harriers down - RSPB investigation

[Tim Allwood]

A friend of mine at the RSPB has asked me to post the following re the recent shooting of two Hen Harriers.

http://blogs.rspb.org.uk/investigations/archive/2007/11/07/Harriers-Down.aspx

[Barred Wobbler]

Sombre reading Tim. Thanks.

[timwootton]

Thanks Tim.

[RecoveringScot]

A friend of mine at the RSPB has asked me to post the following re the recent shooting of two Hen Harriers.

http://blogs.rspb.org.uk/investigations/archive/2007/11/07/Harriers-Down.aspx

No chance of the RSPB removing the 'Royal' from its name as a gesture, I suppose. They may reckon that the connection brings other rewards. Still it would reflect a lot of people's feelings over this truly disgraceful incident, re-inforced by the feeling that these people haven't even got the guts to put their hands up to doing wrong (or at least to observing wrong being done), even though, from what we are repeatedly told by their proponents, they are somehow (I'm not sure how) meant to function as moral exemplars to the rest of us.

No cheers,

[Dryocopus]

Tim
Yesterday Mary posted this

http://blogs.rspb.org.uk/investigations/archive/2007/11/07/Harriers-Down.aspx


on the other thread "Rare birds dead on Queen's...." straight after your last post on it.

[KLH]

No chance of the RSPB removing the 'Royal' from its name as a gesture, I suppose. They may reckon that the connection brings other rewards. Still it would reflect a lot of people's feelings over this truly disgraceful incident, re-inforced by the feeling that these people haven't even got the guts to put their hands up to doing wrong (or at least to observing wrong being done), even though, from what we are repeatedly told by their proponents, they are somehow (I'm not sure how) meant to function as moral exemplars to the rest of us.

No cheers,

I mentioned earlier that I wouldn't have anything to do with any organisation that has royal patronage yet is meant to support wildlife. I find the RSPB very informative, but when I hear about what the royals kill for their own entertainment, then I feel quite twofaced in offering my support to the organisations that have the royals as patrons. If the royal family wish to kill for their own amusement then they shouldn't be part of any protection organisations, just so hypocritical. My uncle was a member, and on his death, a sale was held of all his music albums (he had hundreds, many collectors items) and he raised a good couple of thousand. I would have preferred the money to have gone to one of the smaller organisations who maybe are not as well publicised but need the money nevertheless.

RSPB is a good information base for me, but I would not join out of principle due to the double standards of having royal patronage.

[Peewit]

Tim
Yesterday Mary posted this

on the other thread "Rare birds dead on Queen's...." straight after your last post on it.

I noticed the link too, and it is sombre reading.

Regards
Kathy

[Grousemore]

RSPB is a good information base for me, but I would not join out of principle due to the double standards of having royal patronage.

Your post seems to be a far better example of 'double standards' than the RSPB's alleged position.

[rozinante]

Your post seems to be a far better example of 'double standards' than the RSPB's alleged position.

I am struggling to understand what you are saying here Grousemore.

What do you mean by the RSPB's "alleged position"?

How is KLH's position of not wishing to subscribe on a matter of principle any sort of an example of "double standards" at all? I think my own position as someone who shares KLH's opinion but still subscribes would be a better example.

[Jos Stratford]

However, regardless of its perceived faults, the RSPB is the most active organisation in tackling wildlife crime, in protecting scarce species and creating a system of reserves that have no rivals in Europe. Is refraining from supporting all this really to the benefit of birds?

PS 1 I hope those that have chosen to boycott the RSPB for whatever reason are not then visiting Titchwell, Minsmere or any of the other reserves, as that really would be touching on double standards

PS 2 the Royal patronage is the Queen, no? Is she too guilty through association? ;)

[mcapper]

I think what Grousemore is suggesting is that KLH objects to joining the RSPB due to the Royal patronage but still uses the Society as a very good source of info.

[rozinante]

I think what Grousemore is suggesting is that KLH objects to joining the RSPB due to the Royal patronage but still uses the Society as a very good source of info.

Ah thank you, I suppose there is a small point there.

(The same could be said for many of us on here then I suppose. Although not Grousemore I note)

In comparison to having the figurehead of a conservation group who is so closely linked to the let us kill for fun campaign, it seems minute to me.

(I am of course aware, that as has often been stated, usually unnecessarily, pleasure killing is currently legal.)

[RecoveringScot]

I think what Grousemore is suggesting is that KLH objects to joining the RSPB due to the Royal patronage but still uses the Society as a very good source of info.

Presumably the RSPB gets its charitable status as a result of, inter alia, promising to make info available in that way, or, if not, it chooses to make such info available as a public relations strategy. Either way, I see no double standard in using the information so provided, even if one is not a member. That's what the RSPB is for, amongst other things, I reckon.

Whether it is wise to rely on the patronage of the Royals is another, more arguable question (many similar groups do just fine without doing so). It all depends on one's view of that group. I would not be dissuaded from joining an organisation purely on account of Royal patronage, but have no feelings about people who would, if only because the Royals are, for the most part, of no interest one way or another to me.

The RSPB is a charity. If charity is to become morally compulsory (because one uses information supplied willingly and freely by a charity) then it's no longer charity.

Cheers,

[KLH]

Hmmmmmm - think I'd better post!!

To be more exact - wouldn'd consider it double standards as such - I am personally very against the way royalty are attached to wildlife organisations when they so openly slaughter it. I say the RSPB is a good source of info - which it most certainly is, but if it comes dowm to donating money and paying memberships, I would much rather support smaller organisations that maybe don't get as much publicity, nor are associated with royalty. The double standards are, I think the royals themselves. I think people who have had a proven track record of conservation and protection of wildlife should be patrons.

As said I would prefer to financially support a smaller organisation rather than donate to a larger organisation with a royal patron. But that doesn't mean to say that I don't find their information base useful!!

Hope that clears things..

[harry eales]

I for one am not at all surprised that the CPS aren't bringing any prosecution, to do so there would have to be evidence, and it seems to me having read this and other threads relating to this 'alleged' shooting there is very little evidence at all.

What there is, is an allegation, by one supposededly expert birder and two other people who's ornithological experience is unknown. Nothing has been said at what range these birds were from the 'expert' when he identified them, so was the identification positive?
It has been said that this shooting occurred at dusk, and identification of birds is such light conditions are not generally so positive as when they are made in broad daylight.

No mention is made of how far away from the 'expert' these birds were when they were allegedly shot, but assuming they were still within visible range (through bins or eyeball) then the shooter would certainly be within 35-40 yards of the birds (this distance is the maximum effective range of a shotgun) yet the shooter(s) were not seen, so there is no evidence as to who the shooter(s) was or were.

The fact that one Royal personage admits being out shooting that evening is not evidence that he did shoot these birds.

The fact that some shotgun cartridges were found beside a pond can be given little credence, fired shotgun cartridges can be found at this time of year around almost any pond where ducks fly in during the evening. (I have found many of these myself around ponds all over Northumberland and Durham when doing dragonfly surveys including around ponds in Nature Reserves). No ballistic evidence could be obtained (had the birds been recovered) as lead shot isn't identifiable as to which gun shot it. A fired cartridge case may be matched to an individual firearm (shotgun) but not the lead shot fired from it.

As the birds weren't recovered there is no hard evidence that they were, either shot or even correctly identified. As no shooter was either seen or identified, therefore there is no evidence to show who fired the alleged fatal shots. A search of the area and vehicles failed to find any evidence either the following day.

All we have, is just an allegation that these events took place with no verifiable positive identification of the birds involved, or any evidence whatsoever as to who actually fired the shots that were heard.

Without any evidence, it isn't possible to bring anyone to court.

The shooting, trapping, poisoning or otherwise killing of any protected species (bird or otherwise) is reprehensible, and we all know it takes place, but as the RSPB and other organisations have found out, without direct evidence to prove who carried out these acts, it is impossible to bring a prosecution.

Harry (Not the Royal one).

[Tyke]

Harry makes the legal case for no prosecution very well.

But even the most dispassionate observer might be swayed by the RSPB publishing the views expressed in Tim's link.They give considerable credence to the evidence of a shooting, and species ID provided by the Natural England employee.

Whether the lack of evidence on the ground indicates no crime -or concealment, will inevitably bring personal feelings and predjudices into play for those considering the matter.

However for those who advocate withdrawal of support for RSPB because of it's Royal patronage, I would point out that logic demands a similar stance in respect of two other charities :-The National Trust ( President Prince Charles) , and the Wildlife Trusts ( Patron The Prince of Wales)

The land holding of the three organisations is as follows:-
RSPB-131k ha. / National Trust -250k ha / Wildlife Trusts 80k ha

This is a total of 461,000 ha-an area the size of Northumberland.

The landscape, habitat & species protection provided by these organisations through land acquisition, and it's ongoing management can hardly be overstated. If the three charities feel that Royal Patronage further's their aims in raising membership and funds, then what purpose is served by calling for their removal?

Colin

[young ian]

However, regardless of its perceived faults, the RSPB is the most active organisation in tackling wildlife crime, in protecting scarce species and creating a system of reserves that have no rivals in Europe. Is refraining from supporting all this really to the benefit of birds?

PS 1 I hope those that have chosen to boycott the RSPB for whatever reason are not then visiting Titchwell, Minsmere or any of the other reserves, as that really would be touching on double standards

PS 2 the Royal patronage is the Queen, no? Is she too guilty through association? ;)



Now let's get this clear!

Referring to PS1. Those of us that find the clergy
repulsive, not fit for purpose for having a choir boy or
two. Yet we/they still go to church are touching on
double standards! Is that it???

Ref:- PS2. No, not by association. But by actions!!!!!

Kind regards,
young Ian.

[Jos Stratford]

Now let's get this clear!

Referring to PS1. Those of us that find the clergy
repulsive, not fit for purpose for having a choir boy or
two. Yet we/they still go to church are touching on
double standards! Is that it???
.

Nice of you only to pick up the PS ... parts. However, if you find the clergy repulsive, but still wish to go to church, then I would hope you still feel still some desire/duty to contribute to the upkeep of the church. Or no, maybe you'd just prefer to see it crumble. Yes it is double standards to say I will not contribute to the RSPB on principle, but will happily visit their reserves.

[KLH]

I don't actually visit reserves myself - so I think I'm safe there!! and I am not a church goer either, although it is fair to say that if I did attend a certain church, and it turned out that the vicar was being a little bit naughty shall we say, then I probably would not attend that particular church again until the offending vicar had been dealt with.

[Jos Stratford]

I probably would not attend that particular church again until the offending vicar had been dealt with.

So, likewise, all those that have taken offence at the RSPB and decided to no longer support them for any particular principle should naturally not be attending their particular reserves.

The bottom line is, for me at least, any organisation the size and success of the RSPB is always going to do certain things that we don't particularly approve of - can't please everybody all the time, etc. So, at the end of the day, if on a bird front they are doing a goog job, they continue to get my support - no skin off my nose either way if the Queen or some weirdo from Mars is a patron, if it helps raise their profile and further boost funds for conservation, then its okay by me (think directly to the work they do in rotecting Hen Harriers).

[rozinante]

The most simplistic case for the absence of a prosecution has indeed been made extremely well on frequent occasions by many posters.

A case which doesn't require to be made but for some strange reason is being done so continuously. I may have missed it, but can anyone point out any post suggesting there should have been a prosecution on the evidence (or lack of) that is available?

There also seems to be an assumption that the expression of dissatisfaction with the choice of patron is in some way anti RSPB or anti conservation. That is obviously not necessarily so and I would think extremely unlikely to be the case.

Some people might think that providing an organisation broadly satisfying their own interests and aims, they don't worry too much about the make up of the organisation. That is entirely up to them.

However I absolutely refute the repeated efforts to imply that anyone registering their disquiet is ranting or displaying disloyalty or is accused of a lack of concern for broader conservation issues. On the contrary, I think it important that members of any organisation should take an active interest on how it is run and be free to discuss it in a reasonable manner. I consider the emotional blackmail being resorted too simply illustrates the absence of any rational opposition to the concerns being expressed.

[bitterntwisted]

The land holding of the three organisations is as follows:- RSPB-131k ha. / National Trust -250k ha / Wildlife Trusts 80k ha. This is a total of 461,000 ha-an area the size of Northumberland... ... If the three charities feel that Royal Patronage further's their aims in raising membership and funds, then what purpose is served by calling for their removal?

Well, when the constitution of the new republic mandates the return of the vast crown estates to the people, perhaps the RSPB and Wildlife Trusts can be appointed to manage them for conservation? ;) (Not the NT, though. Nasty middle class lot, they are.)

More seriously though, and I know this was discussed on the other thread, does anyone have any basis for estimating what financial benefit patronage actually brings? I have to say, anti-royalist as I am, that I suspect it still is more likely to be positive than negative. Probably more money gained from royal-loving old dears' legacies than is currently lost through the principled stance of republicans. If Rozinante and I are still members, it's hard to envisage who wouldn't be on principle?

Graham

[abagguley]

I find it nigh on impossible to believe that people make a choice on which charities to support based on either patronage or the presence/absence of the word 'Royal' in the charity's name.

In addition to being an RSPB member, I make regular contributions to Oxfam /NSPCC / Greenpaece / Wildlife Trust / WWF / Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund, but I couldn't tell you the patron of any of these organisations - it's utterly irrelevant to the work they do.

Adrian

[KLH]

I find it nigh on impossible to believe that people make a choice on which charities to support based on either patronage or the presence/absence of the word 'Royal' in the charity's name.

In addition to being an RSPB member, I make regular contributions to Oxfam /NSPCC / Greenpaece / Wildlife Trust / WWF / Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund, but I couldn't tell you the patron of any of these organisations - it's utterly irrelevant to the work they do.

AdrianPrince Philip was/still is either patron or president of the WWF, and what does he do, go on safaris, shooting the things you pay your membership to preserve. Your membership probably pays for the bullets if the royals get any financial rewards for their patronage....

[rozinante]

I find it nigh on impossible to believe that people make a choice on which charities to support based on either patronage or the presence/absence of the word 'Royal' in the charity's name.

In addition to being an RSPB member, I make regular contributions to Oxfam /NSPCC / Greenpaece / Wildlife Trust / WWF / Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund, but I couldn't tell you the patron of any of these organisations - it's utterly irrelevant to the work they do.

Adrian


Although I find it difficult to understand why anyone would be willing to help finance an organisation and have no concern or feel any responsibility for the way its run, I have no reason to disbelieve those who say they are.

What if it were revealed that the patron of Greenpeace was an owner of a "perfectly legal" fleet of oil tankers, or the Gorilla Fund was headed by a chimp hunter?

[abagguley]

Although I find it difficult to understand why anyone would be willing to help finance an organisation and have no concern or feel any responsibility for the way its run, I have no reason to disbelieve those who say they are.

What if it were revealed that the patron of Greenpeace was an owner of a "perfectly legal" fleet of oil tankers, or the Gorilla Fund was headed by a chimp hunter?

I do have a degree of concern for the way organisations are run, but I don't believe that a figurehead such as a patron really affects this. Of course, I could be wrong.

WRT to the Gorilla Fund example, the projects which my money has gone into funding would all still be extant after this hypothetical revelation, and future projects would still need funding, so why withdraw support? It would do the gorillas no good whatsoever.

I want to give my money to organistions which I believe can deliver tangible benefits to wildlife - I see the RSPB as being very good in this respect, regardless of whether the patron were to be the Queen, David Attenborough or Satan himself. Although I'd draw the line at George Bush, obviously.

Adrian

[rozinante]

I do have a degree of concern for the way organisations are run, but I don't believe that a figurehead such as a patron really affects this. Of course, I could be wrong.

WRT to the Gorilla Fund example, the projects which my money has gone into funding would all still be extant after this hypothetical revelation, and future projects would still need funding, so why withdraw support? It would do the gorillas no good whatsoever.

I want to give my money to organistions which I believe can deliver tangible benefits to wildlife - I see the RSPB as being very good in this respect, regardless of whether the patron were to be the Queen, David Attenborough or Satan himself. Although I'd draw the line at George Bush, obviously.

Adrian

Fair enough Adrian.

I am still at a loss to understand it, but that is your view. Quite a popular one too both historically and currently here. I still don't see why is it so difficult to accept that others disagree though.

Just to stretch the Gorilla Fund example a little further... what if the gorilla fund had a chimp hunter and the chimp fund a gorilla hunter as patrons.

No, OK it's getting too absurd.

[Tyke]

Well, when the constitution of the new republic mandates the return of the vast crown estates to the people, perhaps the RSPB and Wildlife Trusts can be appointed to manage them for conservation? ;) (Not the NT, though. Nasty middle class lot, they are.)
Graham

Well I think it would depend on whether the new republic was left of centre or right of centre politically. Remember that both exist ;)

However assuming a left wing variety I think Charities would be permissable only in order to further the interests of the working class proletariat. Nature conservation qua nature would not be permitted. It would be defined as an activity for the well being and recreation of people.The land appropriated from the Crown and the bourgeois Conservation charities would be managed by the Peoples Committee for Health and Recreation.This body would have political and socialist recreationary targets to meet. Where these clashed with Hen Harriers the latter would be shot.
Alternatively assuming a politically right of centre new republic, the land appropriated would be owned and managed by the State Countryside and Wildlife Management Agency.This would have a duty to balance land use for wildlife with land use for economic development . Where Hen Harriers clashed with the latter they would be shot.

THe net result in either case would be the demise of Hen Harriers.

RE National Trust-how does your assertion as to the class makeup of their membership impact their conservation achievements, and why is this relevant?



the principled stance of republicans.

Graham

What principles would those be exactly-reference non-membership of active conservation charities.


Colin

[John Cantelo]

I found much of the commentary here somewhat depressing since many posters seem to care more about their political position and holier-than-thou stance than the actual realities and practicalities of bird conservation and protection.

Frankly, I don’t give a damn who happens to be the figurehead of any organisation as long as it is such a powerful force for good (which only a fool would deny the RSPB to be). Naturally, it would be different if such patronage caused significant harm to any such organisation, but anyone who thinks the “Royal” in RSPB has such an impact is living in a republican cloud cuckoo land. As I have pointed out elsewhere since Royal patronage represents the status quo then any move against this would be deemed to be a ‘left wing’ or ‘PC’ plot. It would cause irreparable damage to the cause of bird conservation in the UK (and elsewhere). Now some might feel that this is a fair trade off to appease their delicate sensibilities, but I don’t.

However much I may find huntin’ and shootin’ distasteful, it is not as if the proponents of these activities are out-and-out evil characters with no redeeming features. They simply represent a tradition that goes back millennia. Indeed, I think one could reasonably argue that they are less culpable in terms of harm to animals than the many millions who thoughtlessly buy chickens etc reared in unacceptable conditions. By such a route, as I again suggested elsewhere, only a strict vegan with a non-polluting lifestyle could apply for the post of patron.

As the RSPB does not itself support and encourage ‘blood sports’ it is in no way hypocritical to be a member if that is your stance. However, using the RSPB as a source of information, its reserves as a venue for birding trips etc whilst not paying a farthing towards it is clearly, if not hypocrisy, then remarkably selfish and short sighted.
.
Whoever was a patron of the RSPB then it would not go down well with some people. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that the important thing is what the organisation does. Despite suggestions elsewhere on this forum, it is clear from the evidence in this thread that the RSPB has taken a robust line on this particular issue. (Perhaps those who suggested otherwise might like to retract). Whilst I realise all of this is a wee bit ‘strong’ and OTT, I find those who withhold their money from the RSPB on the marginal grounds that they don’t like some the activities of its patron, priggish and sanctimonious. In fact, I think I’d rather have HRH, warts and all, than anyone of such a stamp.

OK I realise I’ve probably rattled a few cages and been somewhat too forthright here, but I’m through with being ‘reasonable’!

John

P.S. – yes it WAS a bad day at work!!

[KLH]

Another way of looking at it is to assess how much of your donation/membership money actually goes to the cause. How much is spent on admin/advertising and things like company cars and other business 'perks' A lady I once knew collected for NSPCC and she said that for every pound you gave, approx 20p goes to the cause, the rest goes to admin costs. I see job adverts for well known charities wanting area wanting company cars, and when we get mailshots in our post from various charities including a pen to 'sign a donation form' with - now how much is spent on those pens, they are mass produced I know but the amount of literature included is atrocious when we are considering cutting back on paper usage. Only a certain amount of that paper is recycled, and to recycle it, it needs a certain amount of 'virgin' paper - before you even go into the power and ink used to print.

I do think that if being a member of an organisation that has anybody involved as patrons or presidents who do exactly what the said organisation campaigns against, isn't it seen as condoning the actions of said people? If the royals are getting some kind of financial recompense from being figureheads, then membership fees indirectly are going towards paying for their killing sprees. It is the principle at the end of the day.

[rozinante]

I found much of the commentary here somewhat depressing since many posters seem to care more about their political position and holier-than-thou stance than the actual realities and practicalities of bird conservation and protection.

Frankly, I don’t give a damn who happens to be the figurehead of any organisation as long as it is such a powerful force for good (which only a fool would deny the RSPB to be). Naturally, it would be different if such patronage caused significant harm to any such organisation, but anyone who thinks the “Royal” in RSPB has such an impact is living in a republican cloud cuckoo land. As I have pointed out elsewhere since Royal patronage represents the status quo then any move against this would be deemed to be a ‘left wing’ or ‘PC’ plot. It would cause irreparable damage to the cause of bird conservation in the UK (and elsewhere). Now some might feel that this is a fair trade off to appease their delicate sensibilities, but I don’t.

However much I may find huntin’ and shootin’ distasteful, it is not as if the proponents of these activities are out-and-out evil characters with no redeeming features. They simply represent a tradition that goes back millennia. Indeed, I think one could reasonably argue that they are less culpable in terms of harm to animals than the many millions who thoughtlessly buy chickens etc reared in unacceptable conditions. By such a route, as I again suggested elsewhere, only a strict vegan with a non-polluting lifestyle could apply for the post of patron.

As the RSPB does not itself support and encourage ‘blood sports’ it is in no way hypocritical to be a member if that is your stance. However, using the RSPB as a source of information, its reserves as a venue for birding trips etc whilst not paying a farthing towards it is clearly, if not hypocrisy, then remarkably selfish and short sighted.
.
Whoever was a patron of the RSPB then it would not go down well with some people. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that the important thing is what the organisation does. Despite suggestions elsewhere on this forum, it is clear from the evidence in this thread that the RSPB has taken a robust line on this particular issue. (Perhaps those who suggested otherwise might like to retract). Whilst I realise all of this is a wee bit ‘strong’ and OTT, I find those who withhold their money from the RSPB on the marginal grounds that they don’t like some the activities of its patron, priggish and sanctimonious. In fact, I think I’d rather have HRH, warts and all, than anyone of such a stamp.

OK I realise I’ve probably rattled a few cages and been somewhat too forthright here, but I’m through with being ‘reasonable’!

John

P.S. – yes it WAS a bad day at work!!

What was that about a "holier-than-thou stance "?

There is only one side of this argument suggesting that it holds the one true gospel.

[rozinante]

I do think that if being a member of an organisation that has anybody involved as patrons or presidents who do exactly what the said organisation campaigns against, isn't it seen as condoning the actions of said people? If the royals are getting some kind of financial recompense from being figureheads, then membership fees indirectly are going towards paying for their killing sprees. It is the principle at the end of the day.

I realy don't think she gets paid for the gig. It could even be heresy to ask.
I think her reward is in the prestige she gains.

[John Cantelo]

What was that about a "holier-than-thou stance "?

There is only one side of this argument suggesting that it holds the one true gospel.

Well, actually I don't think my posting was 'holier-than-thou'! Far too assertive, OTT and provocative certainly, but not guilty as charged,

John

[KLH]

Frankly, I don’t give a damn who happens to be the figurehead of any organisation as long as it is such a powerful force for good (which only a fool would deny the RSPB to be). Naturally, it would be different if such patronage caused significant harm to any such organisation, but anyone who thinks the “Royal” in RSPB has such an impact is living in a republican cloud cuckoo land.


P.S. – yes it WAS a bad day at work!!

Hi John - not to worry, it is a bad day at work every day for me:-O

I disagree with your comments about patronages causing significant harm, I think that 'Royal' anything in a title it gives a sense of special importance, setting itself above lowlier organisations. And that word brings that funny stuff, money - which is the be and end all at the end of the day. Look how many people leave the RSPCA their squillions in wills, the RSPCA is one of the most donated to organisations in the country in my opinion, full of forelock tuggers and officers that have rank titles like the police. (plus the similar pips on their uniforms!) Having been close friends with a vet and manager of theirs I know a few things, lets say, and I wouldn't leave a penny to 'em!!

[KLH]

Far too assertive, OTT and provocative certainly.

John

Sort of thing that has often been said about me in the past!!:-O (not on this forum - although some members may think me so!!)

I don't actually set out to be provocative or OTT myself, although it may come across as such, I just have very strong feelings about some things and like to stand up for my principles. Try not to ride roughshod over people, and maybe I do appear bigoted myself, but I'm just going by my own experiences and knowledge in life, just the same as everyone else.

[rozinante]

Well, actually I don't think my posting was 'holier-than-thou'!
John

Ditto.

We obviously see things differently.

Is that realy so suprising or unacceptable?

[mcapper]

Quote: "Another way of looking at it is to assess how much of your donation/membership money actually goes to the cause. How much is spent on admin/advertising and things like company cars and other business 'perks' A lady I once knew collected for NSPCC and she said that for every pound you gave, approx 20p goes to the cause, the rest goes to admin costs."

The RSPB is one of the best charities that I know in this respect. For every £1 you give,87p go direct to conservation. The money is spent very quickly. The Society has taken a decision to keep very few reserves of cash. Some charities would survive for years on their reserves if the cash flow stopped tomorrow. The RSPB feel that if you give money you give money to support conservation, not to just put it in the Society's bank account. If the money stopped tomorrow, it would go under in 3-4 months.

[Jos Stratford]

I found much of the commentary here somewhat depressing since many posters seem to care more about their political position and holier-than-thou stance than the actual realities and practicalities of bird conservation and protection.

Frankly, I don’t give a damn who happens to be the figurehead of any organisation as long as it is such a powerful force for good (which only a fool would deny the RSPB to be). Naturally, it would be different if such patronage caused significant harm to any such organisation, but anyone who thinks the “Royal” in RSPB has such an impact is living in a republican cloud cuckoo land. As I have pointed out elsewhere since Royal patronage represents the status quo then any move against this would be deemed to be a ‘left wing’ or ‘PC’ plot. It would cause irreparable damage to the cause of bird conservation in the UK (and elsewhere). Now some might feel that this is a fair trade off to appease their delicate sensibilities, but I don’t.

However much I may find huntin’ and shootin’ distasteful, it is not as if the proponents of these activities are out-and-out evil characters with no redeeming features. They simply represent a tradition that goes back millennia. Indeed, I think one could reasonably argue that they are less culpable in terms of harm to animals than the many millions who thoughtlessly buy chickens etc reared in unacceptable conditions. By such a route, as I again suggested elsewhere, only a strict vegan with a non-polluting lifestyle could apply for the post of patron.

As the RSPB does not itself support and encourage ‘blood sports’ it is in no way hypocritical to be a member if that is your stance. However, using the RSPB as a source of information, its reserves as a venue for birding trips etc whilst not paying a farthing towards it is clearly, if not hypocrisy, then remarkably selfish and short sighted.
.
Whoever was a patron of the RSPB then it would not go down well with some people. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that the important thing is what the organisation does. Despite suggestions elsewhere on this forum, it is clear from the evidence in this thread that the RSPB has taken a robust line on this particular issue. (Perhaps those who suggested otherwise might like to retract). Whilst I realise all of this is a wee bit ‘strong’ and OTT, I find those who withhold their money from the RSPB on the marginal grounds that they don’t like some the activities of its patron, priggish and sanctimonious. In fact, I think I’d rather have HRH, warts and all, than anyone of such a stamp.


Coo, a post I agree with to the exact word, rare indeed ;)

[RecoveringScot]

I realy don't think she gets paid for the gig. It could even be heresy to ask.
I think her reward is in the prestige she gains.

I'm sure that, to the aristocracy, the prestige runs in only one direction - 'downwards'.

Cheers,

[Osprey_watcher]

Coo, a post I agree with to the exact word, rare indeed ;)

Yep.

No not 'rare indeed', I meant I agreed with the post as well. ;)

[rozinante]

Well, actually I don't think my posting was 'holier-than-thou'! Far too assertive, OTT and provocative certainly, but not guilty as charged,

John

To be honest on re reading and ignoring the extras, I have to admit that it is about the most persuasive posts yet in support of the current arrangement. In fact there have been very few others and I think the best of those was also yours.

[John Cantelo]

Ditto.

We obviously see things differently.

Is that realy so suprising or unacceptable?

Of course it is since I am ALWAYS right .... just ask Mrs C. On second thoughts better not!
John ;)

[John Cantelo]

Coo, a post I agree with to the exact word, rare indeed ;)

Frankly, Jos, I've never had doubts about your good sense ..... until now that is!

John 3:-)

[John Cantelo]

To be honest on re reading and ignoring the extras, I have to admit that it is about the most persuasive posts yet in support of the current arrangement. In fact there have been very few others and I think the best of those was also yours.

Rozinante - that's very good of you and, given my provocation, uncommonly generous too. I'm sure that, whilst we disagree on this, we agree on many other points.

I also appreciate Osprey_watcher's comment too - thank you both, but please stop it as this already big 'ead is expanding rapidly. At this rate I'll be trapped next to this computer until the builders arrive to enlarge the doorways!

John

[Nick Elliston]

I found much of the commentary here somewhat depressing since many posters seem to care more about their political position and holier-than-thou stance than the actual realities and practicalities of bird conservation and protection.

Frankly, I don’t give a damn who happens to be the figurehead of any organisation as long as it is such a powerful force for good (which only a fool would deny the RSPB to be). Naturally, it would be different if such patronage caused significant harm to any such organisation, but anyone who thinks the “Royal” in RSPB has such an impact is living in a republican cloud cuckoo land. As I have pointed out elsewhere since Royal patronage represents the status quo then any move against this would be deemed to be a ‘left wing’ or ‘PC’ plot. It would cause irreparable damage to the cause of bird conservation in the UK (and elsewhere). Now some might feel that this is a fair trade off to appease their delicate sensibilities, but I don’t.

However much I may find huntin’ and shootin’ distasteful, it is not as if the proponents of these activities are out-and-out evil characters with no redeeming features. They simply represent a tradition that goes back millennia. Indeed, I think one could reasonably argue that they are less culpable in terms of harm to animals than the many millions who thoughtlessly buy chickens etc reared in unacceptable conditions. By such a route, as I again suggested elsewhere, only a strict vegan with a non-polluting lifestyle could apply for the post of patron.

As the RSPB does not itself support and encourage ‘blood sports’ it is in no way hypocritical to be a member if that is your stance. However, using the RSPB as a source of information, its reserves as a venue for birding trips etc whilst not paying a farthing towards it is clearly, if not hypocrisy, then remarkably selfish and short sighted.
.
Whoever was a patron of the RSPB then it would not go down well with some people. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that the important thing is what the organisation does. Despite suggestions elsewhere on this forum, it is clear from the evidence in this thread that the RSPB has taken a robust line on this particular issue. (Perhaps those who suggested otherwise might like to retract). Whilst I realise all of this is a wee bit ‘strong’ and OTT, I find those who withhold their money from the RSPB on the marginal grounds that they don’t like some the activities of its patron, priggish and sanctimonious. In fact, I think I’d rather have HRH, warts and all, than anyone of such a stamp.

OK I realise I’ve probably rattled a few cages and been somewhat too forthright here, but I’m through with being ‘reasonable’!

John

P.S. – yes it WAS a bad day at work!!

Pretty well balanced post John. Whilst I don't hunt and shoot myself, I have a number of friends that do and on balance I think they are responsible people who do care about wildlife in general and generally do more good than bad.

Remember - there are always two points of view, your own and the wrong one!

[RecoveringScot]

Pretty well balanced post John. Whilst I don't hunt and shoot myself, I have a number of friends that do and on balance I think they are responsible people who do care about wildlife in general and generally do more good than bad.

Remember - there are always two points of view, your own and the wrong one!

This is all very true, but let's remember that the nub of the allegation in this case concerns the illegal shooting of two rare raptors, on land owned by the patron of the organisation which is dedicated to their protection. Legal hunting is irrelevant.

Most of us who are nettled about this issue don't want the perpretrators (whoever they are) of this and similar incidents sent down the Siberian salt mines, we just want them to stop shooting, poisoning and trapping rare raptors.

Cheers,

[John Cantelo]

[QUOTE=RecoveringScot;1053856]This is all very true, but let's remember that the nub of the allegation in this case concerns the illegal shooting of two rare raptors, on land owned by the patron of the organisation which is dedicated to their protection. Legal hunting is irrelevant.
QUOTE]

Which would only be relevant if there was any evidence whatsoever that the patron supported or approved of such actions. None of us, of course, is privvy to the inner workings of the queen's mind on this issue. However, guilt by association, which seems to be the logic here, is never a sensible way to proceed on this or any other issue,
John

[RecoveringScot]

[QUOTE=RecoveringScot;1053856]This is all very true, but let's remember that the nub of the allegation in this case concerns the illegal shooting of two rare raptors, on land owned by the patron of the organisation which is dedicated to their protection. Legal hunting is irrelevant.
QUOTE]

Which would only be relevant if there was any evidence whatsoever that the patron supported or approved of such actions. None of us, of course, is privvy to the inner workings of the queen's mind on this issue. However, guilt by association, which seems to be the logic here, is never a sensible way to proceed on this or any other issue,
John

Of course the Queen was not personally involved in this case. I was pointing out the generally irrelevant character of your remarks (The Queen, Republicanism, legal huntin' and shootin' etc) to the actual situation here.

The RSPB, though not a political organisation per se, have chosen a political patron (why - what are they saying by doing so?), moreover one who is also privately a rural land-owner, and who as such is a member of that class that in general does so much on a regular basis to undermine the RSPB's efforts in raptor protection. It can only lead to anomalies as well as embarrassment over possible incidents such as the alleged recent one.

Maybe you don't see the Monarchy as representative of a political class in the same way that I do.

Cheers,

[Penny Clarke]

http://www.lynnnews.co.uk/news/No-charges-in-shooting-case.3458963.jp

[Grousemore]

Maybe you don't see the Monarchy as representative of a political class in the same way that I do.

Cheers,

After 10 years of Labour government, I fail to understand the words 'representative of a political class' :h?:

[rozinante]

No one has said that Harry should be prosecuted. No one has suggested that the current patron should by dropped because of guilt by association with the crime that no one has said Harry should be prosecuted for.

It doesn't help the discussion when even otherwise reasonable people keep suggesting that they have.

The situation has not suddenly arisen with this single issue.
The inappropriate and unsustainable nature of the monarchy in all aspects of modern life has become increasingly apparent to many people over recent decades. In my opinion the patronage of the RSPB being one of the most hypercritical. It is also the only one that I actively and voluntarily subscribe to.

This incident has only highlighted the anomaly, not created it.

John... Are you perhaps forgetting that evidence is never of any relevance whatsoever in respect to the Sovereign? She is above the law. She can do no wrong: she is immune from civil or criminal proceedings and cannot be sued in courts of law.

In fact she can shoot as many harriers as she likes and there is nothing we could do to stop her!

[rozinante]

After 10 years of Labour government, I fail to understand the words 'representative of a political class' :h?:

How odd, I am sure that could be easily redressed though.

;)

[Tyke]

John-you did your best!

I suspected that the class warriors would return to the fray. Politics is more important to them than nature conservation when all is said and done.

Colin

[rozinante]

John-you did your best!

I suspected that the class warriors would return to the fray. Politics is more important to them than nature conservation when all is said and done.

Colin

I see you are also doing your best, a totally unnecessary, insulting and disruptive post. Personal point scoring seems to be more important to you than either.

It is posts like yours that make it a "fray", some of us are trying to have a reasonable debate.

btw... If you hadn't noticed, nature conservation is political.

[rosbifs]

I thought the monarchy represented a 'social' not political class....

As has been stated do we really know what is going on inside the Queens head? She is probably extremely embarrassed and believes much the same we do in terms of guilty parties. However, this is her grandson and that will prevail over all else. Who can blame her for that? Families protect their own in far more serious crimes than this.

As for patronage, ask yourself does having the royal tag do more harm than good and in what sense i.e. does the name attract more members and therefore money and is that important or does it just give more credability and is that important. I would think that it does both to a certain extent - money and credability. I also believe that giving her the boot would do more harm and reduce the 'marginal' members of the RSPB - generally the ones who pay but never use the membership actively.

[Jos Stratford]

As for patronage, ask yourself does having the royal tag do more harm than good and in what sense i.e. does the name attract more members and therefore money and is that important or does it just give more credability and is that important. I would think that it does both to a certain extent - money and credability. I also believe that giving her the boot would do more harm and reduce the 'marginal' members of the RSPB - generally the ones who pay but never use the membership actively.


I think this sums up my view perfectly.

I also however accept others may deem it inappropriate to have a royal patron for whatever reason and that is their right, I would plea to them though to look at it from the wildlife's angle and decide if it is really in its interest to withhold membership. I guess it is a personal decision, each to their own.

PS rozinante, I think you have got a good grounding to stand up and make comments - though you disagree with the Royal bit, you still actually remain a member as I understand. I think this would be my position if I had serious misgiving about the issue - not only do we not need to agree with everything in order to support an overall cause, but we can also support and at the same time say we are not happy with everything.

[rozinante]

I thought the monarchy represented a 'social' not political class....

As has been stated do we really know what is going on inside the Queens head? She is probably extremely embarrassed and believes much the same we do in terms of guilty parties. However, this is her grandson and that will prevail over all else. Who can blame her for that? Families protect their own in far more serious crimes than this.

As for patronage, ask yourself does having the royal tag do more harm than good and in what sense i.e. does the name attract more members and therefore money and is that important or does it just give more credability and is that important. I would think that it does both to a certain extent - money and credability. I also believe that giving her the boot would do more harm and reduce the 'marginal' members of the RSPB - generally the ones who pay but never use the membership actively.

I think you might be right there rosbifs.

I have of course already asked myself those questions and my conclusions were generally along the same lines. Mostly speculative of course but in the absence of evidence that is the only option left to us.

It concerns me though that there are those who wish to maintain that there are no questions to ask, that there is no contradiction, and that anyone who thinks there is being dishonest.

[Tyke]

I thought the monarchy represented a 'social' not political class....

As has been stated do we really know what is going on inside the Queens head? She is probably extremely embarrassed and believes much the same we do in terms of guilty parties. However, this is her grandson and that will prevail over all else. Who can blame her for that? Families protect their own in far more serious crimes than this.

As for patronage, ask yourself does having the royal tag do more harm than good and in what sense i.e. does the name attract more members and therefore money and is that important or does it just give more credability and is that important. I would think that it does both to a certain extent - money and credability. I also believe that giving her the boot would do more harm and reduce the 'marginal' members of the RSPB - generally the ones who pay but never use the membership actively.


Well said rosbifs.
It might also be said on behalf of RSPB that the link Tim posted represents as clear a message as possible.:

"Guy Shorrock and I had no doubt whatsoever that the warden had witnessed the illegal killing of the two harriers but that like so many cases before, these crimes are almost impossible to bring to court, particularly when the bodies of the victims are missing."

...is a pretty unequivocal statement of what RSPB believe happened at Sandringham. I was one who called for them to express a strong feeling to their Patron for what they think happened on her estate. They have done so in my viewand have made it clear that they see no distinction between raptor deaths on large estates by dint of estate ownership.

I think they have handled this very well in the circumstances.

Colin

[John Cantelo]

[QUOTE=John Cantelo;1053878]

Of course the Queen was not personally involved in this case. I was pointing out the generally irrelevant character of your remarks (The Queen, Republicanism, legal huntin' and shootin' etc) to the actual situation here.

The RSPB, though not a political organisation per se, have chosen a political patron (why - what are they saying by doing so?), moreover one who is also privately a rural land-owner, and who as such is a member of that class that in general does so much on a regular basis to undermine the RSPB's efforts in raptor protection. It can only lead to anomalies as well as embarrassment over possible incidents such as the alleged recent one.

Maybe you don't see the Monarchy as representative of a political class in the same way that I do.

Cheers,

Sorry, but some sort of direct culpability on the part opf the queen seemed to be implied by your original posting - apologies if I misunderstood. However, your final comments suggest to me that, whilst you may have read it, you wholly failed to understand the point I was trying to make. Indeed you rather, unwittingly perhaps, confirmed it.

With regard to your claim that my posting was somehow irrelevant I suggest you go back and read what others had written earlier in the discussion. Whilst the debate may have drifted away from the original point, I think you'll find that my response was very relevant to the comments made by others.

Personally I try to avoid making blanket assumptions about whole classes of people - whether they are landowners or not - but then perhaps I'm hopelessly naive,

John



John

[John Cantelo]

I see you are also doing your best, a totally unnecessary, insulting and disruptive post. Personal point scoring seems to be more important to you than either.

It is posts like yours that make it a "fray", some of us are trying to have a reasonable debate.

btw... If you hadn't noticed, nature conservation is political.

Knowing from your considered posts in the past, I can't help feeling you've rather overreacted to this one, Rozinante. I don't see it as insulting or disruptive and surely no more unnecessary than any of them (mine included!),

John

[RecoveringScot]

[QUOTE=John Cantelo;1054570] Personally I try to avoid making blanket assumptions about whole classes of people - whether they are landowners or not - but then perhaps I'm hopelessly naive,

[QUOTE]

Perhaps just ready to believe the best. Statistically-speaking, human cultural practices seem to me to be amazingly regular throughout differing and identifiable groups of people (so much so that you can make fairly accurate predictions in tne main - just read the 'Is Royalty out-of-date?' thread, in which the thread-drift has predictably split across well-defined familar remedies and counter-remedies). Since cuture is transmitted between generations within a class in discrete social environments, this is only to be expected. The 'individual' I take to be a fairly recent invention. I'm also a predictable member of my class (no, not 'Revolutionary Anarchist Worker' - aspirational petit-bourgeois I suppose you'd call it - though I stopped aspiring), just in case you thought I was excepting myself. Personal choice really is less personal than it seems.

Cheers,

[RecoveringScot]

After 10 years of Labour government, I fail to understand the words 'representative of a political class' :h?:

Strange. There is also 'the political class' in which all the pigs turn out to be men in the end. As usual.

Cheers,

[rozinante]

Perhaps just ready to believe the best. Statistically-speaking, human cultural practices seem to me to be amazingly regular throughout differing and identifiable groups of people (so much so that you can make fairly accurate predictions in tne main - just read the 'Is Royalty out-of-date?' thread, in which the thread-drift has predictably split across well-defined familar remedies and counter-remedies). Since cuture is transmitted between generations within a class in discrete social environments, this is only to be expected. The 'individual' I take to be a fairly recent invention. I'm also a predictable member of my class (no, not 'Revolutionary Anarchist Worker' - aspirational petit-bourgeois I suppose you'd call it - though I stopped aspiring), just in case you thought I was excepting myself. Personal choice really is less personal than it seems.

Cheers,

Sincere apologies to anyone not interested in this stuff. I hope it is not too much trouble for you not to read it. It would be more appropriate in the Out Of Date Monarchy thread but this is where it cropped up.

Interesting post Phil.

I am having some difficulties reconciling some of the seductive logic with the real world though.

I don't see these "discrete" classes quite as independent as you suggest. I agree that interaction between the classes is certainly not free and open. However, it appears obvious to me though that the control mechanisms which restrict free interaction between the classes are overwhelmingly in the hands of the most powerful and orginised of those classes.

These barriers to interaction are then lowered and raised to suit the varying and current requirements of those who own them. We have had interaction from "above" shoved down our throats for centuries. Communication in the opposite direction by comparison has been a constant struggle. (perhaps less a barrier than a diode. :)

The monarchy, church, state, arts, law, education (or more likely the denial of), and more recently, advertising and the "media", with all their power and influence have been used to control and mould the cultural attitudes of the masses. Organised attempts at reciprocal communication have been at various times criminalised, demonised, ridiculed, patronised and generally dismissed with contempt.

It is all one way! This has been so successful that many people now confuse the interests of the elite with their own. In fact the greatest barrier to improvements in the condition of the weakest class and the is itself.

This brings me to my other snag in your analysis above. That culture is transmitted between generations within a class may well be true. I think my point above about the culture of the weakest class being to a certain extent dictated by the powerful illustrates the reason why I think "you can make fairly accurate predictions" is misleading.

If accurate, were are all the predicted "Revolutionary Anarchist Workers" among the weaker classes. There aren’t many around in the first place and most that I have met have tended to have aspirational petit-bourgeois backgrounds. Conversely, the most avid supporters for the contiued dominance of the powerful have by a great majority come from the weaker class.

[rozinante]

Knowing from your considered posts in the past, I can't help feeling you've rather overreacted to this one, Rozinante. I don't see it as insulting or disruptive and surely no more unnecessary than any of them (mine included!),

John

We will have to disagree again there John.

The difference between the post in question and your own posts is that it had only one intent. That was to imply that I (or Phil, or both of us) were being less than honest in our posts.

What would you have thought had I suggested that your heartfelt words in defending the best interests of conservation were a disingenuous cover for your views as a royalist?

If we were all to resort to dismissing peoples opinions as dishonest simply on the grounds that we disagree with them, there would be no point in any discussion at all.

No big deal btw. Just because people are insulting I don’t feel obliged to be insulted.
I just need more space in my avatar to store them all. :)

[RecoveringScot]

John-you did your best!

I suspected that the class warriors would return to the fray. Politics is more important to them than nature conservation when all is said and done.

Colin

Well, I know they're probably not discussed at the banquets you're frequently invited to, but for me there is no contest. Nature conservation is a pleasant diversion for the comfortable (which, like all essentially aesthetic choices, can still lead to wars). Politics is life.

Cheers,

[malcurtin]

I see our beloved Prince is now over in Afghanistan where he has been given an even bigger gun to play with-hope the RAF are not operating any Harriers over there just now............

[Osprey_watcher]

I see our beloved Prince is now over in Afghanistan where he has been given an even bigger gun to play with-hope the RAF are not operating any Harriers over there just now............

Oh but they are. Apparently he got a mild telling off for chatting up a female Harrier pilot while directing her. Good lad.
And I hope this shuts up all the knockers who were implying he had bottled out of going to a war zone.

[Vectis Birder]

Oh but they are. Apparently he got a mild telling off for chatting up a female Harrier pilot while directing her. Good lad.
And I hope this shuts up all the knockers who were implying he had bottled out of going to a war zone.

He's being brought back to the UK after the Drudge Report let the cat out of the bag re. his whereabouts yesterday.

When it's all said and done, I wouldn't want to be a member of the Royal Family, your life isn't your own. You may be filthy rich and have certain privileges, but you can't go where you want or do what you want. 'Life in a goldfish bowl' springs to mind.

[Ian Latham]

A friend of mine at the RSPB has asked me to post the following re the recent shooting of two Hen Harriers.

http://blogs.rspb.org.uk/investigations/archive/2007/11/07/Harriers-Down.aspx

You are suprised?

If you bare in mind the family history, whether you are a Royalist or not you must surely see that their evolution has been heavily based on violence, murder and war.

Prince Harry is a trained Hunter as is the rest of his family, and as such he harbours a strong blood lust (genetical!). Nothing and nobody was going to stop him from going to Afganistan to bag a few 'real targets' just as nothing or nobody will stop him or his family from doing anything they feel they can get away with under the guise of their 'title'.

Its not a revelation either! This has been a part of this family's (and many other wealthy landowners throughout the globe) history for centuries.

Its the example this behaviour sets that disturbs me most of all; that a young man who has the best of everything the world has to offer in his grasp, decides 'not' to do some good in the world, but rather to take the worst possible route by setting out to kill everything in his path.

With 'men' like this in our world I hold little hope for the future of this beautiful planet!.

[malcurtin]

Oh but they are. Apparently he got a mild telling off for chatting up a female Harrier pilot while directing her. Good lad.
And I hope this shuts up all the knockers who were implying he had bottled out of going to a war zone.

Good to see the ginger prince is keeping up the Hewitt family tradition in more ways than one then...........

[John Cantelo]

He's being brought back to the UK after the Drudge Report let the cat out of the bag re. his whereabouts yesterday.

When it's all said and done, I wouldn't want to be a member of the Royal Family, your life isn't your own. You may be filthy rich and have certain privileges, but you can't go where you want or do what you want. 'Life in a goldfish bowl' springs to mind.

Actually have a bunch of guys chasing with hugely expensive optics, cameras etc must be pretty close to what some megas experience when the touch down in the UK!

John

[John Cantelo]

You are suprised?

If you bare in mind the family history, whether you are a Royalist or not you must surely see that their evolution has been heavily based on violence, murder and war.

Prince Harry is a trained Hunter as is the rest of his family, and as such he harbours a strong blood lust (genetical!). Nothing and nobody was going to stop him from going to Afganistan to bag a few 'real targets' just as nothing or nobody will stop him or his family from doing anything they feel they can get away with under the guise of their 'title'.

Its not a revelation either! This has been a part of this family's (and many other wealthy landowners throughout the globe) history for centuries.

Its the example this behaviour sets that disturbs me most of all; that a young man who has the best of everything the world has to offer in his grasp, decides 'not' to do some good in the world, but rather to take the worst possible route by setting out to kill everything in his path.

With 'men' like this in our world I hold little hope for the future of this beautiful planet!.

You know, first read through I couldn't make up my mind whether this post was serious or merely a parody. Whilst one may deplore the activities of past royals, lets not kid ourselves that anyone sector or class in society has a monopoly on violence. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot, for example, had much claim to royal blood. Neither should we entertain for a moment that this somehow represents a seperate evolutionary line. And I think it is a gross simplification to claim that he (or for that matter the ordinary foot soldiers under his command) have 'set out to kill everything in his (their) path'.

In fact it's just this sort of blinkered reductionism and viewing those who hold views other than our own as little more than symbols (as this post surely does) that is the cause of many of the world's disputes,

John

[Jos Stratford]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot, for example, had much claim to royal blood.

But Stalin was a little angel, I know so as it says so in Russian school text books now. Putin's Russia is a proud nation and their Stalin is getting a facelift.

The Kremlin has published manuals to be used as the basis for history lessons in schools. Stalin is now "the most successful Soviet leader ever" and his purges and Gulag labor camps as mere "problematic pages" in Russian history, a kind of necessary evil to cope with the time.

And it must be right because polls show that 54% of Russian 16-19 year-olds believe that Stalin was a "wise leader" who did "more good than bad." Just 17 % believed him responsible for the execution and imprisonment of millions of people.


See, he didn't have a hand in the killing of 20 million, so please do not associate him with the mischievous Harry and his dirty deeds.

[Vectis Birder]

But what about Messrs Hitler and Pol Pot? ;)

[Jos Stratford]

But what about Messrs Hitler and Pol Pot? ;)

Their P.R. agents are pretty shoddy at their job

[Ian Latham]

But Stalin was a little angel, I know so as it says so in Russian school text books now. Putin's Russia is a proud nation and their Stalin is getting a facelift.

The Kremlin has published manuals to be used as the basis for history lessons in schools. Stalin is now "the most successful Soviet leader ever" and his purges and Gulag labor camps as mere "problematic pages" in Russian history, a kind of necessary evil to cope with the time.

And it must be right because polls show that 54% of Russian 16-19 year-olds believe that Stalin was a "wise leader" who did "more good than bad." Just 17 % believed him responsible for the execution and imprisonment of millions of people.


See, he didn't have a hand in the killing of 20 million, so please do not associate him with the mischievous Harry and his dirty deeds.


Thank you Jos for retreiving the thread. (another glass of port and a search through his dictionary and he'll be back all guns blazing!):t:

[Ian Latham]

Has it occurred to anyone that this latest fiasco could be an attempt to gain kudos he has lost with the other past cock-ups? He did'nt seem that upset to have his 'cover' blown considering it was his 'lifes ambition'.

Imagine the money he'll earn from the coverage of this! and I would bet good money the RSPB won't see a penny. The whole sham STINKS as usual!

[Tyke]

Its the example this behaviour sets that disturbs me most of all; that a young man who has the best of everything the world has to offer in his grasp, decides 'not' to do some good in the world, but rather to take the worst possible route by setting out to kill everything in his path.

With 'men' like this in our world I hold little hope for the future of this beautiful planet!.


Oh I do so agree-in addition to indulging his "passion" by slaughtering thousands of English pheasants,:-

http://property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/property/article2753535.ece

.....he buys a decent English football team, and turns it into a crap one.

It must be in the genes I say.

[John Cantelo]

Has it occurred to anyone that this latest fiasco could be an attempt to gain kudos he has lost with the other past cock-ups? He did'nt seem that upset to have his 'cover' blown considering it was his 'lifes ambition'.

Imagine the money he'll earn from the coverage of this! and I would bet good money the RSPB won't see a penny. The whole sham STINKS as usual!

I'm really not sure I understand this posting nor quite how Jos's post "retrieved thread" when Ian's own comments were hardly to the original point. As for the allegations that follow I can't quite see where your evidence comes from nor how "he" (by whom I assume you mean Prince Harry') will earn money from the coverage.

John

[Osprey_watcher]

You know, first read through I couldn't make up my mind whether this post was serious or merely a parody. Whilst one may deplore the activities of past royals, lets not kid ourselves that anyone sector or class in society has a monopoly on violence. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot, for example, had much claim to royal blood. Neither should we entertain for a moment that this somehow represents a seperate evolutionary line. And I think it is a gross simplification to claim that he (or for that matter the ordinary foot soldiers under his command) have 'set out to kill everything in his (their) path'.


In fact it's just this sort of blinkered reductionism and viewing those who hold views other than our own as little more than symbols (as this post surely does) that is the cause of many of the world's disputes,


John

Spot on John. I wish I could have put it so eloquently.

[Osprey_watcher]

You are suprised?

If you bare in mind the family history, whether you are a Royalist or not you must surely see that their evolution has been heavily based on violence, murder and war.

Prince Harry is a trained Hunter as is the rest of his family, and as such he harbours a strong blood lust (genetical!). Nothing and nobody was going to stop him from going to Afganistan to bag a few 'real targets' just as nothing or nobody will stop him or his family from doing anything they feel they can get away with under the guise of their 'title'.

Its not a revelation either! This has been a part of this family's (and many other wealthy landowners throughout the globe) history for centuries.

Its the example this behaviour sets that disturbs me most of all; that a young man who has the best of everything the world has to offer in his grasp, decides 'not' to do some good in the world, but rather to take the worst possible route by setting out to kill everything in his path.

With 'men' like this in our world I hold little hope for the future of this beautiful planet!.

Ian, I'm at a loss what to make of your vitriolic comments. Not trying to be funny but don't you see anything else that is going on around you in this country.
Even if Prince Harry was "setting out to kill anything in his path" at least he's doing it in a 'legal' way by joining the army and fighting his countries enemies.
There are so many more young men in this country who are out to cause hurt to anyone who crosses their path. Just watch the news. Don't let your personal feeelings cloud your judgement.

[Ian Latham]

Ian, I'm at a loss what to make of your vitriolic comments. Not trying to be funny but don't you see anything else that is going on around you in this country.

Firstly, please help in the education of a simple soul such as myself and elaborate on what I need to know about the world around me that could possibly have a bearing on what I have written regarding Prince Harry.

Even if Prince Harry was "setting out to kill anything in his path" at least he's doing it in a 'legal' way by joining the army and fighting his countries enemies.

What exactly do you mean by this; that it is perfectly okay to kill something as long as it is 'legal'?........ and what is it he is 'fighting' in the army? Hen Harriers? because he is not allowed to fight the Taliban (incase he may get hurt!!).

There are so many more young men in this country who are out to cause hurt to anyone who crosses their path. Just watch the news.

Again! another statement that has no bearing on this thread. Surely this is a social problem that has nothing to do with either Prince Harry or Hen Harriers?

......but if you really want to know what its like to have a group of angry men chasing after you, wanting to hurt or kill you for no sane reason......step into the world of the Pheasant for the day and just hope you dont come across Prince Harry and his chums.

[Osprey_watcher]

Oh dear.

[deboo]

I know coming from me it's a bit like Mr Pot and Mr Kettle, but is'nt this thread about the link between 2 Hen Harriers getting shot and Harry and his rah-rah mates being the 'guns' in the area at the time? Has there been any proof he/they did it?
Perhaps for the sake of our wildlife, it would have been better that 'When Harry met Tali'
had not been leaked to the world. He'd still be there.... hang on.

Stop press: Live BBC coverage at RAF Brize Norton, waiting for Harry to fly in. Damn :)

[Osprey_watcher]

To answer your question Dave. No proof was found, indeed no dead birds were found.
Now before I get shouted at again, I'm not defending him (I don't even like him) and do believe that the Royal family should give up shooting in the present climate.

[Osprey_watcher]

Thought you were joking about the live coverage at Brize Norton;)

[deboo]

To answer your question Dave. No proof was found, indeed no dead birds were found.
Now before I get shouted at again, I'm not defending him (I don't even like him) and do believe that the Royal family should give up shooting in the present climate.

Cheers Eddie!

Must admit i respect the bloke now that he's served in the front line. That must take some balls. Don't much respect his choice of recreation when he's home tho, but it's a free country and game bird shooting isn't against the law - yet. :)

dave...