Natural England has replied to me, and at least one of you, concerning our emails about the ‘Man guarding his model Hen Harrier in the Peak District’ affair.The email does come from the email address of the Chair and CEO of NE but is signed by the Area Manager for the East Midlands.
‘Thank you for taking the time to contact Natural England about birds of prey in the Peak District, and for making us aware of the recent video footage that has been posted online. As Natural England’s Area Manager for the East Midlands, which includes the Peak District, I am responding on behalf of our Chief Executive James Cross.
Our stance on wildlife crime and more specifically the illegal persecution of birds of prey is very clear – there is no justification for the illegal persecution of hen harriers; a species that has full legal protection under UK law. Anyone who kills or injures a hen harrier is committing an offence and could face a jail term if convicted. Natural England works closely with the police and other partner bodies on wildlife crime and we share any information we have in relation to suspected illegal persecution.
In respect to this particular report, the police are taking the lead on the matter. Any member of the public who suspects they have witnessed the illegal persecution of a bird of prey should contact their local Police Wildlife Crime Officer, or phone Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.
We will continue to work with the Peak District Bird of Prey Initiative, as a partner, to reverse the declines of our birds of prey.’
This does actually answer the specific question that I asked – it says that NE is going to persevere with the failure of the Peak District Bird of Prey Initiative. That seems a massive waste of my taxes to me – please go and do something more useful.
But it suggests that NE was unaware of the footage of the man taking his model Hen Harrier for a walk until I wrote to them. Really? Despite working closely with the Police on these matters?
My understanding is that the police are not taking this matter any further as no offence has been committed but NE seem unaware of that as they say the police are taking the lead on this matter.
I just have a feeling that if I were writing from a shooting organisation, and were a ‘stakeholder’ then a bit more thought might have gone into trying to impress me with the vigour with which NE is looking out for my interests – but as a taxpayer I get this type of response.
[registration_form]
Mark writes: This is an edited version of a comment that Hugh posted on an earlier post as I was writing this post (so that’s why it is edited).
Hugh writes: Alarmingly Mr Menzies implies that it took my correspondence to make him aware of this incident! However he doesn’t appear to have even properly read my correspondence, as he makes no attempt to address my specific questions. I wonder if this is the same “individual” response everyone else got? [Mark writes: exactly the same as mine, Hugh]
Overall this response fulfils my worst fears in terms of its meaningless platitudes, tepid generalisations and general fobbing off. Of course their hope must be, like the government’s approach to e-petitions, that if they write bland enough responses we will all give up in despair. Or perhaps Mr Menzies will offer his resignation should he fail to arrest and reverse the decline in the Peak District’s birds of prey?
‘Of course their hope must be, like the government’s approach to e-petitions, that if they write bland enough responses we will all give up in despair.’
Brilliant. Insightful and hilarious, Frankie Boyle couldn’t have said it better.
An MEP for my area actually emailed me saying that the more emails he gets from people on a subject from a petition page, the more he ignores them.
Do you have that email still?
Are we sure that NE response wasn’t written by a bot.
We need a CAPTCHA test for this one.
I got exactly the same reply.
I was wondering, is there a conspiracy charge for wildlife crime? If hypothetically a landowner knows that a crime is being committed on their land and then does nothing about it because the criminal pays them, then surely they are part of a conspiracy.
The NT are landowner in the false HH case, and they know that attempted wildlife crime is happening on this estate. They must be getting paid by the people committing this crime. If now a proven case of wildlife crime happens on that estate, then surely the NT have conspired with the people who commit the crime to persecute wildlife for profit???
I have had the same thought many times.
Even signing off on the Hen Harrier Action Plan is an admission of conspiracy.
Langholm is an experiment in conspiracy.
I thought we were going to get our emails answered personally. Therefore I asked a question I’ve had in my mind some time ~ has anyone assessed how much lead is being deposited on the Peak, and what impact that is having on the wildlife ?
I got the same reply as everyone else. So I’ve replied back, and asked it again, reminding them that at least some of the moorland used for grouse shooting is an SSSI.
(Site of Stealthy Special Interest)
Looks like the ‘individual’ response I received – appalling. NE obviously has a vey low opinion of those taking the time to express genuine concerns to it.
Our group had exactly the same too.
I still await my reply …..
Me too Rob ……….
Bland, cop-out, pats head, says ‘There, there’, shrugs shoulders and walks away. Appears completely out of touch …….. Perhaps a little more research by the person replying for the CEO might have been more apt ……… but – tbh – I think it quite rude of the CEO not to have replied ……….. lack of interest or lack of enthusiasm ……. either way, I don’t think the commitment is there, despite the words ………
I also received the identical email. so much for individual responses 🙁
Overpaid cut & paste merchant, waste of taxpayers hard earned? What use is the organisation? Perhaps need a cull?
In anticipated of wails from those nearing pensions, all those excellent principled people who do fantastic spin for the corporate brand ….