• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Rare birds dead on Queen's estate (BBC News) (1 Viewer)

Mary said:
http://blogs.rspb.org.uk/investigations/archive/2007/11/07/Harriers-Down.aspx
Click to expand...

Hi Mary

Thank you for that account of the the recent turn of events. It has put a different prospective on the whole situation.

For a small child to witness this gunning down of the birds, must have been bewildering to the child, and all the people involved. To me, children have an amazing way of telling things as they are. It just amazes me.

To me this just speaks volumes about the whole situation. 'Fresh, recently-used lead shotgun cartridges at three points around the lake'. I] right ..[/ :C
Maybe some of these where the cartridges was the evidence required in the first instance after all. Just goes to show. :eek!:

I do not know what exactly is what is going on here, other than the case should be reopened, and the evidence checked over again. Of course there no HH bodies.
So according to the CPS, unless the cartridges and the HH bodies, are found together, there is never going to be a case. Daah, so much for witnesses, (do they count), DNA, etc... :C

It just astounds me, and I am lost for words here. *sigh*

rozinante said:
"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage."

John Steinbeck
Click to expand...

I think there is so much to explain in the sayings of John Steinbeck. Super writer, apt description of what is going on here with the Royals in relation to the HH's. ;)

Regards
Kathy
 
My memory is a bit hazy on this, but wasn't there a failed conviction in Norfolk a couple of years ago where a Marsh Harrier was shot. One (or perhaps two) people who were nearby with guns were charged (though no-one actually saw them shoot the harrier).

I think it went to court and they were found not guilty. Perhaps someone else can remember the details. It would be interesting as there are some similarities to the Hen Harrier case.

Incidentally I'm pretty certain the person or people accused of the Marsh Harrier shooting were not royals, but nevertheless weren't convicted.
 
PaulD said:
My memory is a bit hazy on this, but wasn't there a failed conviction in Norfolk a couple of years ago where a Marsh Harrier was shot. One (or perhaps two) people who were nearby with guns were charged (though no-one actually saw them shoot the harrier).

I think it went to court and they were found not guilty. Perhaps someone else can remember the details. It would be interesting as there are some similarities to the Hen Harrier case.

Incidentally I'm pretty certain the person or people accused of the Marsh Harrier shooting were not royals, but nevertheless weren't convicted.
Click to expand...

hi Paul

I am trying to remember the Norfolk incident here at the moment. Will shed some light if it comes back to me.

It makes us wonder here what is going on with the Royals and the HH's. Whatever it is - it is a cover up job. :C

All I can remember in connection the Royals was that a Tawny Owl was trapped, and the person who did it fined £500 pound. Now where did I see that recently?.

Regards
Kathy
 
Last edited:
I think we all know how difficult these cases are to prosecute. The constant repetition of how difficult it is to obtain sufficient evidence does not alter the fact that there is every likelihood that evidence was available in this case. There is also the likelihood that we contribute via tax to pay for the services of those who are most likely hiding and withholding that evidence and those who have so rapidly and effectivly failed to expose them. We actually pay for these people to lie to us!

But of course, they swear allegiance to the monarch not the people.
 
rozinante said:
does not alter the fact that there is every likelihood that evidence was available in this case.
Click to expand...

eh? villain bins/buries 2 harriers, no body, no evidence. not sure how we can fault anyone for failing to find 2 easily disposed of bird bodies.
 
Isurus said:
eh? villain bins/buries 2 harriers, no body, no evidence. not sure how we can fault anyone for failing to find 2 easily disposed of bird bodies.
Click to expand...

In this case the villains doing the disposal would probably have been OUR servants.

You don't think he cleans up after himself do you?
 
If the police had had the full co-operation of the Sandringham estate then I think charges would have been brought.

Sadly the chances of them getting full co-operation were almost nil.

I don't think you can blame the police - I've seen no evidence that they wanted to sweep this under the carpet.
 
PaulD said:
If the police had had the full co-operation of the Sandringham estate then I think charges would have been brought.

Sadly the chances of them getting full co-operation were almost nil.

I don't think you can blame the police - I've seen no evidence that they wanted to sweep this under the carpet.
Click to expand...


That could be because it has been swept under the carpet. ;)

I see no evidence at all and certainly none that suggests that their performance was either thorough or beyond question.

What about the possible presence of any royal protection units. While obviously a shady group I understood that they were provided by the Met. I also seem to recall something about ex SAS personnel involvement. Both the above groups of course trained and employed at our expense but paradoxicaly swearing allegiance to the queen.

Never mind the co-operation of the employees of the Sandringham estate, what about the co-operation of our own employees?
 
rozinante said:
That could be because it has been swept under the carpet. ;)

I see no evidence at all and certainly none that suggests that their performance was either thorough or beyond question.

What about the possible presence of any royal protection units. While obviously a shady group I understood that they were provided by the Met. I also seem to recall something about ex SAS personnel involvement. Both the above groups of course trained and employed at our expense but paradoxicaly swearing allegiance to the queen.

Never mind the co-operation of the employees of the Sandringham estate, what about the co-operation of our own employees?
Click to expand...

Hi Rozinante

It is true what you say here about the situation as it is. Swept under the carpet it, and that is how it will remain. :C

Yes, swear alliance to the Queen would be the most important thing to do here. Why cannot non-royal employees be more truthful. It is maybe more to do with their reputation being ruined, so they cannot get future employment of any type. ;)

I wonder if it had been 'Joe Bloggs' normal member of the public caught shooting 2 HH's down (same way). Then they would be arrested by the Police, and questioned. Full press coverage going on from the moment go.
The local press would go to town on 'Joe Bloggs and go into all his background and dig up all the dirt on him that they can. Then he would go to Court with pictures on the news, and then fine or jail sentence would be on the agenda. Then he is named and shamed forever after.

What rules apply to one does not apply to another here. It should not be like this at all. Laws are laws end of story. They should be adhered too by everyone no matter what their background may be. :C

Like I had said before, it is different strokes for different folks, so it seems to be. :C

Regards
Kathy

.
 
Last edited:
Peewit, you have absolutely no proof that HRH shot the birds nor has anyone else, it is as I said in an earlier post purely speculation on your and others behalfs.

How many witches would you have burned to death a few centuries ago?
 
Steve said:
Peewit, you have absolutely no proof that HRH shot the birds nor has anyone else, it is as I said in an earlier post purely speculation on your and others behalfs.

How many witches would you have burned to death a few centuries ago?
Click to expand...


I think I said something similar 138 posts ago steve but without the benefit of your excellent analogy.
 
Steve said:
Peewit, you have absolutely no proof that HRH shot the birds nor has anyone else, it is as I said in an earlier post purely speculation on your and others behalfs.

How many witches would you have burned to death a few centuries ago?
Click to expand...

Hi Steve

Sorry, I did not mean to sound so judgemental about issues. As you say it is based on no facts, and it is pure spectulation at the moment.

I think it is more to do with emotive issues again taking over sensible. logical thinking.

Regards
Kathy
 
Last edited:
Isurus said:
I think I said something similar 138 posts ago steve but without the benefit of your excellent analogy.
Click to expand...

Excellent analogy?! Please explain.

There's no such thing as witchcraft. Is the analogy that no harriers were shot? What grounds does anyone have for suggesting the witnesses were lying or mistaken. The police don't seem to think they were?

Graham
 
Bitterandtwisted Your confused,I will try and make it crystal clear for you.


Is the analogy that no harriers were shot?
Click to expand...

No one is saying the Harriers were not shot, some are saying that there is no proof that HRH shot them THIS IS A FACT.

What grounds does anyone have for suggesting the witnesses were lying or mistaken.
Click to expand...

No one is saying the Harriers were not shot, some are saying that there is no proof that HRH shot them THIS IS A FACT.


The police don't seem to think they were?
Click to expand...


No one is saying the Harriers were not shot, some are saying that there is no proof that HRH shot them THIS IS A FACT.


Shall we go on?
 
Peewit said:
As you say it is based on no facts, and it is pure spectulation at the moment.
Click to expand...

I see no need for you to apologise or back down, Kathy. It is based on the following facts, and it is far from pure speculation.

1) Two harriers were shot on the Sandringham estate. (Unlikely alternative is that witnesses are lying or mistaken - the police and RSPB believe the witnesses - no account I have read gives me any reason to doubt them)
2) Only three people were in the area with guns. (Alternative is that unknown gunmen were shooting undetected in close proximity so a senior royal with security entourage)

The facts are not sufficient to convict in a court, neither would I want to see anyone convicted on the basis of the above. With good reason, circumstantial evidence alone is not sufficient to convict someone. But that doesn't detract from the fact that by far the most plausible explanation is that either Prince Harry, van Cutsem, or the gamekeeper shot the harriers and that all lied about what happened. I really don't see how drawing that conclusion from the available facts bears any resemblance whatsoever to the bizarre irrational mediaeval craze for burning 'witches'

Graham

EDIT - cross-post with Steve - I am not saying that Prince Harry shot the Harriers - the evidence is insufficient. I am saying that it is staggeringly unlikely that he doesn't know who did and that he didn't lie to the police. It is also entirely plausible that he was directly involved himself.
 
Last edited:
Never one to give up easily, I will try again, the analogy I used was a common one meaning that many thousands of people were burned at the stake as witches because they were accused of being so without any evidence, in many cases on the say so of someone who heard them sneeze on a wednesday or some other nonsense.

I see no need for you to apologise or back down, Kathy. It is based on the following facts, and it is far from pure speculation
Click to expand...

That is exactly what it is pure speculation!!

But that doesn't detract from the fact that by far the most plausible explanation is that either Prince Harry, van Cutsem, or the gamekeeper shot the harriers
Click to expand...

you then contradict yourself with your last statement.

I am not saying that Prince Harry shot the Harriers - the evidence is insufficient. I am saying that it is staggeringly unlikely that he doesn't know who did and that he didn't lie to the police. It is also entirely plausible that he was directly involved himself
Click to expand...

which one is it?

Until you have proof that Harry or his buddies shot the birds, it is surely just your opinion, based purely on the fact that he has said he was in the area at the time ,that is all it can be, nothing more?
 
Tim Allwood said:
Members of the Royal family have been prosectued in the past WHEN there has been evidence. One or two have been done for excessive speeding - in my mind a much more serious offence as they might actually kill a human being, possibly you or me.

Tim
Click to expand...
Intriguing....John Lydon on the Avatar, while defending the Royals ("Gawd Save the Queen....") The only time monarchists ever had cred was when King Zog of Albania dived into the gutter and fired back at a would-be assassin. Maybe time to change the avatar there, Tim...how about the Queen Mum? (Funny, I miss her, at least she was a larf...)
 
Warning! This thread is more than 11 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

MiddleRiver
Royal Estate bird killings?
Replies
1
Views
669
etudiant
E
kennethwfd
Bird flu outbreak penguin colonies Falkland Isles
Replies
0
Views
384
kennethwfd
kennethwfd
kennethwfd
Avian flu outbreak Brownsea Island
Replies
1
Views
747
Farnboro John
Farnboro John
A
  • Locked
Guardian article concerning bird of prey deaths at Sandringham Estate
Replies
1
Views
776
Mono
Mono
D
The Pharoah Eagle Owl Summary
Replies
0
Views
324
Desertwildlifeme
D

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top