It seems some don't though . Plenty of posts on youtube and facebook of people shooting them as they have pooped on their cars or eaten their fruit off trees or raided their bird feeders .
Even back in 2016 Defra thought that people were not using the General license as it was designed to be used for .
From defra
The High Court Ruling
In 2001, a High Court case highlighted potential shortcomings in the general
licences; the case in question (RSPCA v Craig Cundey 2001) involved a
prosecution in relation to the shooting of starlings in a residential garden. In the
Magistrates Court, the holding of general licences by the accused was relied
upon as permitting the control of certain birds to preserve public health and
safety, prevent damage to crops etc.
The Magistrates determined that the
accused was not required to demonstrate that the reason for killing the birds
complied with purposes described in Section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside
Act 1981 as reflected in the licences, and therefore found him not guilty.
The
RSPCA appealed by way of stated case. The questions for the opinion of the
High Court were:
1. Whether the Magistrates had been correct in their interpretation of the
licence issued by the DETR and MAFF (i.e. that a person is not required to
produce evidence that he is undertaking pest control for the purposes stated on
the licences) and;
2. Whether, on the facts found, the Magistrates had been correct to acquit the
accused.
The High Court concluded that a person could not rely on a licence issued
under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 section 16 as a defence to a
charge under the Act, in circumstances where the killing of the birds (or the
attempt to do so) was not for the purposes laid down in the licence.
Our conclusions from this ruling is that persons using the general licences must
be able to show that they are using the general licences in accordance with the
terms and conditions and for the purposes stated on the licence. It is also
raised the possibility that our licences may be used in inappropriate situations
for which the general licences were not designed to cover, such as the shooting
of birds within a back garden.
https://webarchive.nationalarchives....nsultation.pdf
(RSPCA v Craig Cundey 2001)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...trol-case.html
A LANDOWNER accused of shooting starlings
he attracted to his garden with bird feeders was acting unlawfully, a judge ruled yesterday.
Craig Cundey, 37, who claimed Government-granted licences entitled him to kill the birds, was cleared by magistrates earlier this year.
But the RSPCA challenged the ruling and its appeal was upheld in the High Court. It is believed to be the first case of its kind.
Cundey, from Alconbury, Cambridgeshire, said licences issued by the Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions and its predecessor, MAFF, authorised the killing of "pest species".
Mr Justice Silber, ruled however that people who shot wild birds were acting unlawfully, even if they held a licence, if they could not prove the birds were a public health risk or potentially spreading disease to livestock or crops.
He allowed the RSPCA to appeal against a decision by Huntingdon magistrates in February to acquit Cundey of breaching the Wildlife and Countryside Act.
Cundey will not face the charges again. The case was brought only for legal clarification.
Dr William Peach, a research biologist, said at the magistrates' hearing that it was "almost unheard of for starlings to pose a risk to public health in the summer."
A spokesman for the RSPCA welcomed the ruling. "This means that people with licences who shoot birds in their back garden or on their land can only do so for authorised purposes," he said.
"Those who have legitimate reasons for controlling birds under certain circumstances do not have to worry about this judgment," he added. "It will be relatively easy for farmers and landowners to demonstrate if birds are being a nuisance."