This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/02/prince-harry-releases-images...
Is this the same Prince Harry?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2560871/Crackshot-Harry-buffalo-kil...
http://www.birdguides.com/webzine/article.asp?a=1159
What a duplicitous prick.
Is this the same Prince Harry?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2560871/Crackshot-Harry-buffalo-kil...
http://www.birdguides.com/webzine/article.asp?a=1159
What a duplicitous prick.
8
7
In reply to RyanOsborne:
So people can't change their opinions in 11 years? We all do stupid stuff between 18 and 20, perhaps he has realised the error of his ways and is trying to make up for it?
So people can't change their opinions in 11 years? We all do stupid stuff between 18 and 20, perhaps he has realised the error of his ways and is trying to make up for it?
11
2
In reply to JoshOvki:
But still went hunting in Spain last year?
> perhaps he has realised the error of his ways
But still went hunting in Spain last year?
3
1
In reply to RyanOsborne:
Your simplistic view is a perfect match to the world, where all animals are equally endangered.
> But still went hunting in Spain last year?
Your simplistic view is a perfect match to the world, where all animals are equally endangered.
11
In reply to JoshOvki:
If I could only meet 20 year old me, and kick him in his stupid head for the stupid things he has and will do...
> So people can't change their opinions in 11 years? We all do stupid stuff between 18 and 20, perhaps he has realised the error of his ways and is trying to make up for it?
If I could only meet 20 year old me, and kick him in his stupid head for the stupid things he has and will do...
9
In reply to wintertree:
I don't think someone who inflicts the suffering and death of animals for his own personal pleasure can hold any weight as a conservationist.
I don't think someone who inflicts the suffering and death of animals for his own personal pleasure can hold any weight as a conservationist.
Post edited at 16:57
5
9
In reply to RyanOsborne:
Not quite sure I get your point. Is it that anyone who kills animals cannot love animals?
Whatever "loving animals" is.
Not quite sure I get your point. Is it that anyone who kills animals cannot love animals?
Whatever "loving animals" is.
4
2
In reply to RyanOsborne:
Crikey, you must also think I'm a duplicitous prick. I used to shoot when I was younger. Just part of how I was brought up. Then when I actually thought about it properly and got old enough to have confidence to voice my own opinion I stopped.
Crikey, you must also think I'm a duplicitous prick. I used to shoot when I was younger. Just part of how I was brought up. Then when I actually thought about it properly and got old enough to have confidence to voice my own opinion I stopped.
13
1
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
Do you still hunt and claim to be a conservationist simultaneously?
Do you still hunt and claim to be a conservationist simultaneously?
3
3
In reply to RyanOsborne:
No, no longer shoot. But I went to Scotland last week because my brother stalks once a year. I just went hill walking every day and popped up a few mountains.
The stalkers themselves are given cull targets per year by the government in order to control the deer population on the hills. So, I would argue they certainly are conservationists thought they still hunt. Personally I don't like to kill the animals but I still eat meat. Which makes me a hypocrite. So I have considering two options currently:
1) Only eating what I am able to catch/kill myself
2) Giving up meat entirely... but i'm too terrible a cook to know what else to eat.
However, the point remains. I think it's entirely possible to hunt and conserve. In fact, it could be argued it a necessity in many cases.
EDIT: Sorry that's a bit rambling. Friend was talking to me as I typed it. But you get the idea.
No, no longer shoot. But I went to Scotland last week because my brother stalks once a year. I just went hill walking every day and popped up a few mountains.
The stalkers themselves are given cull targets per year by the government in order to control the deer population on the hills. So, I would argue they certainly are conservationists thought they still hunt. Personally I don't like to kill the animals but I still eat meat. Which makes me a hypocrite. So I have considering two options currently:
1) Only eating what I am able to catch/kill myself
2) Giving up meat entirely... but i'm too terrible a cook to know what else to eat.
However, the point remains. I think it's entirely possible to hunt and conserve. In fact, it could be argued it a necessity in many cases.
EDIT: Sorry that's a bit rambling. Friend was talking to me as I typed it. But you get the idea.
Post edited at 17:22
15
1
In reply to RyanOsborne:
some shooters do good work for the environment - nearly all land owning conservation bodies wind up employing people for pest control, be it rabbits, deer or...
some environmental activists have done long term damage - one of the serious pests that need controlling is mink.
some shooters do good work for the environment - nearly all land owning conservation bodies wind up employing people for pest control, be it rabbits, deer or...
some environmental activists have done long term damage - one of the serious pests that need controlling is mink.
10
2
In reply to RyanOsborne:
Firstly I'm not a hunter and never intend to be.
Contrary to popular belief, concern for dwindling wildlife populations, and an enjoyment of hunting are not mutually exclusive. (I mean what will they hunt if there's no animals left.
It has been proven time and again that some populations benefit from hunting if done in the right way . It's also worth noting the huge sums of money that hunting generates for wildlife reserves which benefit the wildlife in the area as a whole.
The real problem tho isn't big game hunting. Big Game hunting involves respect for animals, being aware of how and where to shoot an animal to kill it (rather than maim it like that idiot with Cecil the Lion), it's normally got rituals involved, as well as respect for the environment and not upsetting the balance. (As always in all groups of humans, there are a small minority of utter twunts that go over the line)
Historically of course this has been a problem, but I do think human attitudes to the rest of the inhabitants of the world have vastly improved in this regard to the extent its not really a problem as the volume of hunting licenses is well controlled.
So if hunting isn't the problem what is?
Poaching and harvesting from animals in volume (especially from unsustainable small populations that can't recover) - essentially where animals are killed for profit rather than sport and the animals are shown about the same respect as a hillside being mined - Ivory poachers that kill 10s of elephants at a time, and just hack out the tusks, rhinos hunted for their horns, tigers for what ever chinese medicines want etc.
Global Human population boom - Probably the worst influence on wildlife - habitat encroachment, depleting resources, expanding and more intensive farming, burning forests, toxic waste etc
It's all very well pointing at someone like Harry and calling him duplicitous, but just look in your cupboards and you'll find plenty of products that you've bought that result in animals losing habitat and dying off. Flora - Palm oil from the ex-rainforests of Borneo, bananas from plantations in africa that previously were forests full of apes, tea and coffee from the ex-habitat of snow leopards, Jaguars and Pumas. This doesn't make you unable to have an opinion or lobby for protection for species so I'm not sure why the fact that Harry once shot a Buffalo (a farmed and high population species) prevents him campaigning to reduce human impact on wildlife?
Opinion as to whether it is right for humans to gain pleasure from hunting is an entirely different matter
Firstly I'm not a hunter and never intend to be.
Contrary to popular belief, concern for dwindling wildlife populations, and an enjoyment of hunting are not mutually exclusive. (I mean what will they hunt if there's no animals left.
It has been proven time and again that some populations benefit from hunting if done in the right way . It's also worth noting the huge sums of money that hunting generates for wildlife reserves which benefit the wildlife in the area as a whole.
The real problem tho isn't big game hunting. Big Game hunting involves respect for animals, being aware of how and where to shoot an animal to kill it (rather than maim it like that idiot with Cecil the Lion), it's normally got rituals involved, as well as respect for the environment and not upsetting the balance. (As always in all groups of humans, there are a small minority of utter twunts that go over the line)
Historically of course this has been a problem, but I do think human attitudes to the rest of the inhabitants of the world have vastly improved in this regard to the extent its not really a problem as the volume of hunting licenses is well controlled.
So if hunting isn't the problem what is?
Poaching and harvesting from animals in volume (especially from unsustainable small populations that can't recover) - essentially where animals are killed for profit rather than sport and the animals are shown about the same respect as a hillside being mined - Ivory poachers that kill 10s of elephants at a time, and just hack out the tusks, rhinos hunted for their horns, tigers for what ever chinese medicines want etc.
Global Human population boom - Probably the worst influence on wildlife - habitat encroachment, depleting resources, expanding and more intensive farming, burning forests, toxic waste etc
It's all very well pointing at someone like Harry and calling him duplicitous, but just look in your cupboards and you'll find plenty of products that you've bought that result in animals losing habitat and dying off. Flora - Palm oil from the ex-rainforests of Borneo, bananas from plantations in africa that previously were forests full of apes, tea and coffee from the ex-habitat of snow leopards, Jaguars and Pumas. This doesn't make you unable to have an opinion or lobby for protection for species so I'm not sure why the fact that Harry once shot a Buffalo (a farmed and high population species) prevents him campaigning to reduce human impact on wildlife?
Opinion as to whether it is right for humans to gain pleasure from hunting is an entirely different matter
Post edited at 17:26
14
4
1
3
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
Aside from that many Scottish estates overstock the hills with artifical feeding to make sure there are plenty of be shot.
As for Harry. Perhaps he could speak out in defence of the hen harrier in this country before lecturing everyone else.
> The stalkers themselves are given cull targets per year by the government in order to control the deer population on the hills. So, I would argue they certainly are conservationists thought they still hunt.
Aside from that many Scottish estates overstock the hills with artifical feeding to make sure there are plenty of be shot.
As for Harry. Perhaps he could speak out in defence of the hen harrier in this country before lecturing everyone else.
4
3
In reply to balmybaldwin
>I'm not sure why the fact that Harry once shot a Buffalo (a farmed and high population species) prevents him campaigning to reduce human impact on wildlife?
What about the (almost certain) fact that he once shot an endangered hen harrier?
How dare he make out that he cares about wildlife when he shows such utter disregard for endangered animals in the UK.
>I'm not sure why the fact that Harry once shot a Buffalo (a farmed and high population species) prevents him campaigning to reduce human impact on wildlife?
What about the (almost certain) fact that he once shot an endangered hen harrier?
How dare he make out that he cares about wildlife when he shows such utter disregard for endangered animals in the UK.
3
1
In reply to RyanOsborn
You are posting a non-fact to suit your own prejudices. Read your link to this matter and then tell me where the proof is, you can't simply make things up to suit yourself.
Out of interest, what is your practical contribution to wildlife conservation, or do you just criticise everyone else's efforts?
> What about the (almost certain) fact that he once shot an endangered hen harrier?
You are posting a non-fact to suit your own prejudices. Read your link to this matter and then tell me where the proof is, you can't simply make things up to suit yourself.
Out of interest, what is your practical contribution to wildlife conservation, or do you just criticise everyone else's efforts?
6
4
If its a non fact, Harry can sue for libel when I too suggest he was at least present when a hen harrier was viewed being shot out of the sky at a time when only he and his companion were shooting in the area.
And if he stands up and supports introduction of vicarious liability legislation in England and Wales for wildlife crimes such as raptor persecution I might start to take his tears over rhino poaching more seriously.
(Veterinary surgeon, RCVS Certified in Zoo and Wildlife medicine and Wildlife surveyor for BTO, RSPB, Plantlife)
And if he stands up and supports introduction of vicarious liability legislation in England and Wales for wildlife crimes such as raptor persecution I might start to take his tears over rhino poaching more seriously.
(Veterinary surgeon, RCVS Certified in Zoo and Wildlife medicine and Wildlife surveyor for BTO, RSPB, Plantlife)
3
In reply to Moley:
I think that the ongoing persecution of the hen harrier is a serious blot on the uk's record. I'm not sure about the Sandringham bird, I don't think the evidence is that cut and dried, however, He could do a lot of good by taking a public stand over the many well documented kills by keepers on other estates. The royal family do have a lot of clout here and if they were serious about domestic conservation, both Harry and his father could draw a very high profile line in the sand
but of course they won't...
I think that the ongoing persecution of the hen harrier is a serious blot on the uk's record. I'm not sure about the Sandringham bird, I don't think the evidence is that cut and dried, however, He could do a lot of good by taking a public stand over the many well documented kills by keepers on other estates. The royal family do have a lot of clout here and if they were serious about domestic conservation, both Harry and his father could draw a very high profile line in the sand
but of course they won't...
3
In reply to Ron Rees Davies:
The Crown Prosecution Service stated: The bodies of the hen harriers have not been found and there is no forensic or ballistic evidence.
I am satisfied the police investigation has been thorough and there are no other areas of investigation that can be pursued.
Police had originally identified 3 suspects, Harry, cutsem and Clarke.
Like it or not, on that evidence (or lack of) you can't state that a single person of the group is almost certainly guilty. That is the fact.
We all know the hen harriers situation and many individuals and groups are working hard to improve it, but dragging this old shit up simply doesn't help the future.
The Crown Prosecution Service stated: The bodies of the hen harriers have not been found and there is no forensic or ballistic evidence.
I am satisfied the police investigation has been thorough and there are no other areas of investigation that can be pursued.
Police had originally identified 3 suspects, Harry, cutsem and Clarke.
Like it or not, on that evidence (or lack of) you can't state that a single person of the group is almost certainly guilty. That is the fact.
We all know the hen harriers situation and many individuals and groups are working hard to improve it, but dragging this old shit up simply doesn't help the future.
2
In reply to toad:
Indeed sadly not, especially not when his bessies the Cutsems and the Grosvenors are such prolific grouse farmers, and the Grosvenors in particular have pretty bloody hands when it comes to Hen Harriers 'disappearing'.
> but of course they won't...
Indeed sadly not, especially not when his bessies the Cutsems and the Grosvenors are such prolific grouse farmers, and the Grosvenors in particular have pretty bloody hands when it comes to Hen Harriers 'disappearing'.
1
1
In reply to Moley:
The fact is a reliable witness noticed the disappearance of the birds but unsurprisingly no evidence could be shown to support it. The only unusual bit is that instead of the birds disappearing without trace (as happens often even when sat tagged) there was someone who saw something unusual.
Was he and his mates guilty of shooting it, I dont know.
However I do know that he could lead by example and speak out about the mysterious disappearance of birds of prey near game shooting areas particularly grouse moors.
He is in the ideal position to do so.
> Like it or not, on that evidence (or lack of) you can't state that a single person of the group is almost certainly guilty. That is the fact.
The fact is a reliable witness noticed the disappearance of the birds but unsurprisingly no evidence could be shown to support it. The only unusual bit is that instead of the birds disappearing without trace (as happens often even when sat tagged) there was someone who saw something unusual.
Was he and his mates guilty of shooting it, I dont know.
However I do know that he could lead by example and speak out about the mysterious disappearance of birds of prey near game shooting areas particularly grouse moors.
He is in the ideal position to do so.
Post edited at 09:52
2
In reply to KevinD:
Agreed, his voice would add a lot of weight and hopefully help improve the situation. But even then some people (such as the OP), would start on the "anti Royals, hypocrites" etc. rather than accepting the efforts and moving forward.
I am optimistic in the long run.
Agreed, his voice would add a lot of weight and hopefully help improve the situation. But even then some people (such as the OP), would start on the "anti Royals, hypocrites" etc. rather than accepting the efforts and moving forward.
I am optimistic in the long run.
In reply to RyanOsborne:
I get what you're saying, but humans are contradictory in nature, and killing animals for 'sport' needn't mean somebody isn't an effective conservationist, too.
> I don't think someone who inflicts the suffering and death of animals for his own personal pleasure can hold any weight as a conservationist.
I get what you're saying, but humans are contradictory in nature, and killing animals for 'sport' needn't mean somebody isn't an effective conservationist, too.
2
In reply to RyanOsborne:
Can someone explain to me what is wrong with hunting as long as it is for food and not sport.
Deer No.1 spends his life in a fenced off shield and is sent to the abattoir with the rest to be slaughtered.
Deer No.2 is running in the forest / on the hills, he stops to nibble some grass or maybe have a drink and his existence is over in a fraction of a second.
I know which one I would rather be.
I am not a hunter by the way, even though I eat a lot of meat I can't pull the trigger on an animal. Human maybe but not an animal.
Can someone explain to me what is wrong with hunting as long as it is for food and not sport.
Deer No.1 spends his life in a fenced off shield and is sent to the abattoir with the rest to be slaughtered.
Deer No.2 is running in the forest / on the hills, he stops to nibble some grass or maybe have a drink and his existence is over in a fraction of a second.
I know which one I would rather be.
I am not a hunter by the way, even though I eat a lot of meat I can't pull the trigger on an animal. Human maybe but not an animal.
1
In reply to toad:
Yes.
> I think that the ongoing persecution of the hen harrier is a serious blot on the uk's record. I'm not sure about the Sandringham bird, I don't think the evidence is that cut and dried, however, He could do a lot of good by taking a public stand over the many well documented kills by keepers on other estates. The royal family do have a lot of clout here and if they were serious about domestic conservation, both Harry and his father could draw a very high profile line in the sand
> but of course they won't...
Yes.
In reply to Dax H:
I don't think there's anything wrong with people choosing to hunt a sustainable source of meat to feed their family, I think taking a couple of the (already overstocked) deer from the countryside, butchering it and eating it all is a much better prospect than lots of the farming practices which go on. The same goes for fishing for a couple of mackerel - probably one of the most sustainable sources of protein.
The problem is that Prince Harry isn't doing this, he, despite his history of involvement in hunting for pleasure and likely (considered almost certain by most familiar with the case) involvement in the killing of endangered animals in the UK, is trying to make himself out to be some champion of conservation.
> Can someone explain to me what is wrong with hunting as long as it is for food and not sport.
I don't think there's anything wrong with people choosing to hunt a sustainable source of meat to feed their family, I think taking a couple of the (already overstocked) deer from the countryside, butchering it and eating it all is a much better prospect than lots of the farming practices which go on. The same goes for fishing for a couple of mackerel - probably one of the most sustainable sources of protein.
The problem is that Prince Harry isn't doing this, he, despite his history of involvement in hunting for pleasure and likely (considered almost certain by most familiar with the case) involvement in the killing of endangered animals in the UK, is trying to make himself out to be some champion of conservation.
1
In reply to Dax H:
Not sure of the relevance of this to the thread since it is being discussed about hunting for sport?
Some people would want to ban all hunting some just the sport.
Without any apex predators, some hunting will often be required. However the problem comes when the animals are really being bred for the sport and the impact on the general ecosystem.
Take pheasants. 30-50 million are released a year to try and get shot. In order to protect them until then other animals are targeted and killed. the pheasants may also impact slow worm populations and so on.
> Can someone explain to me what is wrong with hunting as long as it is for food and not sport.
Not sure of the relevance of this to the thread since it is being discussed about hunting for sport?
Some people would want to ban all hunting some just the sport.
Without any apex predators, some hunting will often be required. However the problem comes when the animals are really being bred for the sport and the impact on the general ecosystem.
Take pheasants. 30-50 million are released a year to try and get shot. In order to protect them until then other animals are targeted and killed. the pheasants may also impact slow worm populations and so on.
1
In reply to RyanOsborne:
But it is possible for people to change.
So he did something stupid a few years ago and possibly killed endangered animals in the UK, who's to say he doesn't look back on that with regret?
> I don't think there's anything wrong with people choosing to hunt a sustainable source of meat to feed their family, I think taking a couple of the (already overstocked) deer from the countryside, butchering it and eating it all is a much better prospect than lots of the farming practices which go on. The same goes for fishing for a couple of mackerel - probably one of the most sustainable sources of protein.
> The problem is that Prince Harry isn't doing this, he, despite his history of involvement in hunting for pleasure and likely (considered almost certain by most familiar with the case) involvement in the killing of endangered animals in the UK, is trying to make himself out to be some champion of conservation.
But it is possible for people to change.
So he did something stupid a few years ago and possibly killed endangered animals in the UK, who's to say he doesn't look back on that with regret?
Post edited at 13:29
2
In reply to RyanOsborne:
The problem isn't that Prince Harry is doing this. The problem seems to me to be that you won't accept people can change. He clearly gives a shit about the natural world which immediately puts him ahead of most.
I know when I was growing up 'conserving way of life' was considered as important as 'countryside conservation'. And for many gamekeepers birds of prey pose a threat to their way of life, therefore they feel it's justified to get rid of them. Obviously, we here can see this is wrong. But speaking from experience it's not immediately obvious if you're inside that kind of environment (not that I ever killed anything illegally however have heard of badgers being shot pretty regularly).
> The problem is that Prince Harry isn't doing this, he, despite his history of involvement in hunting for pleasure and likely (considered almost certain by most familiar with the case) involvement in the killing of endangered animals in the UK, is trying to make himself out to be some champion of conservation.
The problem isn't that Prince Harry is doing this. The problem seems to me to be that you won't accept people can change. He clearly gives a shit about the natural world which immediately puts him ahead of most.
I know when I was growing up 'conserving way of life' was considered as important as 'countryside conservation'. And for many gamekeepers birds of prey pose a threat to their way of life, therefore they feel it's justified to get rid of them. Obviously, we here can see this is wrong. But speaking from experience it's not immediately obvious if you're inside that kind of environment (not that I ever killed anything illegally however have heard of badgers being shot pretty regularly).
Post edited at 13:28
2
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
Do you honestly believe he's changed? Like actually honestly? Hunting (grouse, deer, big game) is a way of life for royals, and nothing has convinced me that he has changed. If he has, why would he not apologise for the hen harrier that 'disappeared' over Sandringham when him and his chums were out shooting birds? Why would he not speak out against grouse farmers who own the land where hen harriers 'go missing' on a regular basis? I'll believe Harry has turned into someone who really cares about wildlife, endangered animals and conservation once he starts talking about these issues for which he is on the wrong side of the fence.
Do you honestly believe he's changed? Like actually honestly? Hunting (grouse, deer, big game) is a way of life for royals, and nothing has convinced me that he has changed. If he has, why would he not apologise for the hen harrier that 'disappeared' over Sandringham when him and his chums were out shooting birds? Why would he not speak out against grouse farmers who own the land where hen harriers 'go missing' on a regular basis? I'll believe Harry has turned into someone who really cares about wildlife, endangered animals and conservation once he starts talking about these issues for which he is on the wrong side of the fence.
In reply to Timmd:
He might. A good way to show that would be to join one of the various campaigns against the disappearance of raptors on grouse moors and start speaking out about it.
Probably be more effective than his international holidays.
> So he did something stupid a few years ago and possibly killed endangered animals in the UK, who's to say he doesn't look back on that with regret?
He might. A good way to show that would be to join one of the various campaigns against the disappearance of raptors on grouse moors and start speaking out about it.
Probably be more effective than his international holidays.
1
In reply to RyanOsborne:
I don't know much about the missing hen harriers. I had a google and it seems it was 8 years ago and there were no charges were brought. And even if it did happen it sounds like there's a 1 in 3 chance that the shooter was Harry. So I'm not really sure what you want?
You talk about him being on the wrong side of the fence on some issues, but I can't find anything that suggests he supports killing of birds of prey to protect grouse. Nor any evidence that he hasn't suggested it's wrong. I can find exactly zero on the topic from him either way. I also can't find anything about factory chicken farming, tougher sentencing for animal abusers, Chinese bile farming, whaling or anything else. But this isn't to say he doesn't care.
Honestly, I think personal bias against the royals may be blinding you a little here.
And do I honestly believe Prince Harry has changed? Well at age 23 I was pro fox hunting, I regularly shot pigeons and pheasant, I went deer stalking and I fished. I'm now 28 and I do none of those things and am actively against most of them. So yes. I believe he can change.
I don't know much about the missing hen harriers. I had a google and it seems it was 8 years ago and there were no charges were brought. And even if it did happen it sounds like there's a 1 in 3 chance that the shooter was Harry. So I'm not really sure what you want?
You talk about him being on the wrong side of the fence on some issues, but I can't find anything that suggests he supports killing of birds of prey to protect grouse. Nor any evidence that he hasn't suggested it's wrong. I can find exactly zero on the topic from him either way. I also can't find anything about factory chicken farming, tougher sentencing for animal abusers, Chinese bile farming, whaling or anything else. But this isn't to say he doesn't care.
Honestly, I think personal bias against the royals may be blinding you a little here.
And do I honestly believe Prince Harry has changed? Well at age 23 I was pro fox hunting, I regularly shot pigeons and pheasant, I went deer stalking and I fished. I'm now 28 and I do none of those things and am actively against most of them. So yes. I believe he can change.
Post edited at 13:59
2
1
In reply to RyanOsborne:
You want him to say sorry for shooting something when you don't know it was definitely him who actually shot it?
> Do you honestly believe he's changed? Like actually honestly? Hunting (grouse, deer, big game) is a way of life for royals, and nothing has convinced me that he has changed. If he has, why would he not apologise for the hen harrier that 'disappeared' over Sandringham when him and his chums were out shooting birds?
You want him to say sorry for shooting something when you don't know it was definitely him who actually shot it?
Post edited at 16:18
1
>>who's to say he doesn't look back on that with regret?
He could say it, condemn raptor persecution, and promote vicarious liability legislation.
He could say it, condemn raptor persecution, and promote vicarious liability legislation.
2
In reply to Ron Rees Davies:
He could condemn raptor persecution, but why would vicarious liability be a just form of legislation?
He could condemn raptor persecution, but why would vicarious liability be a just form of legislation?
In reply to Timmd:
Because otherwise (for example) owners of grouse moorlands who allow (and profit from allowing) their game keepers to shoot birds of prey are not held accountable.
Without this legislation, the law simply doesn't have enough clout to effectively deal with the threat to endangered birds.
It's not exactly radical or contentious legislation - Scotland has already introduced it, but England has not.
This is an interesting example of the vicarious liability legislation in action, in Scotland where a game keeper was pressured by the estate manager to kill raptors:
http://raptorpolitics.org.uk/2015/12/01/scottish-game-farmer-convicted-over...
Because otherwise (for example) owners of grouse moorlands who allow (and profit from allowing) their game keepers to shoot birds of prey are not held accountable.
Without this legislation, the law simply doesn't have enough clout to effectively deal with the threat to endangered birds.
It's not exactly radical or contentious legislation - Scotland has already introduced it, but England has not.
This is an interesting example of the vicarious liability legislation in action, in Scotland where a game keeper was pressured by the estate manager to kill raptors:
http://raptorpolitics.org.uk/2015/12/01/scottish-game-farmer-convicted-over...
Post edited at 18:49
In reply to Timmd:
These are crimes often carried out on remote moorland or around concealed pheasant breeding pens. Even when a crime has obviously been committed it can be impossible to prove who was the actual perpetrator.
See for example the recent case where illegal pole traps had been set around some pheasant rearing pens - the Game Farmer involved, though originally found guilty, got the conviction overturned because, although he was responsible for the rearing unit and in charge of the staff, and although he was seen driving around inspecting the site close to the traps, it couldn't be proven that he actually saw them (even though they were rather hard to miss).
https://raptorpersecutionscotland.wordpress.com/2015/12/03/game-farmer-mich...
youtube.com/watch?v=iBUeGoGn_pA&
Vicarious liability would (and in Scotland now does) make it the estate owner/manager's responsibility to ensure staff don't use illegal methods of predator control in order to further the interests of the estate.
These are crimes often carried out on remote moorland or around concealed pheasant breeding pens. Even when a crime has obviously been committed it can be impossible to prove who was the actual perpetrator.
See for example the recent case where illegal pole traps had been set around some pheasant rearing pens - the Game Farmer involved, though originally found guilty, got the conviction overturned because, although he was responsible for the rearing unit and in charge of the staff, and although he was seen driving around inspecting the site close to the traps, it couldn't be proven that he actually saw them (even though they were rather hard to miss).
https://raptorpersecutionscotland.wordpress.com/2015/12/03/game-farmer-mich...
youtube.com/watch?v=iBUeGoGn_pA&
Vicarious liability would (and in Scotland now does) make it the estate owner/manager's responsibility to ensure staff don't use illegal methods of predator control in order to further the interests of the estate.
Post edited at 00:58
3
In reply to abseil:
Why?
Would you prefer a constitution in which we might have a President Cameron or a President Corbyn?.......
> The royal family, as royals, are an endangered species (I wish, I hope).
Why?
Would you prefer a constitution in which we might have a President Cameron or a President Corbyn?.......
2
In reply to Ron Rees Davies:
Thank you for explaining, that makes a lot of sense. A wood supplier in The Peak District has been stopped being used by some of the conservation groups after it's owner (and a land owner) had somebody on their land doing something similar, in the way of catching and killing raptors when they weren't supposed to.
Thank you for explaining, that makes a lot of sense. A wood supplier in The Peak District has been stopped being used by some of the conservation groups after it's owner (and a land owner) had somebody on their land doing something similar, in the way of catching and killing raptors when they weren't supposed to.
Post edited at 13:34
In reply to Trangia:
Having an apolitical figurehead is a strong positive. Having an unelected and unmerited representative is an embarrassment in a democracy. I would hope that we could do very much better than any royal or any agenda-driven career politician.
> Would you prefer a constitution in which we might have a President Cameron or a President Corbyn?.......
Having an apolitical figurehead is a strong positive. Having an unelected and unmerited representative is an embarrassment in a democracy. I would hope that we could do very much better than any royal or any agenda-driven career politician.
3
4
In reply to john arran:
"any royal"? "very much better"?
The Queen has done a bloody good job.
Sorry I diverge from the OP.
"any royal"? "very much better"?
The Queen has done a bloody good job.
Sorry I diverge from the OP.
3
In reply to Trangia:
but the next one is Charles, who has done some very arbitrary things, some good, some bad. And has some very odd ideas, which he uses his unassailable position to foist on us - I'm thinking architecture, alternative remedies, and some of his more bonkers land management stuff which is relevant to the thread.
FWIW, I think the queen has done an ok job, she just started young and seems to have good genes for longevity, together with massively well resourced backup team
but the next one is Charles, who has done some very arbitrary things, some good, some bad. And has some very odd ideas, which he uses his unassailable position to foist on us - I'm thinking architecture, alternative remedies, and some of his more bonkers land management stuff which is relevant to the thread.
FWIW, I think the queen has done an ok job, she just started young and seems to have good genes for longevity, together with massively well resourced backup team
1
1
In reply to Trangia:
I completely agree that the queen has become very good in the role. My issue is not what she does or how she does it, but what it represents to award such an important and prestigious role to any person without regard to individual merit or character. No doubt this will remain the case until one such shoe-in proves particularly inept or unpopular, but personally I think the role should be merit-based rather than inherited.
I completely agree that the queen has become very good in the role. My issue is not what she does or how she does it, but what it represents to award such an important and prestigious role to any person without regard to individual merit or character. No doubt this will remain the case until one such shoe-in proves particularly inept or unpopular, but personally I think the role should be merit-based rather than inherited.
1
2
In reply to john arran:
As in USA (current incumbant excuded)? Or France? Or Italy? Or Syria? Or Zimbabwe? Or South Africa? Or Russia? etc etc
No system is perfect, but at least under a Monarchy a bad incumbent is relatively toothless.
> personally I think the role should be merit-based rather than inherited.
As in USA (current incumbant excuded)? Or France? Or Italy? Or Syria? Or Zimbabwe? Or South Africa? Or Russia? etc etc
No system is perfect, but at least under a Monarchy a bad incumbent is relatively toothless.
Post edited at 15:02
1
1
In reply to Trangia:
I think you're confusing political positions with symbolic ones. And I would also say that just because it isn't easy to find good examples elsewhere doesn't mean that our own highly flawed system can't be improved upon.
I think you're confusing political positions with symbolic ones. And I would also say that just because it isn't easy to find good examples elsewhere doesn't mean that our own highly flawed system can't be improved upon.
1
1
In reply to john arran:
I think we are not going to agree on this, but maybe we can both accept that no system is perfect?
I think we are not going to agree on this, but maybe we can both accept that no system is perfect?
1
In reply to Trangia:
I've never entirely understood what the 'job' is. Or why it's at all necessary.
We expect the Queen to perform a purely symbolic and essentially null role. That being the case, why not do away with it altogether and simply rely on the parliaments we democratically elect?
> The Queen has done a bloody good job.
I've never entirely understood what the 'job' is. Or why it's at all necessary.
We expect the Queen to perform a purely symbolic and essentially null role. That being the case, why not do away with it altogether and simply rely on the parliaments we democratically elect?
3
2
In reply to Rob Parsons:
I'm thinking vicarious legislation could be a good thing to be adopted in England, and wonder if 38 degrees might take it up as something worth pursuing.
I'm thinking vicarious legislation could be a good thing to be adopted in England, and wonder if 38 degrees might take it up as something worth pursuing.
Post edited at 00:36
1
In reply to Timmd:
I'm thinking vicarious legislation could be a good thing to be adopted in England
What does 'vicarious legislation' actually mean and why does it only need to be applied in England?
I'm thinking vicarious legislation could be a good thing to be adopted in England
What does 'vicarious legislation' actually mean and why does it only need to be applied in England?
In reply to FactorXXX:
See my post above. Vicarious liability is holding a landowner/manager responsible for criminal activity carried out on their land or for the benefit of their estate without having to prove they were directly responsible. For instance if illegal poisons or traps, or the bodies of illegally killed birds of prey are found on the estate at present it is impossible to prosecute unless you can show exactly who put them there.
And only needs to be applied in England (and Wales) because it's already applied in Scotland.
See my post above. Vicarious liability is holding a landowner/manager responsible for criminal activity carried out on their land or for the benefit of their estate without having to prove they were directly responsible. For instance if illegal poisons or traps, or the bodies of illegally killed birds of prey are found on the estate at present it is impossible to prosecute unless you can show exactly who put them there.
And only needs to be applied in England (and Wales) because it's already applied in Scotland.
In reply to Timmd:
There's already been petitions about it, you can read the government's response here:
https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/23089
There's already been petitions about it, you can read the government's response here:
https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/23089
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
Interesting. What changed for you?
I became vegetarian at about 20 (now 45) even though, or maybe because of, my dad was a butcher (properly skilled one, not an abbetoir processing line worker) with his own shop. His dad had been a butcher too. My mum's family were all farmers. It was what I saw of the business that made me give up meat.
Interesting. What changed for you?
I became vegetarian at about 20 (now 45) even though, or maybe because of, my dad was a butcher (properly skilled one, not an abbetoir processing line worker) with his own shop. His dad had been a butcher too. My mum's family were all farmers. It was what I saw of the business that made me give up meat.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...