Regulatory failure



There’s an excellent post today on the Raptor Persecution Scotland blog about what manner of things might be in any grouse meat that you eat.  Watch out Henry!

I wonder how much medicine from medicated grit gets into Hen Harriers, Peregrines and other wildlife through ingestion? Has anyone looked at that?

Game meat, including Red Grouse, does seem to be immune from many of the checks that you would expect it to face.  There are no lead levels stipulated – and we know that game meat very often has higher lead levels than would be allowed for other meat – often very much higher.

But those wild-living grouse, dosed with worming chemicals, aren’t tested for these chemicals before they arrive in the Iceland freezer. So we have to rely on the law-abiding nature of the British grouse industry to withdraw the chemicals on which they rely to produce unnaturally high densities of Red Grouse for shooting at the right time of year.  Just like we have to rely on them not to carry out wildlife crime. And to protect blanket bogs by not burning them too often.

And those posh restaurants in London which sell grouse…?  What would they say if asked whether they are sure that the expensive grouse they sell do not contain illegal levels of worming chemicals?

We here have a failure of regulation.

It’s at least a double failure.

First, the regulations aren’t all in place – why is there not a maximum lead level set for game meat for human consumption?

hh-2nd-trapaSecond, there is a failure to implement the regulation that does exist. It’s illegal to kill birds of prey and yet we are facing grossly reduced populations of Hen Harrier, Golden Eagle and Peregrine Falcon (and others) simply because it is so easy, and so tempting, for the law to be broken.  Satellite tags will be a solution to this situation, in time. At the moment, governments in both Scotland and England are looking feckless and hopeless as they fail to get a grip on wildlife crime.

Then there is the failure of the regulator, Natural England down here, to get a grip on the intensity of moorland burning – hence the RSPB’s long-running complaint to the EU over Walshaw Moor and many other grouse moors.  Defra looks pathetic on this subject and hasn’t come clean on what its defence is.  And Natural England – is it fit for purpose?

And if no-one is testing chemicals in game meat then what would you say are the odds that everything will be OK? Horse burgers any one?

Heather burning Great Hograh moor. Photo: Colin Grice
Heather burning Great Hograh moor. Photo: Colin Grice

This is a land use that is so intensive, and which needs to be very intensive to command the high customer prices (for shooting the Red Grouse rather than eating them), and has acknowledged criminal element within it, and which pushes the boundaries of every bit of regulation that exists. It’s because large rich landowners have too often been allowed to do whatever they wanted to do, and successive governments have allowed them too often to get away with it.

In the face of regulatory failure one needs to seek a more effective, simpler and cheaper solution – that solution is banning driven grouse shooting. Please sign this e-petition that will bring that day closer.

And yet, the RSPB argues that better regulation is the solution, the National Trust allows driven grouse shooting on its own land in National Parks, and the Wildlife Trusts remain pretty much silent on the subject.

And now go back and re-read the Raptor Persecution Scotland blog to see how badly regulation currently  works.







44 Replies to “Regulatory failure”

  1. “just like we have to rely on them not to carry out wildlife crime. And to protect blanket bogs by not burning them too often.”

    We don’t have to rely on people not to commit crime – we have a police force. Unfortunately people do still beak law and get away with them but that’s life. If you want to find a widely broken law – how about child abuse, speeding, shop lifting – unfortunately that’s the way of things.

    With regard to over burning moorland I’ve posted this question before and will do so again (but suspect you won’t answer – perhaps due to political un-expediency. Would you support tighter regulation (and enforcement of that regulation) of moor burning? It seems to me that moor burning is a pretty public and hard to hide activity – partly due to the considerable amount of smoke and the blackened areas of moorland.

    As far as wildife crime is concerned – it all depends on the law that is being broken.
    I wrote to Professor Patrick Bateson recently about the wildlife crime I commit – using dogs to flush deer. He didn’t comment on legal issues but from his reply he seems to think it a commendable activity.

    Just because something is a wildlife crime does not make it a bad thing and does not mean we should be prevented from doing it.

    An outright ban on driving driven grouse to guns would be absurd. I very much hope people would flout any such law. I’ll certainly give it a go if I can get my hands on a gun :). Why not? Driving a grouse to a gun does NOT kill hen harriers nor over burn moors. I’m not going to be prevented from doing so just because other people do such things. We dilute the concept of ‘wildlife crime’ by passing such absurd laws.

    Here’s my email and the professor’s reply for reference:

    —–Original Message—–
    From: Professor Patrick Bateson []
    Sent: 28 September 2015 09:53
    To: Giles Bradshaw
    Subject: Re: Flushing deer from cover

    Dear Mr Bradshaw

    You are right that my study did not consider the technique that you use to flush deer. Your flushing method seems to me benign and involve no welfare issues. The question is for how long the deer stay away from the areas where you have been with dogs. It was certainly the case that some shot deer were merely wounded but my sense was that the stalkers usually managed to kill the deer instantaneously with one shot. When they aim for the chest the shot causes so much internal disruption to the deer’s internal organs that it dies very quickly. If you did decide to go down the culling by shooting route, you would have to hire people who are expert shots. Beyond that I commend the thoughtful approach you have already adopted.

    with best wishes

    Patrick Bateson

    On 2015-09-28 07:25, Giles Bradshaw wrote:
    > Dear Professor Bateson,
    > I am writing to you with regard to your study “The Behavioural and
    > Physiological Effects of Culling Red Deer” (1997)
    > No doubt you will be aware that the relative merits of various forms
    > of lethal deer management such as hunting with dogs and stalking have
    > been and to an extent remain a highly contentious issue. I have a
    > small holding in North Devon and have experienced a certain amount of
    > damage to my coppiced woodland from what I regard as excessive numbers
    > of red deer. I don’t cull deer but have for many years simply walked
    > my collie dogs through my woods. I am of the belief that this
    > disperses the deer because they naturally fear dogs. It is my
    > experience that when the dogs encounter the deer the deer run off. It
    > is also my view that the deer are less likely to frequent areas where
    > the dogs regularly go.
    > I would emphasise that my activities do not involve an extended chase
    > nor do they ever involve the deer being killed either by the dogs –
    > nor by the use of guns. Often deer will be dispersed without us
    > encountering them directly because they become aware of our presence
    > before we become aware of theirs. If there is a ‘chase’ it will last
    > for less than a minute and for maybe 50 yards or so. The deer may
    > continue to move away from us afterwards but not directly pursued by
    > the dogs. My dogs are farm collies they are bred for rounding up sheep
    > and cattle not for pursuing deer over a distance of some several miles
    > as can be the case with stag hunting.
    > The reason I am telling you this is that it has been suggested that I
    > should now shoot the deer as soon as possible after they are flushed
    > and your work has been cited as ‘proof’ that this is necessary. The
    > killing of the deer is said to be needed because of the ‘harm’ that
    > comes from chasing. B I would have thought that any such harm would be
    > in proportion to the length and distance that the deer run. If for
    > example they ran for two hours and say 12 miles any physiological
    > damage would be considerably greater than if they ran for 30 seconds
    > and 50 yards. Indeed I feel that where the distance and duration of
    > any running is very short then there is probably no physiological harm
    > at all. Moreover the physiological harm from shooting the deer which I
    > never do is obviously considerable. Indeed so considerable that it
    > kills the deer.
    > While I would not expect you to give a definitive assessment of the
    > welfare impacts of my activities as opposed to the various forms
    > lethal control I would like to ask you whether your study considered
    > such non lethal dispersal by flushing or whether it was limited to
    > comparing ‘proper’ stag hunting – ie the pursuit of deer with hunting
    > hounds over a distance of several miles and for a considerable time in
    > order ultimately to be shot with stalking – where the deer are not
    > pursued by dogs but are shot.
    > I obviously do not wish to be cruel and do not believe I am being
    > cruel. I am concerned that your work is being cited out of context as
    > it was not really concerned with people flushing deer simply by
    > walking collie dogs through woods off the lead.
    > I would be incredibly grateful if you could respond to this email and
    > give me your opinion as to whether your study considered such non
    > lethal dispersal where if there is a chase it only lasts for a short
    > distance and where the deer are allowed to escape without being shot.
    > Thank you in advance for any reply which you might be able to give me.
    > Yours sincerely,
    > Giles Bradshaw

    1. Giles – we have regulation of burning. It’s not working.
      We have regulation of raptor protection – it’s not working either.
      We don’t have regulation of lead levels in game meat – but I’m guessing that if we did, they might not work too well either.
      We have regulation of anthelminthic drugs in grouse meat – but we don’t know whether they are working ‘cvos nobody is checking (so let’s call that a fail too).

      I’d like all grouse moor managers t6o be saints and regulators to do their jobs well.

      But I reckon we’d get a better result from banning driven grouse shooting.

      1. Mark nice avoidance of the question there – note the ER on the end of tightER

        Let me put it this way would you support

        a) weaker regulation of moor burning
        b) the current level of regulation of moor burning
        c) tighter regulation of moor burning

        Are you seriously suggesting that the means by which I can shoot a flushed grouse should be regulated because of moor burning? That’s a nonsense.

        If I shot a driven grouse it does not burn a moor nor does it kill a hen harrier nor does it contribute to global warming in any meaningful way.

        The driven grouse shooting industry may do these things but they are NOT essential to the shooting of a driven grouse. Indeed you give plaudits to some estates that shoot driven grouse so clearly you recognise this.

        Let me put it another way – say bubble gum manufacturers are polluting rivers – should we:

        a) Ban people from manufacturing buying, chewing and blowing bubble gum?
        b) Introduce stronger regulations against river pollution and use them to close own factories and other businesses that do not comply?

        If moor burning regulations are not working then tighten them and enforce them. Any business that contravenes such regulations should be massively fined and/or shut down. Would you not agree? The same goes for hen harriers.

        Are you seriously suggesting that you think moor burning regulations and enforcement is sufficient at the moment? It’s quite obvious that you don’t yet stronger regulations and enforcement of them would weigh against your campaign.

        It’s not exactly something that one can do in secret is it? Burning hundreds of acres of moorland? It would not be beyond the wit of man to catch estates doing that would it?

      2. “And protect blanket bogs by not burning them too often.” They shouldn’t be burning blanket bogs at all! It is contrary to the Muirburn Code, and illegal on SSSIs and SPAs. However it is common practice, and in Scotland widely ignored by SNH.

    2. “Just because something is a wildlife crime does not make it a bad thing and does not mean we should be prevented from doing it.”
      You’ve got to kidding surely? A crime is not a bad thing?

      Think you may have too much lead in your diet!

      1. Which of these things which have all been crimes (one still is) are bad?

        1) Harbouring an escaped slave
        2) Gay sex
        3) Sitting on the wrong place on a bus with the wrong skin colour
        4) Flushing out a herd of wild deer with a dog and then refusing to kill them all.

        1. Well, that’s hard to beat as a red herring! Gay sex is still a crime in some countries, but I suspect the answer (if there is one) to your rhetorical question is no.4? However is that really the case? I know of no such law. Your correspondence above suggests that you were ‘advised’ (by NE?) to shoot the deer, which doesn’t surprise me given the politically-driven sea change in the national agencies, but that doesn’t make it illegal NOT to shoot them. Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, of course.

          1. Hi Jack – the Hunting Act exempts the use of dogs to flush deer but on condition that the deer are shot dead asap. It’s quite simple really. The idea is they should be shot to prevent the dogs chasing them.

          2. The exemption in the Hunting Act which Giles

            This comment comes from an invalid email address and so has been removed.

          3. To put it very simply Giles Bradshaw is

            This comment comes from an invalid email address and so has been removed.

          4. “Bradshaw is at bottom an anarchist who seems to think that just because he doesn’t want to kill wildlife he doesn’t have to”.

            Have we stepped through the looking glass?

          5. I’ve checked the Hunting Act and the relevant condition referred to by Giles is apparently that “reasonable steps are taken for the purpose of ensuring that as soon as possible after being found or flushed out the wild mammal is shot dead by a competent person.” However this is in relation to persons undertaking a cull of any wild mammal which they are authorised to kill. No court in the land could convict someone of an offence merely by them incidentally flushing deer while walking their dogs, or even scaring deer deliberately using their dogs. The clear intent of the clause is to prevent deer being pursued over long distances before being killed, which has been shown to cause excessive stress and suffering.

    3. Giles is correct to say that burning can be very public….but as a result, the frequent breaches of the existing “very light touch regulation” are also very visible! This flaunting of the rules in the face of the public and those who are supposed to “regulate” the practice is a mark of the general disregard for regulation that’s out there. Drive over the A9 Drumochter Pass and you will see almost every aspect of burning that is not supposed to happen. Scree slopes, blanket bog, rock faces etc.all burnt very deliberately to make a “nice pattern”. A FOI request to Transport Scotland to find out if they have ever received a statutory notice informing them that burning would be taking place…..will probably reveal very little. But no action…

      1. So

        a) enforce the existing regulations


        b) if necessary tighten them both in terms of penalties and restrictions placed.

        Is that not a valid idea?

        1. Well no… because the current regulations even if enforced, are not sufficient to provide environmental protection. The solution is probably a phased ban of muirburn.

          1. Could I respectfully ask you to read my post. I am suggesting precisely that not only the existing regulations be enforced but also that if not sufficient they be strengthened. You might be right that muirburn should be banned. It might be that it has a place – we call it “swaling” down here and it has nothing to do with Driven Grouse shooting which leads me to the conclusion that onei s not a subset of the other. A bit like this…

    4. Worth pointing out here

      This comment comes from an invalid email address and so has been removed.

  2. Brilliant from both RPS and yourself,thank goodness we have some very clever persistent people on the case to help Hen Harriers.

  3. I wonder if many Rules customers have worms these days ? Could they charge extra for ‘de-worming grouse’ ?

  4. Food and game! If only we could ask Clarissa Dickson-Wright to pick this subject up and start a campaign on the telly…

  5. “I wonder how much medicine from medicated grit gets into Hen Harriers, Peregrines and other wildlife through ingestion? Has anyone looked at that?”

    Er, yes, I think the nice people who run grouse moors thought of that. “Don’t like to harm birds of prey in that way you know, so we shoot them instead.” Decent chaps.

  6. So as a Government body is not doing its duty checking for drugs In Grouse supposing someone gets ill by eating a contaminated Grouse mountain and could they sue the Government.

  7. Why only ban driven grouse shooting? I’ve been familiar with local grouse moor management for almost 50 years, and have carried out monitoring of breeding Hen Harriers and research into their ecology for 17 years. Within the past twenty years, two estates have carried out driven grouse shooting and two have carried out walk-up grouse shooting. All have recently abandoned commercial shooting, partly due to the long term decline of grouse in western Scotland, but before the end the walk-up moors were being burned almost as frequently as the driven moors. Perhaps even more importantly, the harriers and other predators were as ruthlessly killed on all the moors. Many ecologists and naturalists would actually question the wisdom of any burning of heather moors at all. The carbon release problem is widely publicised, but there are more sensitive ecological issues to be considered in terms of damage to invertebrate, small mammal and other wildlife communities which are harmed in the process. Important lichen communities have been lost due to heather burning. Blanket bog habitats have been devastated, and although the Muirburn Code states that this habitat should not be burned, legal restrictions apply only on SSSIs and SPAs, so the malpractice is still common (even on my own study area which is a Special Protection Area for breeding harriers). We should be working to restore these valuable and rare habitats, which will take a long time, even if muirburn stopped tomorrow. There is a need to draw up proposals for a realistic strategy for our heather moors which does not compromise nature against the unsustainable practices of grouse moor management. We can’t just pass a law banning grouse shooting then expect everything to fall into place without a national plan. Ironically we wouldn’t have the remaining heather moors were it not for rich landowners and their shooting interests preventing hill sheep farmers from burning it out of existence. However it’s time to realise an enlightenment in the history of these valuable landscapes, before further environmental damage and loss of natural heritage continues. Add to that the increasingly held belief that killing wildlife for fun is surely unethical in a civilised society.

    1. “but before the end the walk-up moors were being burned almost as frequently as the driven moors. Perhaps even more importantly, the harriers and other predators were as ruthlessly killed on all the moors.”

      So moor burn is not the same as driven grouse shooting – nor is killing hen harriers – exactly my point.

      “There is a need to draw up proposals for a realistic strategy for our heather moors ”

      Exactly – and such a strategy should be backed up by effective enforceable and enforced legislation governing how moorland can and cannot be managed.

      Unfortunately it isn’t a simple issue and doesn’t lend itself to simple sloganising.

      As far as “killing animals for fun” is concerned I can see your point but one has to understand the difference between that and “having fun killing animals”. If and when wildlife is justified, it’s ridiculous and quite wrong to prohibit people from enjoying themselves doing it.

  8. So just to summarise what I think is the position here…

    Because some people continue to burn moors illegally and the authorities fail to enforce moor burning regulations you want to ban me from shooting one particular type of bird in one particular type of way – even though I’ve never burnt a moor?

    I don’t get it. Why should I be made a criminal on that basis? How is that justified?

    I’ve never burnt a moor.

    And then you support me being made a criminal for not shooting driven deer.

    Why do you want it to be illegal to shoot one driven species and illegal not to shoot lots of other driven species? Neither involve moor burning in my case nor killing hen harriers – and let’s be brutally honest neither the police nor you will lift a finger to stop me breaking either law.

    Moreover the idea that people should not comply with appallingly racist/homophobic laws is indicative of excessive lead in the diet!

    I want laws that are actually enforced that draw the line between right and wrong not this kind of politically motivated b*ll&cks which is all about attacking groups of people.

    If there are things wrong with the grouse shooting industry we should regulate it better and enforce those regulations – not take away individuals rights.

    1. giles – that not a summary of my views. Luckily there is a summary available called Inglorious on sale or available to order from any bookshop.

    2. I’m sorry Giles, but I don’t seem to possess the intelligence to understand your logic. It seems somewhat rambling and tangential, but presumably it’s my perception that’s not working? Assuming the reply above is directed at me, it doesn’t summarise my views at all. If you were to participate in driven grouse shooting, the burning of the moor and the illegal killing of the Hen Harriers would be undertaken for your benefit by the moorland manager and the gamekeeper. Without going into the ethics of “having fun” killing wildlife, any grouse shooter who turns a blind eye to these activities is complicit in environmental vandalism and illegal persecution. If everyone involved simply obeyed the law, there might be a weaker case for banning grouse shooting, but the grouse shooting industry shows absolutely no sign of relenting, some 60 years after Hen Harriers were first afforded legal protection. No doubt Mark says all this and lots more in his book, which I must get a hold of!

      1. “If you were to participate in driven grouse shooting, the burning of the moor and the illegal killing of the Hen Harriers would be undertaken for your benefit by the moorland manager and the gamekeeper.”

        No it wouldn’t. One can perfectly well drive grouse to a gun without burning moors, killing hen harriers. Indeed Mark has acknowledged this by praising the exemplary management of some estates which practice driven grouse shooting.

        The issues can be inter related but are not necessarily moreover as Circus Maximus points out there can be moor burning and hen harrier killing without driven grouse shooting.

        I personally doubt I would shoot driven grouse on an “estate” as I doubt I could afford it so I doubt I would be using the services of a gamekeeper or moorland manager either. If I could afford it (maybe Mark could lend me some cash?) I’d go to one of the estates he praises.

        It would just be a nice bit of wildlife crime utterly unconnected with hen harriers or moor burning.

        1. I’m afraid you continue to baffle me, Giles. I’m unaware of any commercial driven grouse shoot which doesn’t involve heather management by burning. There is a possibility of a grouse moor out there somewhere that doesn’t involve illegal killing of hen harriers which Mark knows about, but I’ve never known of one. There is no evidence that the law enforcement agencies are ever going to get on top of the problem, so I firmly believe the only way to protect harriers and reverse the environmental impact of moorland management is to get the guns off the moors. I happen also to hold a strong personal opinion that grouse shooting is unethical, involves too much cruelty and should go the same way as bear baiting and fox hunting. Therefore my stance is consistent and rational. We live in a society where we’re allowed to express such views and argue in favour of fundamental change.

          1. Jack I have already said that I would not shoot on a grouse estate – because I would not be able to afford it. All I would do is have a grouse driven towards a gun. Something which it is perfectly possible to do without setting fire to the undergrowth. And do you have any evidence that all grouse moors are shooting Hen Harriers? Because if you do I’d be most interested in reading it.

            Mark, do you have any such evidence?

          2. giles – I note that your reappearance on this blog on the same tangential topic coincides with a bunch of comments on the same tangential topic from invalid email addresses. Those couldn’t be something to do with you could they? If so, please behave! And as a result, there will be no more comments on this, your, subject on this particular blog post.

          3. As Jack Snipe says …

            This comment comes from an invalid email address and so has been removed.

      2. Sorry not Circus Maximus – it was Jack Snipe that acknowledged moor burning is connected to walked up shooting too.

        Mark’s proposal is to make a technical change to how grouse can be shot. That’s all. People who currently stand in bothies with grouse driven to them would have to walk towards the grouse. You’d get a lot less driven grouse shooting and a lot more walked up shooting – or indeed some other yet to be invented form of grouse shooting which gets round the regulation.

        Moor burning and hen harrier killing could carry on exactly as now as the regulations around them would be un touched.

  9. Giles, if I had any concrete evidence I would report it to the police. As far as the law is concerned my evidence is hearsay, despite the fact I have had gamekeepers and grouse moor managers admit to me privately that they shoot harriers (usually along the lines of “I’d never tolerate a harrier on my moor”). I have been interested in grouse moors and the impact on harriers and other predators for a long time, and although I can imagine you being derisory about my inability to prove it, I know that the default position, amongst keepers that I’ve known, is that harriers are vermin of the first order. I know their culture and ethos from direct contact with a number of people involved in this disgusting ‘sport.’ My belief is at least supported scientifically, if still not proved absolutely, by the strong correlation between recorded harrier persecution incidents and grouse shooting estates. With my knowledge and understanding gained through years of experience, it would be naïve to speculate that the accusations made against the grouse shooting industry are imaginary. What proportion of the actual grouse shooters support illegal persecution of harriers is for them to know, but there is a substantial number who would like to see legal protection for the species removed, or for licenced culling to be permissible.

  10. I’ve not made any comments from any invalid email addresses – I actually wouldn’t blame people as it appears you may be using entered email addresses to spam people -do you make it clear you may be do this Mark? Maybe you do in the small print.. If you do, my apologies. I wonder if you are aware of the relevant data protection and privacy legislation around such issues. You should be. However whether or not it is appropriate to legislate against one activity in order to prevent another activity rather than just legislating against the activity you are trying to prevent is precisely what you want to do so it’s hardly a tangental topic!

    Personally if I were commenting on here afresh I might well seek to conceal my identity as I note quite a few people do – given your politics which involve support for people like John McDonnell who supports criminal direct action including depositing one’s bodily fluids in other people’s food and beverage.

    1. Giles – I do not use people’s emails for anything. Anything except emailing them, sometimes, to check whether the email addresses are real or not. Please apologise for that slur.

      You are sailing close to the wind – behave yourself.

      Two recent new commenters here, ‘responding’ to you immediately made me suspicious and I emailed both of them and both bounced back with invalid email addresses.

      Please do not test my patience or abuse my tolerance. Last warning.

      1. Mark I certainly apologise for any ‘slur’ – in fact I think I did in advance if I got things wrong. However if you are as part of your activities storing people’s email adresses then obviously you must do so under the terms of the Data Protection Act – you may well be aware of that but if you aren’t then I’d have thought I was doing you a favour pointing that out. I’m quite keen on that sort of thing as I work in computing however I have to say I have at various points seen horrors WRT DPA that would make your hair stand on end and which would put any problems with your storage and utilisation of people’s emails to shame (or vice versa). However I do think that it might make sense if are obtaining people’s emails in order to somehow check up on their identity that you make that clear at the point of collection. The DPA does require that the use that people’s information may be put should be made clear. I am merely pointing that out as it’s an important piece of legislation and I am sure you would wish to comply with its letter and spirit. I note you always attribute photographs which is to be highly commended so you clearly do place a certain amount of importance on the legal compliance of your blog.

        As far as the information people put in the Name and Email fields maybe you should make it clearer which ones you require this to be valid for posts to be published? You clearly allow invalid names – unless there really is a “circus maximus” (who I have nothing against btw but I always thought that was an ancient roman stadium.) Or “Filbert Cobb” mmm perhaps he is real? even “Trimbush”. All fine men/women I am sure!

        You have my real name and email btw but I can see why people might want to post anonymously and might not want to give you their real email.

        I’m actually not 100% sure what the relevance of someone’s email is. If someone wants to create an email they can do so in seconds and it doesn’t link to their real name or identity in any way anyhow.

        One last thing – I’m also not really sure why you object to what I say – I’m thoroughly against hen harrier shooting and very strongly for tighter environmental protection for the uplands and indeed lowlands, food standards &c &C. I just don’t personally think your approach – while it may gain some signatures is especially productive.

      2. One last – last point. If you don’t use peoples emails for anything – under the Data Protection Act I think you will find you are not allowed to store them.

        Please see the guidance to the law which states:

        “In brief – what does the Data Protection Act say about keeping personal data?

        The Act does not set out any specific minimum or maximum periods for retaining personal data. Instead, it says that:

        Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes.

        This is the fifth data protection principle. In practice, it means that you will need to:
        •review the length of time you keep personal data;
        •consider the purpose or purposes you hold the information for in deciding whether (and for how long) to retain it;
        •securely delete information that is no longer needed for this purpose or these purposes; and
        •update, archive or securely delete information if it goes out of date.

  11. I fear the fault is mine – I do not often use this email – would you prefer another?

    I do not like Mr Bradshaw’s cavalier attitude to the law of the land and felt obliged to point that out. I apologise also if I was off topic.

  12. I fear the fault is mine – I do not often use this email – would you prefer another?

    I do not like Mr Bradshaw’s cavalier attitude to the law of the land and felt obliged to point that out. I apologise also if I was off topic.

Comments are closed.