I can do that!
Yosser Hughes is applying for a job in Fordingbridge and all he has to do to get it is to put the initials of the Conservancy Trust Game Wildlife in the right order.
I can do that…
Gizza job, I can do that. Gizza job.
GWTC?
CTWG?
WGTC?
Gizza job!
Validating the brief? Gizza job. I’m Yosser. I can do that. All you have to do is walk off a straight line. I can do that. Gizza job.
For details – click here.
For other details – click here.
For yet other details – click here.
Looks like WCTG has realised that it can’t win a media battle against a bunch of part-timers on Twitter and a six-foot tall Hen Harrier. They are right – they can’t win. Where they are wrong is if they think that more staff will help – ‘fraid not. You can’t win ‘cos you’ve got a poor case. Simples!
Let’s ban driven grouse shooting – let’s deliver a better future for the uplands. Please sign this e-petition.
[registration_form]
That’s quite a lot of new overheads, probably the best part of £150k a year with on-costs.
WGTC is clearly flush with cash at a time when most real conservation organisations are feeling the pinch.
With all due respect, how do you know that these are ‘new overheads’ amounting to £150k? Are you privy to the staff comings and goings at the GWCT?
Rob – but maybe you are?
Indeed – sorry I should have made that clear in my reply to Jbc.
“Must be able to maintain strict confidentiality when necessary and be able to differentiate public from confidential information” – translated “Must be able to keep quiet about the real causes of Hen Harrier deaths and be able to differentiate between what we say and the truth.”
Perhaps it’s ahead of a rebrand, new name new image? Maybe Game Industry Team Support? GIST …. ‘cos Wildlife & Conservation, pah and as for Trust that has to be a joke ….
Maybe bully beef & his pals should check out their activities and report them to the Charity Commission? Seem to recall Charities have to deliver public good …. can that level of ‘spin’ be justified in terms of proportion of annual turnover etc.?
Bet they would like to poach you.
I ask this question in all honesty and with no axe to grind. Like everyone in conservation I look at any scientific research from any source and try to be objective. I know Mark that you are now an independent conservation consultant, but is there anything that the RSPB and the GWCT actually agree on?
I work for the GWCT and would just like to say that we work with the RSPB on a number of projects. One small example is the Big Farmland Bird Count where we have been jointly running farmland bird ID days and have produced an ID guide together: http://www.gwct.org.uk/farming/big-farmland-bird-count/farmland-bird-id-guide/
Well I am pleased that the two organisation are working on projects together but that is not really my point. I was more interested in the scientific research for example: GWCT have suggested from their research that while predators have not caused the decline of the songbirds, they do have an impact on their recovery. I am all for robust scientific debate and scrutiny, but where they is consensus that should also be clearly published, otherwise it just becomes ‘yah-boo politics. Conservation is much more important than that.
Mark, I comment here as someone who’s a member of lots of conservation organisations but is not and has never been a member of the GWCT. Looking at these jobs, they look just like the sort of posts that are commonplace in organisations like the RSBP. In short, I’m not sure I understand the point your blog is making?
Jim
Jim – well I can’t help you there. I can help you with the order of the letters, R, S, P, B though.
As a GWCT employee I find it strange that Mark has decided to blog about us hiring three new staff members in our membership and communications department (two of these vacancies arising because two staff have recently left the department). This would bring the total in the department to 12 employees, compared to 682 working in this capacity for the RSPB.