Prince quizzed over bird shooting (BBC News) (1 Viewer)

Osprey_watcher · Oct 31, 2007

Bird-Nut said:
Kathy, I broadly agree with your comments. As ever, in this country, for certain strata of society, it's one rule for one, and another rule for the rest. What appals me to the enth degree, is the fact that two rare BoP have been needlessly killed in Britain despite all the efforts of the conservation movement. Thus, bringing the species ever nearer to extermination. Anyone who has experienced seeing the "Sky Dance" aerial display seeing the aerial grace and agility of these birds, will surely lament the passing of the hen harrier should reported events such as this continues.

The fact two birds have been reportedly killed will have serious long term repurcussions on their ability to hang in there as a viable breeding species in England. Remember the oft used slogan "Extinction is Forever" which could be their ultimate fate.

And in my opinion this is the biggest crime.

Richard

"Birding is for life"

Agree with most of what you say.
The bit I don't agree with is the "for certain strata of society, it's one rule for one" quote.
Let's wait and see what happens before we condemn Harry and his mate.
If he's involved he must face trial, but people on here seem to be blaming him without any evidence, only heresay.

symphony · Oct 31, 2007

I have previously handed over my subscription turning a blind eye to the R in RSPB. I realise that royal patronage is an advantage in publicity but there has to be a point where expediency turns to hypocrisy. I think we have crossed it now if not previously.

I have just renewed for a year but if no substantial and clarifying statement is forthcoming from the either the patron or the society I will be looking for an alternative next year.[/QUOTE]

Totally agree, I hand over my money to the RSPB concentrating on the *Reserves and mentally blanking out the *Royal. It's only recently I've joined the RSPB because of its association with royalty. As you say, the association with the royals can be good for publicity etc but it leads to hypocrisy.
Let's see this latest persecution of a protected species in context. For instance how many birds do the gamekeepers of the royals and privileged kill-so many that even the RSPB manage to catch them occasionally. Let's not forget these royals are into their bloodsports.

Steve · Oct 31, 2007

Birdforum will be on sky news tonight 19-30

Peewit · Oct 31, 2007

Can I ask what No......... of Sky here please.

Thankyou .......

Regards
Kathy

DKR · Oct 31, 2007

Whos Your Daddy?

Totally agree with what is being said about this incident. The whole affair stinks.

I am surprised that some members are contemplating withdrawing their support of the RSPB because of this.

The RSPB has done more to promote conservation of wild birds than any other organisation that I am aware of. They have full-time investigations teams looking into BoP persecution. Who else does? Of course we all (should) be aware of the 200+ nature reserves, scientific research, advocacy and international work it does.

Yet it seems that because there is a Royal as patron it is an excuse to withdraw support.

Should all the other patron be vetted for moral decency so we can all decide whether we should still help pay for the 200+ nature reserves, investigations teams etc.

Should we demand Kate Humble is investigated for any possible acts that you all might not agree with?? It is just ludicrous.

Time and time again I have read on here posts from people who want to withdraw their support for the RSPB under a vast array of pretexts.

Answer this:

If we didn't have an organisation like the RSPB in the UK where would bird conservation be today?

John Cantelo · Oct 31, 2007

DKR said:
Totally agree with what is being said about this incident. The whole affair stinks.

I am surprised that some members are contemplating withdrawing their support of the RSPB because of this.

The RSPB has done more to promote conservation of wild birds than any other organisation that I am aware of. They have full-time investigations teams looking into BoP persecution. Who else does? Of course we all (should) be aware of the 200+ nature reserves, scientific research, advocacy and international work it does.

Yet it seems that because there is a Royal as patron it is an excuse to withdraw support.

Should all the other patron be vetted for moral decency so we can all decide whether we should still help pay for the 200+ nature reserves, investigations teams etc.

Should we demand Kate Humble is investigated for any possible acts that you all might not agree with?? It is just ludicrous.

Time and time again I have read on here posts from people who want to withdraw their support for the RSPB under a vast array of pretexts.

Answer this:

If we didn't have an organisation like the RSPB in the UK where would bird conservation be today?

Thank goodness for a little common sense amongst a mass of hysterical nonsense.
Let's just remind ourselves that:-
1 - the investigation is ongoing and nobody has yet been charged let alone being found guilty of this offence - as one might otherwise suppose from some of the posts here.
2 - whilst the RSPB does have HM as it's patron, there's not one whit of evidence in this case (or any other that I'm aware of) that the RSPB are turning a blind eye to abuses by anyone of whatever 'station' in life.
3 - Given the late Princess Dianna came from the same atristocratic stock I see no reason to suppose that she would have disapproved of legal hunting.
4 - I've no doubt for the mass of people, the 'Royal' in RSPB is still a positive - being very precious about it and demanding an end to this connection would be harmful to bird protection.

Much of this debate seems to me to be as much informed by bile directed at a certain sector of society than any concern for wildlife. Frankly I've found much of it unpleasant and distasteful. Oddly enough, though I strongly disapprove of these birds being shot, I find the implication by some that the lives of two fellow humans, however priviledged they might be, is of less account offensive,

John

jc001 · Oct 31, 2007

But the royals are public figures and patrons of many wildlife charities.Its not the first time its happened on royal owned estates,so its starting to appear like one rule for them and another for everyone else.

You cant be Patron of the RSPB,and only want to protect 'song birds' or the 'pretty ones' but have bloodthirsty morons repeatedly killing other birds on your royal land,your either patron of the RSPB and want to help 'all' wild birds or your not,if the royals will agree to be patrons etc of so many wildlife charities/organizations,they should be leading by example and setting a good example to everyone else especially other rich landowners.

It stinks of old fashioned shoot first maybe ask questions later,and that disgusting selfish landowner/farmer/gamekeeper tradition of wanting to kill anything that isnt making a profit,with their rediculous ignorant excuses for killing just about anything..raptors,foxes badgers,deer etc etc etc

If they cant have some give and take and respect for other living creatures,they shouldnt be owning huge chunks of the countryside,or especially being part of bird/animal conservation.Its hardly gonna bankrupt the royals is it? hen harriers maybe taking a few grouse or pheasant.

rozinante · Oct 31, 2007

John Cantelo said:
Thank goodness for a little common sense amongst a mass of hysterical nonsense.

---

Much of this debate seems to me to be as much informed by bile directed at a certain sector of society than any concern for wildlife. Frankly I've found much of it unpleasant and distasteful. Oddly enough, though I strongly disapprove of these birds being shot, I find the implication by some that the lives of two fellow humans, however priviledged they might be, is of less account offensive,

John

I doubt you will be suprised to find that I dissagree.

This isn't all over a one off event. Nor are my views informed by spite of bile. You have no more right to suggest that they are than I have to suggest that your own might be informed by deference.

I consider it entirely reasonable to question the wisdom of having a patron of our major bird protection agency whose closest family members, and whose vast landholdings are largely devoted to "sports" involving the inflicting of death and suffering on wildlife.

This latest incident is the last straw for me. The SPB do not need an R that does nothing but offer her family’s reputation which at best is a declining asset and in my view a growing liability. Despite all the obsequious nonsense that she is far too important to speak directly to normal mortals, if she has any genuine interest in promoting the aims of the society and it’s members, she should make it clear. A strong and unequivocal statement is in my opinion the least we can expect.

You might be correct about the "mass" of members. The "mass" often seems to be rather slow in moving but irresistible when it does. Whatever the final outcome of this particular incident it will clearly not make the royal brand any more attractive to anyone with an interest in conservation.

Personally I am struggling to think of anyone apart from Clarkson less appropriate to be the figurehead of the aims of the SPB (getting used to it already

You may have gathered from this and perhaps other threads that I hold political opinions that are absolutely disgusted by the whole concept of royalty. I make no secret of it and am happy to discuss it at any opportunity. I can see that to be sacked by the RSPB would be another, particularly large nail in the coffin of the ridiculous notion of royalty and as such it would obviously suit me fine.

I do not accept that it negates the views I expressed above in regard to the royal patronage of the RSPB though. If it weren’t under such unfortunate circumstances, I would say it's just a happy coincidence. You may not believe it but that is how it is.

Osprey_watcher · Oct 31, 2007

Thought this was a bird forum, and the thread was to discuss the killing of two of the countries rarest birds of prey?
Obviously I'm wrong.
It's turned into a platform for loony political ideals!!!:C

ikw101 · Oct 31, 2007

We are not amused.

Osprey_watcher · Oct 31, 2007

Just sent an e-mail to her maj to ask if she will consider resigning as patron of the RSPB because of this incident.
I await the knock on the door.

young ian · Oct 31, 2007

Peewit said:
Hi there

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2774057.ece

Another link on the news story

I can understand how you think here but I believe that Di would not be interested in her sons shooting Wildlife. I believe Charlies and co are behind the inhouse training to shoot to kill. It is the proud thing to do - Royal stiff upper lip.

Hi Kingfisher

I agree with what you say here too, take off Patrons of the RSPB who show genuine concern for the welfare of our native wildlife.

Er ..... I Like the way you see it from a Hen Harrier prespective here.

1. http://www.wwt.org.uk/text/130/council_members.html

If you look futher down the first page of the above website - look at what I could see with who looks after it :C

2. http://www.tusk.org/trustees__and__patrons_g.asp?page=16 - Royal Patron is .............

3. The Princess Royal, Patron, Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust

I loved Gerald Durrel from a young age. I feel unhappy that there are Royal connections here.

4.The Princess Royal, President, Animal Health Trust,

5. The Princess Royal, connections with Welfare of Horses and Ponies.

6. 1977 - The junior branch, Wildlife Watch, is formed and in the same year HRH The Prince of Wales became its Patron

Some of the many caring issues to do with animals that Royalty are involved with - not........ :C :C

Regards
Kathy

Dr.Josef Mengele. Patron of the anti-abortion league!
Comes to mind. ( It's got quite a ring to it.)

Kind regards,
young Ian.

rozinante · Oct 31, 2007

Osprey_watcher said:
It's turned into a platform for loony political ideals!!!:C

Not sure I follow you there Eddie.

Is it the concept of the RSPB not having royal patronage, or the linking of the death of these harriers to the hypocracy of that patronage that you consider to be "a loony political ideal"?

Osprey_watcher · Oct 31, 2007

I'm sure you know I was referring to your ranting.

rozinante said:
Not sure I follow you there Eddie.

Is it the concept of the RSPB not having royal patronage, or the linking of the death of these harriers to the hypocracy of that patronage that you consider to be "a loony political ideal"?

Peewit · Oct 31, 2007

ikw101 said:
We are not amused.

We are bird friends here are we not?

I agree, not to disagree as we are here

So ikw101 what do you suggest here??. Hard act to follow????

Rozinante, sensible ideals from what I can see here

Regards
Kathy

Peewit · Oct 31, 2007

More news coming up here

No more news from Harry, no comment and the likes, and his games so far on - 103 ITV Anglia news Grrrrrrrrrr.........

Regards
Kathy

dave44 · Oct 31, 2007

If Prince Philip hadn't personally intervened to save the Noisy Scrub-bird it would almost certainly be extinct now. Being royal does hold a bit of clout and their committment to wildlife conservation should be applauded and encouraged.
At the moment there is no concrete evidence that any member of the royal family was personally involved or others were acting on their instructions.
At the risk of getting personal is it ok for somebodies escaped cage birds to kill Hen Harriers?

symphony · Nov 1, 2007

dave44 said:
If Prince Philip hadn't personally intervened to save the Noisy Scrub-bird it would almost certainly be extinct now. Being royal does hold a bit of clout and their committment to wildlife conservation should be applauded and encouraged.
At the moment there is no concrete evidence that any member of the royal family was personally involved or others were acting on their instructions.
At the risk of getting personal is it ok for somebodies escaped cage birds to kill Hen Harriers?

There is hypocrisy in saving one species while he shoots animals and estate keepers trap, poison and shoot. I spent most of my life in a farming community, I know what goes on.

Ne evidence at moment but some of us have been expressing views on the wider issue of persecution related to royalty and big landowners.

I consider myself well educated yet I cannot understand your last comment, much as I try. It certainly provokes some strange images!

young ian · Nov 1, 2007

dave44 said:
If Prince Philip hadn't personally intervened to save the Noisy Scrub-bird it would almost certainly be extinct now. Being royal does hold a bit of clout and their committment to wildlife conservation should be applauded and encouraged.

Now I understand how it works. Philip the 'Greek'
can go out and Kill anything just for the fun of it.
On the understand that he speaks a few insincere
words to the populace to keep them quite!
Didn't the mafia do something like that? You
know, Kill or have somebody killed. Then send the
largest wreath and cry the biggest of crocodile tears
at the funeral?

NO.NO.When one takes on the responsibility of
being a ' Patron', They are expected to obey the
rules. To be up front. To lead by example!
If not, they come across as the' charlatan' they
are. And that's the trouble!!! Once found out to
as being a 'charlatan' all credibility goes. Trust
and sincerity are precious commodity. Once lost
never regained!!

As the saying goes:- " You can fool some of
people some of the time. But, you can't fool all
of the people all the time."

Kindest regards,
young Ian.

Woodchatshrike · Nov 1, 2007

Osprey_watcher said:
Thought this was a bird forum, and the thread was to discuss the killing of two of the countries rarest birds of prey?
Obviously I'm wrong.
It's turned into a platform for loony political ideals!!!:C

Just relax Osprey Watcher go and buy some commerative cups from woolworths and hang some bunting. We are not political lonnies we have stong feelings but this will be brushed under the carpet as everthing in royal life is. The owners of the estate are responsible for the death of these birds.

Prince quizzed over bird shooting (BBC News) (1 Viewer)

&#904;&#957;&#945;&#962; &#949;&#961;&#945;&#963;&

Well-known member

Member

Once a bird lover ... always a bird lover

Northern Refugee

Well-known member

Well-known member

Anarchism is order

&#904;&#957;&#945;&#962; &#949;&#961;&#945;&#963;&

Well-known member

&#904;&#957;&#945;&#962; &#949;&#961;&#945;&#963;&

Well-known member

Anarchism is order

&#904;&#957;&#945;&#962; &#949;&#961;&#945;&#963;&

Once a bird lover ... always a bird lover

Once a bird lover ... always a bird lover

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Registered User

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread

Ένας ερασ&

Ένας ερασ&

Ένας ερασ&

Ένας ερασ&