harriers down - RSPB investigation (1 Viewer)

[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.

Adrian

Prince 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. ​