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

[Osprey_watcher]

The internet could do with less wind-up troll merchents like you.

Moderaters:- Are there not rules against this on this forum?

Hang a mo there.
I have not posted anything I did not believe, my posts were my opinions and views.
The fact that I knew these opinions and views would upset some people involved in this thread means that I should have refrained from posting does it? Half the posts on this forum wouldn't happen if everyone thought like that.

So you are against free speech unless it agrees with your ideals, I see.

Anyway whats a troll (besides a long haired Scandinavian thingy).

 

[Steve]

Moderaters:- Are there not rules against this on this forum?

I did post earlier Somewhere? requesting that the royalists and republicans stick to the point.

You can of course discuss the monarchy in ruffled feathers or alternatively in www.talksmall.com which is not heavily moderated, if at all. The discussion of whether the RSPB should drop the Royal is certainly valid for Birdforum, but that is for another thread rather than this one.

On a personal note there is no evidence what so ever that HRH shot the birds, and some of you have immediately found him guilty ( Gotta hope that none of you get called for jury service). If someone, ANYONE is charged and found guilty then yes you will be able to write on these forums the facts, but up to now it's speculation, and finger pointing that is absolutely without any proof at all, Luckily in this country we are still innocent until proved guilty some of you might do well to remember that?

Bottom line is two birds are dead, anyone with any brains is pissed off about it, but arguing amongst each other as to whether we should have a monarchy or not,has nothing to do with the event,save the fact that the birds were bagged on a royal estate.

 

[John Cantelo]

I did post earlier Somewhere? requesting that the royalists and republicans stick to the point.

You can of course discuss the monarchy in ruffled feathers or alternatively in www.talksmall.com which is not heavily moderated, if at all. The discussion of whether the RSPB should drop the Royal is certainly valid for Birdforum, but that is for another thread rather than this one.

On a personal note there is no evidence what so ever that HRH shot the birds, and some of you have immediately found him guilty ( Gotta hope that none of you get called for jury service). If someone, ANYONE is charged and found guilty then yes you will be able to write on these forums the facts, but up to now it's speculation, and finger pointing that is absolutely without any proof at all, Luckily in this country we are still innocent until proved guilty some of you might do well to remember that?

Bottom line is two birds are dead, anyone with any brains is pissed off about it, but arguing amongst each other as to whether we should have a monarchy or not,has nothing to do with the event,save the fact that the birds were bagged on a royal estate.

Thank you, Steve, for another blast of sanity .... naturally I think so since much of it was more or less what I tried to say many postings ago!

John

 

[young ian]

The internet could do with less wind-up troll merchents like you.

Moderaters:- Are there not rules against this on this forum?

Dear, dear, is this a call for help? Losing the debate?
or what.
The moderators are to be congratulated on allowing
the membership to debate/discuss this whole issue.
We have been able, as is my right and yours, to
express our opinion's on this subject.Indeed,a very
important subject.
We are blessed with the option of:- Not entering
the debate/discussion in the first place. But calling
for the 'Rule Book' after contributing so much. Is in
my humble opinion quite Churlish.
It's quite clear that ALL of us here care so very
much for the welfare of our 'Birds'. There are some
that will pick and choose what wildlife to support.
That's their choice! But never try to stifle debate.

So once again I say "Thank you" to the moderators
for allowing us to debate/discuss this whole issue.

Most kindest regards to everybody,
young Ian.

 

[Carlos Davies]

Hang a mo there..

Blimey! He's having a go at homosexuals now!8-P



Sorry. I'll shut up now.

 

[Tyke]

I preferred their previous book written in cooperation with Lady Diana:

"The Pheasants are revolting. Let them eat Crake"

by Marx and Spencer

Great book!!!:-O:-O:-O

Colin

 

[Osprey_watcher]

Blimey! He's having a go at homosexuals now!8-P



Sorry. I'll shut up now.

You've lost me with that one mate. :h?:

​

 

[young ian]

No.No. Scabby I mean Crabby. There, even
I can get words mixed up. You mean 'Cockatiel'

young Ian.

 

[DKR]

Sorry DKR, I missed this.

I can see no reason why we couldn't be in exactly the same position but with a society for the protection of birds that isn't associated with habitual bird killers.

People on here have been going on about withdrawing their support for the RSPB.

I don't see how withdrawing support for the biggest bird conservation organisation we have in this country will benefit wild birds.

Could one of the members advocating withdrawal of support please explain this to me.

 

[michaelmacey]

Id prefer it if posts were not edited by people who then go off-line.

 

[Twite]

The "pro-royalist sentiments" were added as bait.

Ha Ha Ha... nice one, Stwike him Centuwion.

Seamus.

 

[Steve]

This will be swept under the carpet as normal

Michael, what exactly will be swept under the carpet?

Who thinks our Royal abode's would serve better as Prisons, time to cull the Monarchy, Mick

Did you read my post ?

 

[young ian]

People on here have been going on about withdrawing their support for the RSPB.

I don't see how withdrawing support for the biggest bird conservation organisation we have in this country will benefit wild birds.

Could one of the members advocating withdrawal of support please explain this to me.

Hello DKR.
It's not easy for everybody to grasp what they
mean. Let me try to explain in simple terms.
It is general understanding that the 'Patron' of
any organization would lead from the front by
example. Would you not agree?
Now as the 'Patron' of the RSPB just loves to kill
birds for fun. It's not too difficult to grasp what
they mean is it? Therefore, all things being equal,
by replacing the 'S' with a 'B'('B'for British) i.e.
British Society for Protection of Birds.
The BSPB would have the moral ground with the
same support. Our 'Gracious' lady could then go
about killing for the fun of it. Without compromising
the Society.

Kind regards,
young Ian

 

[Steve]

Now as the 'Patron' of the RSPB just loves to kill
birds for fun.

Young Ian this is a ludicrous statement.

 

[DKR]

It's all about Hen Harriers!

Hello DKR.
It's not easy for everybody to grasp what they
mean. Let me try to explain in simple terms.
It is general understanding that the 'Patron' of
any organization would lead from the front by
example. Would you not agree?
Now as the 'Patron' of the RSPB just loves to kill
birds for fun. It's not too difficult to grasp what
they mean is it? Therefore, all things being equal,
by replacing the 'S' with a 'B'('B'for British) i.e.
British Society for Protection of Birds.
The BSPB would have the moral ground with the
same support. Our 'Gracious' lady could then go
about killing for the fun of it. Without compromising
the Society.

Kind regards,
young Ian

In amongst your patronising reply you advocate the removing of the Royal affiliations.

This would be a huge own goal as it would be perceived as being anti-royal and/or anti-hunting. Either way the result would probably be a massive loss in membership and therefore a reduction in wild bird conservation work.

The society cannot take an anti-hunting stance as far as I know as it is forbidden in the constitution.

It's a shame this has become a thread for Republican rants. All I really care about is Hen Harriers.

 

[young ian]

Young Ian this is a ludicrous statement.

Steve.
I stand corrected. I thought that
Grouse, Pheasant, Partridge etc. shooting
parties where considered as Sport i.e. FUN.
But if you say my perception is wrong i.e.
' ludicrous' Then I do indeed stand corrected.
I now feel terrible and ashamed as I had
no idea that they attended / allowed these
shooting parties to take place under such
distressing circumstances.

Steve, I always thought that they laughed and
cheered as they shoot some poor bird (for fun).
Only now do I realize that they where Crying.
You are so right, I mustn't make ludicrous
statements in the future.

Please accept this as my public apology to the
forum.

young Ian.

 

[rozinante]

People on here have been going on about withdrawing their support for the RSPB.

I don't see how withdrawing support for the biggest bird conservation organisation we have in this country will benefit wild birds.

It obviously couldn't.
I notice we have been requested not to continue this discussion here.

I have sent you a pm.

 

[Nelbert]

The RSPB Investigations branch

...are all over this, they are the most experienced body in the UK at successfully prosecuting wildlife crime and, as someone who's been involved in investigating these crimes and helping in their prosecution, I can tell you that they are extremely tough to get convictions on. I suspect that the RSPB are keeping their powder dry because they're keenly aware of the danger of subjudicy. That's absolutely the right approach - the last thing they want is to give a magistrate a reason to throw out a case or the CPS a reason to not take it forward.

 

[townie373]

The is not the fact is that what has happened here concerns the Royals - it is more to do with the fact that 2 BoP's have been shot. There should not be a rule for one person, and not another.

Was it not so long ago that the girlfriend of one of the Princes was taken for a day out shooting. Nothing was ever said whether it was a 'fab' day out for anyone.

So this gives me the impression that foul play is here (bad advice from older family members) how to behave. Two boys easily led, as we all are when we are young. If only Di was around what would she have said about it all.

I feel that the Royals commitment to conservation is as false as you get. I feel if they cannot be honest about issues saving Wildlife, they should leave well alone.

Still in my own mind's eye, I think it is deep family ties that make the Royals who they are. What their ancestors did with the whole issue of hunting is there in the family, history and blood-ties. Unless one of them is caught by the RSPB with a gun in their hands etc... no way they will be fined etc...

Can the gun (bullet) or finger prints not be tracked to the owner hmmmm or is it as easy as that. . Too many issues here - on mind overload here....

Regards
Kathy

Far more likely to be a shotgun used rather than a rifle [bullet]...so therefore no forensics unless the shooter was stupid enough to leave the empty cartridges...it happens!

Lets all spare a thought for the brave warden who has stood up to be counted here...

 

[Peewit]

Far more likely to be a shotgun used rather than a rifle [bullet]...so therefore no forensics unless the shooter was stupid enough to leave the empty cartridges...it happens!

Lets all spare a thought for the brave warden who has stood up to be counted here...

Hi townie

I meant to say shotgun, so that means there will be cartridges on the ground if they are not lifted. I hope that there is that type of evidence to work off.

The warden was brave to stand up as he has done so. Not everyone would think of putting themselves in that position. Shows that he is doing his job as he should be.

Regards
Kathy