Why picking wild daffodils could land you a £5,000 fine
Those caught picking wild flowers, which is a criminal offence, could face a fine of up to £5,000 or a prison sentence of up to six months.
Experts have pointed out that daffodils are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and picking them is illegal.
Bluebells, snowdrops, primroses and wild orchids are also protected under the Act.
Meanwhile, picking wildflowers is covered by the Theft Act 1968, which states that it is 'unlawful to intentionally pick or uproot any wild plant without permission'.
Wild plants are defined as 'uncultivated plants that grow as nature intended'.
Uprooting a wild flower or plant carries a maximum fine of £5,000, and a prison sentence of up to six months.
Anyone hoping to pick wildflowers on private land requires a landowner's permission, while legal restrictions apply on all public spaces, covering parks, nature reserves and particularly Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).
The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 states that: 'If any person intentionally picks, uproots or destroys any seed or spore attached to any such wild plant; or not being an authorised person, intentionally uproots any wild plant not included in that Schedule, he shall be guilty of an offence.'
In legal proceedings, plants are deemed to be wild unless proven otherwise. Even plants growing in the wild are the legal property of someone as they have been cultivated, Lancashire Police said.
A spokesman added: 'A wild plant is an uncultivated plant that grows as nature intended in the wild.
'Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 the term 'plant' includes algae, lichens and fungi, mosses, liverworts and vascular plants.
'It is unlawful to uproot any wild plant without permission from the landowner or occupier.'
Juliet Sargeant, a professional landscaper said that picking wild flowers had the potential to 'upset entire ecosystems'.
She said: 'Aside from it being deeply antisocial to deprive everyone else of those flowers so you can put them in a vase – where they won't live very long anyway – it has a knock-on effect for the whole ecosystem.
'Some flowers take many years to spread, and you're stopping them from self-seeding, so they will be unable to naturally reproduce and spread. You'll also deprive insects of a habitat and food because they are less able to undertake their role in pollinating.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
9 hours ago
- The Independent
Police hunt sex offender last seen at Bournemouth railway station days after prison release
Police are searching for a sex offender who was last seen at a train station three weeks ago, days after his release from prison. Christopher Spelman, 66, originally from Prescot, Merseyside, is believed to be living in a tent and moving between transport hubs and campsites. Lancashire Police said he failed to register an address with police following his release from prison at the start of July. Spelman was released near Weymouth but is wanted for failing to comply with sexual offender notification requirements. CCTV images show him at Bournemouth railway station at 10.56am on Friday 4 July, where he was seen exiting towards Holdenhurst Road. Police believe he may have used local shops, buses or taxis in the area. Members of the public are urged to call 999 immediately if they see him. Anyone with information or earlier sightings is asked to email mosovowest@ A spokesperson for Lancashire Police said: 'We are continuing to ask for your help to find Christopher Spelman, 66, who is wanted for failing to comply with sexual offender notifications requirements. 'Spelman, initially from Prescot, Merseyside, is likely to be living in a tent and travelling – using transport hubs and campsites. 'At the start of July, Spelman was released from prison near Weymouth and failed to register an address with police – in breach of his notification requirements. 'As an update, we have this sighting of him on CCTV at Bournemouth railway station at 10.56am on Friday 4th July (see first image). He exits the station and turns in the direction of Holdenhurst Road. 'Spelman might have used local shops, the bus service or taxis in the area.'
The Herald Scotland
9 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Age verification UK explained: How is it impacting the UK?
This means that age verification tools are now being used on sites where they could access harmful content. Here's all you need to know about the new rules and how they are being implemented. Well done to everyone who campaigned to ensure age verification for pornography was in the Online Safety Act! Today it comes into force and while no doubt there will be some who get around it, it means young kids in particular won't be stumbling on violent and harmful porn. — Jess Asato MP (@Jess4Lowestoft) July 25, 2025 What is the Online Safety Act? The Online Safety Act is a piece of legislation that received Royal Assent on October 26, 2023, with the aim of protecting children and adults online. The Government website adds: "It puts a range of new duties on social media companies and search services, giving them legal duties to protect their users from illegal content and content harmful to children. "The Act gives providers new duties to implement systems and processes to reduce risks their services are used for illegal activity, and to take down illegal content when it does appear. Why is age verification being used on the internet? As of July 25, internet platforms have a legal duty to protect children from harmful content. Companies within the scope of the act must introduce safety measures as part of this, which include age verification. The Guardian reports: "This means all pornography sites must have in place rigorous age-checking procedures." They continued: "Social media platforms and large search engines must also prevent children from accessing pornography and material that promotes or encourages suicide, self-harm and eating disorders." Platforms will also have to suppress other material that could be potentially harmful to children. This could include "the promotion of dangerous stunts, encouraging the use of harmful substances and enabling bullying". How is age verification utilised by platforms? Ofcom, the media regulator, has set out a number of ways websites can verify the age of users. This can be done through credit card checks, photo ID matching and estimating age using a selfie. Whatever format platforms choose, they must be "technically accurate, robust, reliable and fair," BBC News reports. Which sites will require age verification? Pornhub and a number of other major adult websites have confirmed they will introduce enhanced age checks, BBC News reports. Recommended reading: Reddit has already introduced checks to stop people aged under 18 from looking at "certain mature content", while X and Grindr have committed to this as well. Discord gives UK users a choice of face or ID scanning as a way to verify their age, after testing methods, and Bluesky says it will give UK users a range of different verification options, external. BBC News adds: "Many more services which allow sexually explicit material may need to bring in measures to comply with the new rules."
The Herald Scotland
16 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Supreme Court asked to issue guidance to Scottish judges
Speaking to The Herald, criminal defence advocate Mr Lenehan said new guidance from the Supreme Court would be "welcomed". He said: 'Clear guidance from the Supreme Court would be welcomed by practitioners. "Guidance which respects the intelligence of juries to assess the value of evidence within the confines of each case, and provides an accessible instruction to judges and practitioners alike to ensure the ideal balance is found between the rights of the accused and respect for the privacy and dignity of vulnerable complainers when admitting sensitive evidence.' READ MORE: Earlier this month fellow advocate Thomas Leonard Ross KC raised his concerns with The Herald that he believed some men accused of sexual offences were not getting a fair trial because of how courts were understanding rules relating to the admissibility of evidence in sexual offence trials. He told The Herald that victims had told lies about matters relating to a case yet the defence had been stopped from putting that situation to the jury. "How can it be said that someone has had a fair trial when it's been proved that the complainer lied about something important in the course of the inquiry and that was not allowed to be introduced as evidence?" he said. "There are serious concerns that people are not getting a fair trial when they are not being given the opportunity to provide evidence which might support their innocence". Tony Lenehan KC, vice dean of the Faculty of Advocates (Image: Contributor) The debate revolves around what evidence is allowed to be heard in open court before a jury. Known as "rape shield" laws, specific provisions to regulate the use of sexual history evidence were first introduced in Scotland by the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985 and were designed primarily to protect rape complainers' privacy and dignity. The provisions were later repeated in sections 274 and 275 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. In response to concerns about their operation, the provisions in the 1995 Act were replaced by new sections 274 and 275 in 2002. Sections 274 and 275 of the 1995 Act were intended to protect complainers in sexual offence trials from inappropriate questioning about their sexual history and wider character and lifestyle when giving evidence in court. Rape shield laws were designed to protect rape victims' privacy and dignity (Image: PA) In particular, they were intended to discourage the use of evidence seen as of limited relevance, where the primary purpose of the evidence is to undermine the credibility of the complainer or divert attention from the issues that require to be determined at trial. Defence lawyers can make an application to the court for certain evidence regarded as inadmissible to be heard. But to succeed they must demonstrate when they make the application that not just that the evidence is relevant, but that its relevance is so great that it outweighs the intrusion it represents into the privacy and dignity of the affected complainer. "That's the balancing exercise which goes awry sometimes, in the view of many lawyers," said Mr Lenehan. Mr Ross had said in some cases the way rules allowing only evidence that is "relevant" to the charge to be heard have been too narrowly interpreted meaning evidence that a jury may have seen as significant was not allowed to be heard by them. Thomas Leonard Ross KC raised concerns over the operation of rape shield laws (Image: PA) Mr Lenehan said: "There is absolutely no question that a robust rape shield is there just seems to be fairly broad views that there were risks attached to the ever narrowing of rules around the admissibility of evidence. "Sometimes I find it hard to explain to an accused person who is asking me 'I don't understand why I can't tell the jury that.'" Mr Lenehan said his concerns did not go as far as those expressed by Mr Ross arguing that the problematic cases were "outliers'. "I don't think you can say there is a whole scale difficulty. That is not the view that I've got," he said. "But I am aware that there is widespread concern. What is at the core of my concern is that we undervalue jurors' intelligence when we apply these increasing limits to what they can and what they can't know. "Part of the issue just now is that we don't accord enough respect to the intellect of juries. I worry about that and I worry that there have been decisions that seemed to me to remove from the jury things that the jury would have found relevant to their considerations." Rape Crisis Scotland chief executive Sandy Brindley said: 'Robust implementation of the current protection for complainers in relation to defence using their sexual history or character is essential. "This evidence is highly prejudicial, often designed to appeal to any prejudice jury members might have around women's behaviour. "Polling published earlier this month found 47% of Scottish adults believe in at least one rape myth – this could be the idea that people cannot be raped by someone they are in a relationship with, or that rape always involves violence. "The prospect of their sexual history or character being introduced in court is extremely distressing and often prevents women from feeling able to report what has happened to them to the police. 'Seeking justice for rape shouldn't mean having to be subjected to irrelevant and distressing questioning. "Numerous cases of sexual violence have highlighted the need for the senior judges to act. Cases like Macdonald in 2020, where during cross-examination a young woman was asked 12 different questions about showering with her female friend the night of the incident, 11 questions on what she was wearing immediately prior to and during the incident, and repeated reference to the type of underwear she was wearing. It is unacceptable that women are being treated like this. 'The conviction rate in rape cases with one complainer in Scotland is 24%, compared to an overall crime conviction rate of 86%. There are absolutely miscarriages of justice happening in rape cases – however, the issue here is not men being wrongly convicted. It is women routinely being denied justice, and rapists regularly walking free.' A spokesman for the Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service said it did not want to comment on Mr Lenehan's remarks. A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: 'Everyone has the right to a fair trial and to appeal against a conviction or sentence. There are well-established rules on what evidence can be led in sexual offences trials, and clear routes to challenge how these are applied.'
