RSPB has been grossly mis-represented says Society chief executive (RSPB)

Original PaulE

Well-known member
The RSPB has come under attack from new campaign group. The Mike Clarke, the RSPB's Chief Executive responds.

Read More...

Is this the one Ian Botham was involved with, if there are specific allegations which are untrue perhaps it would be a good idea to take legal action against Mr Botham for slander/libel etc it may cost a bit but the publicity taking such a high profile celebrity to court would generate would certainly highlight the basic lies and hypocrisy of the hunting fratenity, using there own tactics against them!
 

pratincol

Well-known member
The RSPB has come under attack from new campaign group. The Mike Clarke, the RSPB's Chief Executive responds.

Read More...
If you Google 'You Forgot The Birds' it comes up with a link to 'The Field' magazine and also to 'You Forgot The Birds' own website.
Both articles are trying to stir things up rather than the more helpful approach of bringing together the shooting fraternity and birdwatchers to reach some common ground.
 

Craig H

Well-known member
Sounds like another 'Songbird Survival' type group. Quite sad really, although I must admit I had wondered about all the publicity that's going on at the moment and what the net return is.
 

auchinbowie

Well-known member
The article in Field magazine was, at least in my opinion, very one sided and designed to appeal to the shooting community.


There was also a programme on BBC 4, where the RSPB was questioned on the allegations of deception in regards its claims regarding the disbursement of its funds -- implying that 90 percent of income is spent on field environmental projects and reserve maintenance. Having listened to the programme, I do not believe that the RSPB was misrepresented. Its spokesperson refused to give straight answers to direct questions. While he did not lie about the distribution of funds, he seemed extremely economical with the truth. The RSPB does not, indeed cannot, spend 90 percent of its income directly on field conservation work. The audited annual accounts do not support such a claim. Indeed most of the reserve expansions have been funded either by EEC or other external sources, supported by special appeals to the membership. A high percentage of general income is spent on central staff, political lobbying and the administrative costs of fundraising. This is in no way suggesting that this is inappropriate. The RSPB should, however, have the integrity to present the facts honestly and defend their position, rather than aggressively to obscure it.

This in no way suggests that the RSPB's efforts to inhibit and prosecute illegal persecution of raptors is erroneous. It is vital. Suggestion that this is a major item of RSPB expenditure is, however, risible.
 
Top