General Licences – important information

[Christel]

BASC fights Wild Justice’s attempt
to ban game bird releasing


Not satisfied with their attacks on general licences to control pest species, Wild Justice is now challenging the release of game birds on EU-designated land with a 5km buffer zone. BASC is active in ensuring that the government does not back down to legal threats and has worked with MPs to guarantee the 2020-21 season and defeat this challenge for the future.

The legal challenge


Wild Justice is claiming that Defra is allowing the release of game birds on designated land in breach of the law. Last month, Wild Justice sent Defra a letter before action asking them to halt release on designated land with a 5km buffer zone.

BASC action


• Mapped the areas affected and estimated the massive damage halting release would do to the environment, economy and shooting. The results can be seen here.

• Briefed the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Shooting and Conservation, for which BASC provides the secretariat, and asked the 163 parliamentarians who are members to take the issue up with Ministers. Click here for more information.

• Chief Executive Ian Bell with the chairman, Eoghan Cameron, Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP and Victoria Prentis MP met and briefed Theresa Villers, the Secretary of State for the Environment and demanded a robust response. The Minister promised to issue a statement (see below).

• Briefed other politicians at cabinet-level who will raise the issue with Downing Street.

• Have mapped all affected constituencies so that MPs are informed of the damage that could be done to their constituencies.

• Have registered our intention to be listed as an interested party should the matter ever come to court so that we can make our case before the judge.

• Are speaking to newly-appointed Defra ministers to ensure a robust government response.

Result so far

On 11 February, the Defra Minister responsible for shooting gave a written answer tabled by Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP, Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Shooting and Conservation. The answer stated:

• The Secretary of State will make a statement shortly.

• Confirmed in its response to Wild Justice that work on the review is underway and that Defra will announce further details in the coming weeks.

• Stated that in Defra’s view it is not reasonable nor realistic to expect any measures to be implemented before summer/autumn 2020.

This means that it is unlikely that there will be any changes to releasing game birds for the 2020-2021 season. BASC is undertaking further work with Natural England and Defra to ensure that releasing on designated sites is robustly underpinned by law and will continue, as it did without damage to the environment on these sites before they were designated.

We will ensure that members are informed of progress.

[Christel]

So what exactly is the point of Wild Justice? Both to do with this situation and in general.

To put the other point of view which is to question whether we have the right, or to what extent we have the right, to kill wildlife for our own convenience.

Disclaimer - I don't know how "extreme" the views/actions/proposals of them are, but I do support the principle of having campaigners against the accepted, the status quo, in all areas.

Clarification - I'm (clearly) not opposed to shooting, I like eating meat, and I think that others who do also but bang on about how it's wrong to pick up a gun and kill animals are hypocrites. But that doesn't mean that I am not, or think nobody should be, questioning of some of the practices and policies involved. Are there alternatives to mass killing of badgers to deal with the problem of bovine TB transmission? Even if they cost more, do we have the moral right to kill animals instead? Are the ways that grouse moors are managed really beneficial to the environment, and other wildlife? There is at least some evidence which says that flooding downstream of them is exacerbated by current practices, and flooding takes human lives.

I think it is on par with the terrorist group Extinction Rebellion

Really?

Either you don't know anything about ER, or you have no idea what the word "terrorist" means.

So on the one hand you object to "extremist" groups, and then you come out with something extremely distorted like that?

never mind the damage that is being done in the process or how much money it costs society.

How much money will unchecked global heating and climate change cost society?

And how much society will it cost the human race?

The louder they shout they better they feel.

Maybe they shout so that those who will not listen find it harder to not hear?

Children

Can you justify your stance of classing those who campaign against doing nothing about anthropogenic climate change as terrorists to children who will have to live with the problem long after you are dead? Can you look them in the eye as you do so, and assure them that you are fulfilling one of the roles of an adult, which is to keep them safe?


You may well think that ER are going about it in the wrong way, and have proposals for better ways of campaigning, but we aren't going to get anywhere if people polarise the discussion by calling the people they disagree with terrorists and children.

Too much Greta here

What I do not get is that adults, I repeat ADULTS and politicians who should know better are listening to her drivel.
Get a grip. She is a doll being manipulated.

No doubt that ER is a domestic terrorist group. Look the definition up. The various police forces who have had to deal with the crap ER is doing are of the same opinion.

Wild Justice, out to make as much harm as possible.

[TRG-22]

Too much Greta here

What I do not get is that adults, I repeat ADULTS and politicians who should know better are listening to her drivel.
Get a grip. She is a doll being manipulated.

I'm not sure what you think she has said which qualifies as drivel, unless you've decided to ignore all qualified scientific opinion and deny that anthropogenic climate change is happening. And manipulated by whom? To what end?

No doubt that ER is a domestic terrorist group. Look the definition up.

I know what the definition is, and I've not seen any evidence that ER is an organisation which is using violence for political ends.

It might help to persuade me that they are if you could show me some evidence. I believe in truth, and honesty, and decency, and in rational and evidence based decision making. And I believe in the rule of law. If there is proof that ER are terrorists then they are.

The various police forces who have had to deal with the crap ER is doing are of the same opinion.

But what if they are wrong in that opinion? What if their opinion is not evidentially based? It isn't hard to find reports on this very forum of them exceeding their powers, acting beyond their remit etc - how can you rely on them always getting things right? People here have complained that the attitude of their Chief Constable, or their FEO/FLO, to gun ownership can make real differences to how they are treated. I'm sure that many CCs are p***ed off about the amount of time and resources taken up by dealing with ER protests, but unfortunately that comes with the territory of being a non-violent police force, subject to the rule of law in a democratic society which they police by consent.

As for them sharing your opinion that ER are terrorists, that might not be the case:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... e-guidance

Or this:

Counter-terrorism police in south-east England have admitted an "error of judgement" after listing Extinction Rebellion as an "extreme ideology".
.
.
On the page about Extinction Rebellion, the guide describes the group as: "A campaign encouraging protest and civil disobedience to pressure governments to take action on climate change and species extinction."
.
.
In a statement, Det Ch Supt Kath Barnes, head of Counter Terrorism Policing South East, said: "I would like to make it quite clear that we do not classify Extinction Rebellion as an extremist organisation.

Look at the second sentence - protest and civil disobedience is not terrorism. And unless DCS Barnes thinks that you can be a terrorist and not be extreme, she doesn't think that ER are terrorists.

This:

"Police chiefs have insisted they do not consider Extinction Rebellion and other non-violent groups to be extremists or terrorists"

This:

"A City of London police spokesperson said: 'City of London police does not consider Extinction Rebellion to be a terrorist organisation.'"


Which police forces believe that ER is a terrorist organisation?

Wild Justice, out to make as much harm as possible.

As you observed before, the links in your copy/paste don't work, so I've not yet been able to look at them, but I will go to the BASC site and read more about what they say WJ are doing. And I'll look at what WJ say they are doing.

But I do note this from your BASC quote:

BASC is active in ensuring that the government does not back down to legal threats ... Wild Justice is claiming that Defra is allowing the release of game birds on designated land in breach of the law.

It's not a question of backing down to legal threats. The government and its agencies must behave according to the law. IF there is a good enough case to be made that they are not then it must go before the courts, and they will determine whether or not they have been acting unlawfully, or allowing others to do so.

I would hope that they do not "back down" because I hope that they genuinely believe that they are behaving properly and lawfully, and that they genuinely believe that they are not allowing unlawful acts to take place. If they aren't sure then they can have an enquiry of some sort, carried out by experts, or they can welcome a court case. But if they know that they are in the wrong, and are lying, hoping that blustering and denial and obfuscation will let them get away with it, then the view of this particular citizen, who believes in the rule of law, and who believes in principles such as honesty, decency, truthfulness etc also believes that they should be sacked, should never be allowed to stand for any elected office ever again, and should face the very real prospect of imprisonment.

[TRG-22]

But in summary this is probably going nowhere.

I remain, and always will remain, completely open to looking at any evidence that Greta Thunberg is a manipulated doll who is spouting drivel. Or any evidence that ER is a terrorist organisation. Or any evidence that police forces agree that it is.

And I remain, and will always remain, firm in my belief that wild and groundless allegations of terrorism, that shouting at people you don't agree with to STFU, are not helpful ways to move the debate forward, they do not promote an environment where people can fruitfully discuss things and put an end to conflict, they just exacerbate things.

I've disagreed with you, here, but I've done so, I believe, calmly and rationally. I haven't used intemperate language, I haven't insulted you, I haven't got angry with you. If I had, would that make you more, or less, inclined to consider my side of the argument?

[Christel]

You are absolutely right, going nowhere, difference of opinion.