-
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.
Prince quizzed over bird shooting (BBC News) (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter BF Newsroom
- Start date
- Status
Well what can we say about the recent events here.
Is it a cover up, or not that is the question? Love to know what is the truth here. I smell a rat here. :C
What do others think here?
Regards
Kathy
rozinante
Anarchism is order
Whatever the outcome I do think the extra publicity that the royal connection will inevitably give is priceless. Both in terms of raptor conservation and for a nation that should realy drag itself out of the middle ages.
ps. would it be a good idea to continue this on the other harrier thread, combine them or continue here?
Hi Rozinante
Middle ages - Royal Connection - so true - the whole issue is still stuck there. No Police Stations for any members of the Royal family.
Yes, I think it would be a good idea to combine the 2 threads here. Add post 1 - BFNC to end of other thread if allowed/possible. Question here?
Otherwise, we will move to other thread anyway. I agree here :t:
Regards
Kathy
rozinante
Anarchism is order
Last edited:
kingfisher
Scouser in exile
Trying very hard to keep my mouth shut regarding the Royals and conservation esp raptors on their estates, if I said what I truly felt I may disapear one night.....I do smell a rat here though. :eek!:
jc001
Well-known member
Horrid news,dont think ive seen a hen harrier yet,at this rate i maybe never will.
If Harry did shoot them,I wonder if they might get someone else(a whipping boy/man) to take the flack for him ?
Whoever it is,i really hope this human vermin gets charged (and hopefully not just another fine for a few quid)
If Harry did shoot them,I wonder if they might get someone else(a whipping boy/man) to take the flack for him ?
Whoever it is,i really hope this human vermin gets charged (and hopefully not just another fine for a few quid)
Last edited:
bitterntwisted
Graham Howard Shortt
Thank God he was able to help the police and rule himself out. And so nice of him to invite them over rather than popping to the station. The bobbies must have been really excited seeing all round a Royal home! I'm hugely relieved - I almost wanted to take down my commemorative plates there!
bitterntwisted
Graham Howard Shortt
More seriously, what are the chances of a proper forensic investigation? Were the dead birds recovered? Can shot be matched to individual firearms, or at least to a manufacturer, the way bullets can? Is the arrogant, lying, violent, drug-addled little ***** going to get his come-uppance any time soon?
Marcus Conway - ebirder
Well-known member
I am pretty worried because it sonds like someone with a shotgun managed to get near to our Princes. In this day and age this is really worrrying that some unkowns got so close to the prince and managed to shoot indiscrimnantly.
Jst releived the princes are safe with these sorts of unsavories knocking around.
Jst releived the princes are safe with these sorts of unsavories knocking around.
Sandra (Taylor)
Well-known member
Surely the estate managers will know who was out on the land shooting that day. Is it too much beyond the bounds of common sense to speak to them and/or take bullets from the guns - or are we talking of hundreds of guys out that day?
S
rozinante
Anarchism is order
Just to remind you jc, there were 2 birds shot.
No accident, no miss id.
Deliberate destruction.
bitterntwisted
Graham Howard Shortt
There were only two shooters on the estate on the day, Harry Windsor and Edward van Cutsem, godson to Harry's "father", Charles Windsor. Neither, apparently, knows anything about the incident!
John Cantelo
Well-known member
The suspicion that those interviewed know more than they let on and that there would be a 'cover-up' should those interviewed be shown to be guilty is not unreasonable. It might not be true either.
However, I think that the comment quoted above is entirely OTT. The benefit of 'innocent until proven guilty' applies to all however much we may disapprove of and dislike someone or what they represent. With regard to what we know about such people I'd suggest that as it is filtered through the notoriously unreliable tabloid press and their ilk, slinging about such casual allegations is foolish. I've not the remotest idea what these people are really like and I suggest neither do any of us posting here. It's convenient to regard them as one dimensional hate figures, but I rather think that the reality is very different.
Personally, I'd rather not have a monarchy and all it entails, but I'd also try not to make statements based on such dubious sources about anyone I didn't know,
John
jc001
Well-known member
Ironic that Harry's father was recently voted the as the greatest consrvation icon (or something like that) in BBC wildlife magazine. Downright disgraceful, even if it wasn't one of the 'only two shooters' then surely, if HRH is such a great conservationist, he should be preventing wanton persecution of threated raptors. Or is the bag tally more important in reality??
Carlos Davies
Well-known member
I see on the news this morning that the BBC are still trotting out the "fact" that only 15 pairs of Hen Harriers nest in the whole of the UK. You'd think that someone would have sat them down with a map and patiently explained their mistake by now.
- Status
Similar threads
