Neil..which is in total contradiction to what Derek has said would suggest that obviously one of the two is being dishonest..these are irreconcilable differences (of opinion or fact)..two people saying quite the opposite..

 

Derek Canning appears to be trying hard to produce his evidence and lets hope it comes sooner rather than later..if there is any to produce.. Niel Hunter is saying Derek has no credible evidence..Until this unfolds and the full facts are known and established beyond doubt.. let us bystanders try to be more objective about the whole thing and confine ourselves to asking sensible questions of either party..or otherwise not comment..

 

I would suggest that those who have done so already..refrain from making comments such as calling someone a liar or thief or other such libelous and nasty names...or at least if you feel you must resort to this type of claptrap in the hope that it will win a few supporters.. then at least have the bottle to make yourself known via your proper name..any coward can say things sitting at home anonymously behind a keyboard..but acts of this nature smack of fake courage and dishonesty in its zenith..

 

This is obviously a very highly emotive subject for both people concerned..Neil and Derek..both have said unpleasant things about each other which while they may not help reconcile the matter..I would say it is understandable in the circumstances..and at least both have had the integrity to sign and stand publicly behind their own names..I for one am pleased that the Hunting Life Forum had the guts to let the thread run its course..but the sooner this matter is ended the better for everyone..it is impossible on the face of it for any of us to make a judgement on the word or evidence of ether party as it now stands..and besides who are any of us to stand in moral judgement of others..

 

The possibility that Derek may be an egg thief is irrelevent here..as is where the cable tied falcon came from in the first place..forget that..it may be a catalyst in some ways but in other ways it seems to me to be obscuring the facts of this dispute..(if I have read things correctly)..it is what happened afterwards and the conflicting word of two people about the transaction of the falcon that is in dispute..the courts have dealt with the other bits..it is a fact that there are plenty of people wrongfully convicted of crimes every day..likewise..there are plenty of bent policemen in jail..thats also a fact..so the outcome of this could go either way..and so lets wait and see what further undisputable facts unfold..and then lets leave it there..

 

all the best

 

A very fair post. Just to add.Mr Canning was convicted by a jury of the offences.Not just one peregrine was involved but upwards of 20. Mysteriously the parent birds were stolen,from him, just before the raid on his premises. Mr Canning has failed in every attempt to overturn is conviction.He failed in his attempt to sue me civilly for the peregrine I purchased from him. The judge/magistrate in the civil case referred to Mr Canning as a compulsive liar and found in my favour. Mr Canning complained about me, not once, but twice, to my senior officers in the police ,stating I had committed perjury during his trial,even although I was not called to give evidence as my evidence had been accepted. It is impossible to committ perjury without giving evidence.

 

The truth has already been proved.I have nothing to prove,but 15 years on I get contacted to be told I am once again being attacked on a public forum by Derek Canning. It is the same questions that have been asked, and answered time and time again. The answers will not change.

I have answered the Mark Robb situation giving my reasons. That has nothing to do with anyone except me and Mark Robb. I will happily sort it all out with Mark Robb but he is so unreasonable and blinkered that will never happen.

 

All the questions that I have answered on this thread will no doubt be asked again.As far as I am concerned this thread has now run its course and I feel I am banging my head against a brick wall.

 

 

Regards,

Neil Hunter

Neil Hunter you have avoided answering the most fundamental and vital question; did

you tick the registration document to say the bird you received from me was a gift? The answer is yes or no. STOP using your brother and friends as a smoke screen and just answer the question yes or no nothing else really matters; yes or no Neil Hunter

 

 

LET USE SEE A COPY OF WHAT YOU SAID TO YOUR CASE OFFICER AS I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE PHONE CALL WAS MADE.

 

Derek

The judge believed it, if that was a contentious issue, why did you or your defence team not call Neil as a witness at your trial

and accept his evidence. If you had caled him as a witness he could have been questioned about it.

The reply would have been the same, you ticked the box and sent the same green pen to Neil.

 

I am not sure if a statemnt was ever obtained from Simon Liebert, I know what their policy is and if Simon Liebert

failed to note down the phone call I really feel that is an issue only he can answer, perhaps you should contact him.

Neil Hunter you need to explain this. Do not ask you brother to explain Roy Pitt’s email; you need to stand on you two feet. I am the only one supplying documented evidence so the least that you can do is reply personally and stop hiding behind your brother and friend so you do not incriminate yourself

 

Subject: RE: DEREK CANNING

Date: 27/03/2008 15:44:32 GMT Standard Time

From: roy.pitt@animalhealth.gsi.gov.uk

 

 

 

To: DEREKCANNING

 

CC: Chris.Cotterill@animalhealth.gsi.gov.uk, Barry.Ellis@animalhealth.gsi.gov.uk, john.hounslow@animalhealth.gsi.gov.uk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from the Internet (Details)

 

 

 

 

Dear Mr Canning

 

I refer to your further email below. I have spoken to both Lynn Garvey and Simon Liebert, neither of whom can recall any telephone conversations with Neil Hunter about a bird he obtained from you in 1993.

 

I can confirm that we would not advise anyone to make a false claim or declaration. If a keeper made us aware of a discrepancy, it is likely we would suggest they advise us, when they return the registration document, of any circumstances they did not consider reflected the true situation; we would then consider what action, if any, needed to be taken.

 

Roy Pitt

 

________________________________________

From: DEREK CANNING [mailto:DEREKCANNING]

Sent: 27 March 2008 12:32

To: Pitt, Roy (AH)

Subject: DEREK CANNING

 

Look at the letter from Hayley Wharmby who confirms on July 1998 13:50 she can find no recorded of Neil Hunter’s claimed phone call and I have a statement Lynn Garvey that confirms if there was any phone call by anyone complaining about irregularities with a registration document there would be a note made.

 

Now look at what Neil Hunter said about phoning the DOE to complain about me ticking the gift box and that none of the parent ring numbers were on the form and that he had bought a cable tied bird that I had no legally right to sell. In short, if Neil Hunter was telling the truth the DOE would have contacted me and I would have been reported for selling a cabled tied bird at that point in time.

 

 

I will now look for the Magistrate’s acquittal relation to the bird that I gave Neil Hunter.

 

 

TO ALL THE POLICE WHO ARE MONITORING THIS FORUM I WOULD INVITE YOU TO DO YOUR JOB AND INVESTIGATE MY ALLEGATIONS AGAINST NEIL HUNTER FOR PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE. THIS IS A LEGAL DUTY UNDER THE POLICE REFORM ACT AND IT MUST BE WITHIN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. I have been asking for a police inquiry for many years and it is well over due. No one should be above the law of the land not even the police or an ex-police man police.

 

WE COULD BE ON THE VERGE OF SOMETHING HISTORIC: JUSTICE DUE TO A FORUM.

 

 

CAME ON NEIL HUNTER YOU STAND ACCUSED DEFEND YOURSELF PERSONALLY AND EXPLAIN YOUR SIDE, I AM BURST TO HEAR YOUR EXPLANATION.

from Hexham Magistrates my acquitals.

[DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS] 20]

Can I just thank the moderators of this site and forum for their time in allowing this thread to run.

It is in the public interest to allow it to be voiced and seen.

 

Had this been the IFF or WFF, it would have been axed by the spineless moderators who dominate them said sites.

 

This way, we all see the truth of the matter.

 

I have been following this thread with interest..as I am sure have many others..I do not know either Derek Canning or Neil Hunter personally but via friends have heard of both..and I thought not to get involved but..some of the things said by annonymous others have in my opinion been cowardly and less than helpful..thrown fuel on the inferno..

 

Trying to look at it from both perspectives..on the face of it there are two people who are both obviously very hurt and very angry because of what they allege the other has done to them..

 

The nature of the allegations initially made by Derek and the subsequent very strong refutation by Neil..which is in total contradiction to what Derek has said would suggest that obviously one of the two is being dishonest..these are irreconcilable differences (of opinion or fact)..two people saying quite the opposite..

 

Derek Canning appears to be trying hard to produce his evidence and lets hope it comes sooner rather than later..if there is any to produce.. Niel Hunter is saying Derek has no credible evidence..Until this unfolds and the full facts are known and established beyond doubt.. let us bystanders try to be more objective about the whole thing and confine ourselves to asking sensible questions of either party..or otherwise not comment..

 

I would suggest that those who have done so already..refrain from making comments such as calling someone a liar or thief or other such libelous and nasty names...or at least if you feel you must resort to this type of claptrap in the hope that it will win a few supporters.. then at least have the bottle to make yourself known via your proper name..any coward can say things sitting at home anonymously behind a keyboard..but acts of this nature smack of fake courage and dishonesty in its zenith..

 

This is obviously a very highly emotive subject for both people concerned..Neil and Derek..both have said unpleasant things about each other which while they may not help reconcile the matter..I would say it is understandable in the circumstances..and at least both have had the integrity to sign and stand publicly behind their own names..I for one am pleased that the Hunting Life Forum had the guts to let the thread run its course..but the sooner this matter is ended the better for everyone..it is impossible on the face of it for any of us to make a judgement on the word or evidence of ether party as it now stands..and besides who are any of us to stand in moral judgement of others..

 

The possibility that Derek may be an egg thief is irrelevent here..as is where the cable tied falcon came from in the first place..forget that..it may be a catalyst in some ways but in other ways it seems to me to be obscuring the facts of this dispute..(if I have read things correctly)..it is what happened afterwards and the conflicting word of two people about the transaction of the falcon that is in dispute..the courts have dealt with the other bits..it is a fact that there are plenty of people wrongfully convicted of crimes every day..likewise..there are plenty of bent policemen in jail..thats also a fact..so the outcome of this could go either way..and so lets wait and see what further undisputable facts unfold..and then lets leave it there..

 

all the best

 

A very fair post. Just to add.Mr Canning was convicted by a jury of the offences.Not just one peregrine was involved but upwards of 20. Mysteriously the parent birds were stolen,from him, just before the raid on his premises. Mr Canning has failed in every attempt to overturn is conviction.He failed in his attempt to sue me civilly for the peregrine I purchased from him. The judge/magistrate in the civil case referred to Mr Canning as a compulsive liar and found in my favour. Mr Canning complained about me, not once, but twice, to my senior officers in the police ,stating I had committed perjury during his trial,even although I was not called to give evidence as my evidence had been accepted. It is impossible to committ perjury without giving evidence.

 

The truth has already been proved.I have nothing to prove,but 15 years on I get contacted to be told I am once again being attacked on a public forum by Derek Canning. It is the same questions that have been asked, and answered time and time again. The answers will not change.

I have answered the Mark Robb situation giving my reasons. That has nothing to do with anyone except me and Mark Robb. I will happily sort it all out with Mark Robb but he is so unreasonable and blinkered that will never happen.

 

All the questions that I have answered on this thread will no doubt be asked again.As far as I am concerned this thread has now run its course and I feel I am banging my head against a brick wall.

 

 

Regards,

Neil Hunter

Neil Hunter you have avoided answering the most fundamental and vital question; did

you tick the registration document to say the bird you received from me was a gift? The answer is yes or no. STOP using your brother and friends as a smoke screen and just answer the question yes or no nothing else really matters; yes or no Neil Hunter

 

 

LET USE SEE A COPY OF WHAT YOU SAID TO YOUR CASE OFFICER AS I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE PHONE CALL WAS MADE.

 

Derek

The judge believed it, if that was a contentious issue, why did you or your defence team not call Neil as a witness at your trial

and accept his evidence. If you had caled him as a witness he could have been questioned about it.

The reply would have been the same, you ticked the box and sent the same green pen to Neil.

 

I am not sure if a statemnt was ever obtained from Simon Liebert, I know what their policy is and if Simon Liebert

failed to note down the phone call I really feel that is an issue only he can answer, perhaps you should contact him.

Neil Hunter you need to explain this. Do not ask you brother to explain Roy Pitt’s email; you need to stand on you two feet. I am the only one supplying documented evidence so the least that you can do is reply personally and stop hiding behind your brother and friend so you do not incriminate yourself

 

Subject: RE: DEREK CANNING

Date: 27/03/2008 15:44:32 GMT Standard Time

From: roy.pitt@animalhealth.gsi.gov.uk

 

 

 

To: DEREKCANNING

 

CC: Chris.Cotterill@animalhealth.gsi.gov.uk, Barry.Ellis@animalhealth.gsi.gov.uk, john.hounslow@animalhealth.gsi.gov.uk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from the Internet (Details)

 

 

 

 

Dear Mr Canning

 

I refer to your further email below. I have spoken to both Lynn Garvey and Simon Liebert, neither of whom can recall any telephone conversations with Neil Hunter about a bird he obtained from you in 1993.

 

I can confirm that we would not advise anyone to make a false claim or declaration. If a keeper made us aware of a discrepancy, it is likely we would suggest they advise us, when they return the registration document, of any circumstances they did not consider reflected the true situation; we would then consider what action, if any, needed to be taken.

 

Roy Pitt

 

________________________________________

From: DEREK CANNING [mailto:DEREKCANNING]

Sent: 27 March 2008 12:32

To: Pitt, Roy (AH)

Subject: DEREK CANNING

 

Look at the letter from Hayley Wharmby who confirms on July 1998 13:50 she can find no recorded of Neil Hunter’s claimed phone call and I have a statement Lynn Garvey that confirms if there was any phone call by anyone complaining about irregularities with a registration document there would be a note made.

 

Now look at what Neil Hunter said about phoning the DOE to complain about me ticking the gift box and that none of the parent ring numbers were on the form and that he had bought a cable tied bird that I had no legally right to sell. In short, if Neil Hunter was telling the truth the DOE would have contacted me and I would have been reported for selling a cabled tied bird at that point in time.

 

 

I will now look for the Magistrate’s acquittal relation to the bird that I gave Neil Hunter.

 

 

TO ALL THE POLICE WHO ARE MONITORING THIS FORUM I WOULD INVITE YOU TO DO YOUR JOB AND INVESTIGATE MY ALLEGATIONS AGAINST NEIL HUNTER FOR PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE. THIS IS A LEGAL DUTY UNDER THE POLICE REFORM ACT AND IT MUST BE WITHIN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. I have been asking for a police inquiry for many years and it is well over due. No one should be above the law of the land not even the police or an ex-police man police.

 

WE COULD BE ON THE VERGE OF SOMETHING HISTORIC: JUSTICE DUE TO A FORUM.

 

 

CAME ON NEIL HUNTER YOU STAND ACCUSED DEFEND YOURSELF PERSONALLY AND EXPLAIN YOUR SIDE, I AM BURST TO HEAR YOUR EXPLANATION.

from Hexham Magistrates my acquitals.

I am pouring the evidence out Neil Hunter and you have not supplied any documented evidence or even answered any relevant questions because you are frightened to incriminate yourself.

 

I will now find the summons that shows that I sued my barrister for not following my written and verbal instructions to force the DOE TO RELEASE NEIL HUNTER'S REGISTRATION DOCUMENT AND TO CALL NEIL HUNTER TO GIVE HIS EVIDENCE AND IF THIS IS NOT ENOUGH I WILL FIND THE SECTION IN MY POLICE STATEMENT TO GUY SHORROCK WHERE I REPEATEDLY STATED I DID NOT SELL NEIL HUNTER A BIRD AND THAT THAT THE POLICE SHOULD GO TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT TO SEE WHAT HE HAD TICKED ON THE REGISTRATION DOCUMENT, LITTLE DID I KNOW IT HAD BEEN DONE ALREADY AND THIS FACT WAS WITHHELD FROM ME AS WELL AS A MASS OF OTHER EVIDENCE. THE WHOLE CASE WAS SHOW BOATING AND I WAS A TROPHY THAT THEY WANTED NO MATTER WHAT THE EVIDENCE, JUST LIKE THE R v Burden case in which Shorrock and the police were criticised for deciding someone was guilty and just looking for evidence to support that contention and ignoring everything else. The judge stated this as he stopped the case. Had knights Solicitors defended me then you would not be pouring over what I have to say.

Edited March 27, 2008 by DEREK CANNING LLB[HONS]

[Albidus 0]

Mr Canning

 

Would you please clarify something for me as I feel I must be missing something here :

 

if the case which involved Mr Hunter and the disputed registration document was dropped against you then why are you trying to get revenge on Mr Hunter for the alleged change of story in this case - should you not be concentrating your efforts on building your case against those who actually allegedly framed you with the resultant jail term?

 

As I say, I may be missing something and would be grateful for clarification.

 

Thanks

 

ps I dont care who is right or wrong in this case and have no great interest in it.

[crow wing 0]

[TO ALL THE POLICE WHO ARE MONITORING THIS FORUM I WOULD INVITE YOU TO DO YOUR JOB AND INVESTIGATE MY ALLEGATIONS AGAINST NEIL HUNTER FOR PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE. THIS IS A LEGAL DUTY UNDER THE POLICE REFORM ACT AND IT MUST BE WITHIN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. I have been asking for a police inquiry for many years and it is well over due. No one should be above the law of the land not even the police or an ex-police man police.

 

WE COULD BE ON THE VERGE OF SOMETHING HISTORIC: JUSTICE DUE TO A FORUM.

 

 

Derek..with all due respect..it appears to me you are struggling desperately with your claims here..rather than invite police who may or may not be reading this forum to investigate Neil Hunter..why not put up or shut up..and simply take your evidence to the police..I am sure that there must be a police station somewhere near you..and also get your legal team involved..I am sure that they can help if your claim is as legitimate and as watertight as you say..

 

When this thread started..to be honest I was finding it hard myself to be objective..and being a one who naturally but sometimes misguidedly favours the underdog..being a bit of a non conformist myself..I was hoping that you had a case which was going to expose some real facts re a bent policeman and some conspiracy within DEFRA..I was actually applauding to myself your brave and principled stand against an injustice and formidable foe..but not for very long..

 

As this thread has began to unfold it has become quite clear to me that you are armed only with bitterness and a relentless quest for personal satisfaction..and really you are void of any meaningful evidence which will make justice via the legal system even a remote possibility..the forms and signatures that you produce mean nothing..Neil Hunter has answered your question re who ticked the box..he has stated quite clearly that he did not..and you say that you did not..so who really did..the fairies ?? Perhaps yes..we could agree that it was the fairies and then there would be no one to blame and we can all be friends again !!

 

Re the issue with Mark Robb...again..like yourself and Neil Hunter he is someone I have only heard of in falconry circles I move in..but he is not much of a pal to you Derek if he has put bullets in for you to fire and then apparently left you hung out to dry..again..I think personally that Neil Hunter has aquitted himself very well in answering your accusations re the Mark Robb situation..which I dare say is more than anyone else on here would have done..I certainly would not have felt obliged to answer slanderous allegations via a second party..

 

Finally Derek..I have no axe to grind with you or with Neil Hunter for that matter..but the final sentence on your post to which I replied says it all...WE COULD BE ON THE VERGE OF SOMETHING HISTORIC..JUSTICE DUE TO A FORUM !!

 

Please tell me Derek that this is not what you are hoping for..what you are hanging your hat and your credibility on..please tell me that you have something else to go on..otherwise end it now mate..your credibility is sinking fast and you are digging a deep hole for yourself..I am sure that if you had any real incriminating evidence against Neil Hunter the case would have been heard long before now..I know that justice takes time..but 15 years..now thats something..the crisis in Iraq will be over before this matter is sorted to your satisfaction Derek by the sounds of it..

 

all the best

[D.A.Z 0]

nothing to do with me,i got enough problems of my own

 

I know what you're saying mate! I'm living here in a whole world of shit at the moment, thankfully when I get down the aviaries I get some peace and pretend I'm a sex god infront of my females ....

 

Jasper

you stop down them aviaries tony and keep your head down,it will all come out in the wash mate wait and see.

sex god

[SPAR 2]

Im a CYBER falconer that lives in the world of CYBER space. so I've been told

[Kennelre 0]

There is no such thing as 'justice via a forum'..and nor should there be!! Forums have no right to make decisions in legal matters and the hobby of 'trial by forum' is one that I don't subscribe to.

I do have some knowledge of 'stalking' though...and I personally think that's what we're dealing with here.

I take no side in this matter and know none of the parties involved...but there must surely come a point when the constancy of one man's attempt to pursue another man, across as many forums as possible in a veangeful attempt to malign him, becomes a matter of great concern to those who allow it to happen.

An earlier comment was made to the effect that weak moderation meant this issue only briefly glimpsed the light of day on other forums. I believe it to have been a strength to deny centre stage to anyone who seeks to publicly debate an issue that has been decided by the courts..and can only be reconsidered on the submission of new evidence.

 

 

...Rene.

Edited March 27, 2008 by Kennelre