Had a visit from the 'RSPB' last night... (1 Viewer)

[Anthony Morton]

Your point being what?

I wasn't making a point, simply offering an explanation of what I believe took place for the benefit of those who, presumably like yourself, were not members of BF at the time.

 

[Anthony Morton]

I can imagine that just one thread for discussing RSPB official policy would be rather restrictive.... but if people were keen enough to persuade RSPB to contribute here, I'm sure it would be possible to organise threads in such a way that the RSPB contributors could access them easily.

For instance, keep them all in the same sub-forum, with an "RSPB: " prefix to the thread title, and robert's your mother's brother: RSPB staff can monitor only those threads that seek a response.

Personally, I'm not convinced this is necessary (or that the RSPB would be willing to participate), but if others think so, then the suggestion's there...

David,

I think you have summed the situation up rather well. In the earlier example I referred to, I felt that the short-lived setting up of a separate forum for RSPB-related matters proved both restrictive and counter-productive. In my opinion this was because it not only conflicted with the freedom of speech and impartiality, but challenged the bedrock of independence which BF had been founded upon. It could also be seen as developing into the early stages of a 'Big Brother' scenario as well.

If the RSPB should feel the need for a discussion forum of its own, then I hope it will set one up for itself openly and not simply try to muscle in on the success of another. Long may BF remain a forum for free speech where its members don't have to continually avoid treading on any corporate toes!

 

[Collster]

David,

I think you have summed the situation up rather well. In the earlier example I referred to, I felt that the short-lived setting up of a separate forum for RSPB-related matters proved both restrictive and counter-productive. In my opinion this was because it not only conflicted with the freedom of speech and impartiality, but challenged the bedrock of independence which BF had been founded upon. It could also be seen as developing into the early stages of a 'Big Brother' scenario as well.

If the RSPB should feel the need for a discussion forum of its own, then I hope it will set one up for itself openly and not simply try to muscle in on the success of another. Long may BF remain a forum for free speech where its members don't have to continually avoid treading on any corporate toes!

Has the RSPB stated that they want somewhere on birdforum where they can have the right to reply? I thought that some bf members were suggesting the RSPB should reply on the forum, now either you've got your wires crossed or you are just being mischievous

 

[Anthony Morton]

Are you suggesting that the 'keepers might have nobbled him?

Now there's a thought. Perhaps the 'keepers plied him with strong drink and then carried him off to the local taxidermist on the promise that they were going to pay for him to be 'stuffed and mounted'. Doubtless poor old Ian took this to mean something else entirely and filled with visions of unspeakable debauchery, he accompanied them most willingly!

Even now he's probably striking a handsome pose in a bow-fronted glass case set up in the banqueting hall of a stately home somewhere. If so, I'm sure that he'll never lose that look of terror, coupled with a mixture of surprise and disappointment in his eyes!

 

[Anthony Morton]

Has the RSPB stated that they want somewhere on birdforum where they can have the right to reply? I thought that some bf members were suggesting the RSPB should reply on the forum, now either you've got your wires crossed or you are just being mischievous

On the contrary, you seem to be the one with his 'knockers in a knit' who is once again trying to muddy the water.

What I have given is my view of the events in the past relating to a full time employee of the RSPB who initially joined BF supposedly as an individual member. When his true identity later became known, he asked for part of the forum to be dedicated specifically for him to answer questions relating to the RSPB. Although this request was granted, it was quickly found to be something of a non-starter.

At the time I was opposed to any organisation having a dedicated voice on BF which, in my opinion, is for the benefit of individual members. I still feel exactly the same way. Don't forget that in the earlier example I am quoting from, this was initially achieved by what I consider to be a back-door method.

Turning to the present, some members may well be suggesting that the RSPB should be given a voice on BF but, as I'm sure most of them will have gathered, I do not subscribe to this view for the reasons I've already given. And if it ever came to a ballot, I would vote against such a thing ever happening and to keep BF independent.

 

[James Lowther]

on the promise that they were going to pay for him to be 'stuffed and mounted'. Doubtless poor old Ian took this to mean something else entirely and filled with visions of unspeakable debauchery, he accompanied them most willingly!!

is that REALLY necessary Anthony?

Your recollections of the RSPB THREAD (not forum) differ somewhat from mine i have to say. My feeling was this was a vehicle for people to raise concerns or questions about the society specifically with Ian, that he could then provide them with definitive answers to. Nothing to do with being the only thread on which people could comment on the RSPB, nor anything to do with your least favourite organisation "muscling in" on birdforum.
EDIT: have just had another look at the thread and it got a 5 star approval rating, Ian did his utmost to answer everyone's questions, including yours, and no-one (including yourself) expressed the idea that it "proved both restrictive and counter-productive" or "conflicted with the freedom of speech and impartiality, [and] challenged the bedrock of independence which BF had been founded upon". Maybe memory playing tricks?? Or maybe you're just trying to distort the facts in order to stick the boot in?? Who knows...
also your IMHO entirely false characterisation of Ian sneakily inserting himself onto the forum in order to further the cause of the RSPB sticks in the craw somewhat...

but i digress,
the point is,
Ian made it clear numerous times that he was NOT posting on BF as a representative of the RSPB, and it was NOT part of his job.
His presence on BF during work hours was originally "sanctioned" by his employers though. Perhaps that is no longer the case, given that his personal views expressed on BF were on at least one occasion misrepresented by anti-RSPB elements as official RSPB statements.
Whatever,
he's been absent for at least a year, and the RSPB's non-participation on this thread should not be taken as a sign of anything more sinister than that they don't know about it.

James

 

[Collster]

On the contrary, you seem to be the one with his 'knockers in a knit' who is once again trying to muddy the water.

What I have given is my view of the events in the past relating to a full time employee of the RSPB who initially joined BF supposedly as an individual member. When his true identity later became known, he asked for part of the forum to be dedicated specifically for him to answer questions relating to the RSPB. Although this request was granted, it was quickly found to be something of a non-starter.

At the time I was opposed to any organisation having a dedicated voice on BF which, in my opinion, is for the benefit of individual members. I still feel exactly the same way. Don't forget that in the earlier example I am quoting from, this was initially achieved by what I consider to be a back-door method.

Turning to the present, some members may well be suggesting that the RSPB should be given a voice on BF but, as I'm sure most of them will have gathered, I do not subscribe to this view for the reasons I've already given. And if it ever came to a ballot, I would vote against such a thing ever happening and to keep BF independent.

Go back to the start, read the thread title then explain where all this is coming from and what it has to do with the original question. Start a new thread entitled knocking the RSPB because thats all you're about

 

[Osprey_watcher]

David,


If the RSPB should feel the need for a discussion forum of its own, then I hope it will set one up for itself openly and not simply try to muscle in on the success of another. Long may BF remain a forum for free speech where its members don't have to continually avoid treading on any corporate toes!

The RSPB has it's own discussion forum.
It's not as good as BF though. I don't use it because every post has to be ok'd by a moderator before it can be seen on the boards and it can take hours.
The suggestion that they may 'try to muscle in' is ludicrous, but what I expected.

 

[Osprey_watcher]

is that REALLY necessary Anthony?

Your recollections of the RSPB THREAD (not forum) differ somewhat from mine i have to say.
James

James, Have you not noticed, Anthony's recollections always seem to differ from everyone elses.

 

[Collster]

James, Have you not noticed, Anthony's recollections always seem to differ from everyone elses.

yes, having experienced Anthonys distorting of the written words( of others) personally, it is too common place to be anything other than intended. Wonder why

 

[dbradnum]

Chaps - if you really think that (and I'm not commenting either way), then you'd perhaps do better not to rise to it consistently.

 

[Collster]

Chaps - if you really think that (and I'm not commenting either way), then you'd perhaps do better not to rise to it consistently.

but where's the fun in that

 

[James Lowther]

Chaps - if you really think that (and I'm not commenting either way), then you'd perhaps do better not to rise to it consistently.

David, you are of course, quite right. I do worry that new forum members might be taken in by Anthony's various schemes if no-one is on hand to point out his history however.

Anyway,
mum's the word from now on (even if Anthony insinuates i'm a sexual deviant in a faux-matey way)

:flyaway:

 

[Jos Stratford]

And if it ever came to a ballot, I would vote against such a thing ever happening and to keep BF independent.

3 3 3

Well fortunately, 99.9 % of persons on this forum not only enjoy it's independance, but also actually have a real interest in birds, not in spending almost all their time on here either posting their anti-RSPB posts or comments in defence of those that persecute Britain's wildlife. So, kind of think any poll on here would be AF (and associated cronies) peanuts, normal persons landslide.

And should someone with a voice from any conservation organisation wish to participate, I can't see that being a problem, more enlightened opinions the better I'd say. Pity yours isn't.

 

[Rob Smallwood]

Time for bed?

 

[Anthony Morton]

is that REALLY necessary Anthony?

Oh dear, James, I'm beginning to think that you wouldn't recognise a joke even if it bit you on the backside. What a dull, humourless life you must lead!

Lighten up a bit, there's a good lad. 3

 

[Anthony Morton]

Question: What have 'valley boy', Osprey Watcher, Jos Stratford and James Lowther got in common with an H.G. Samuel's 'Everite' watch?

Answer: They're all easy to wind up!

 

[Anthony Morton]

Time for bed?

Good idea, Rob.

Night night! :gn:

 

[Jos Stratford]

Question: What have 'valley boy', Osprey Watcher, Jos Stratford and James Lowther got in common with an H.G. Samuel's 'Everite' watch?

Answer: They're all easy to wind up!

:-O

Better than being a total jerk. Agreed, time for good night Mr M

 

[deborah4]

Question: What have 'valley boy', Osprey Watcher, Jos Stratford and James Lowther got in common with an H.G. Samuel's 'Everite' watch?

Answer: They're all easy to wind up!

and I thought my Local Patch lists were boring :'D