If you want to put forward a point of view on grouse shooting then you are very welcome to comment on this blog – where your comment won’t be deleted and won’t be selectively quoted.
If you want an argument with me about grouse shooting then come here and try your luck.
Yesterday evening a pack of Twitter accounts all started trolling me. Here are some of their outputs:
These are all pro-shooting accounts.
@richard_freelan is a new name to me but says he is a freelance writer on agriculture. His name is Richard Crowhurst. He doesn’t seem very keen on LACS or Chris Packham.
@gethinjones123 is more interesting in that he sometimes tries to string an argument together. He runs Britannia Sporting. He spends a lot of time asking me questions on Twitter – but always turns down the opportunity to post a comment on this blog – perhaps, who knows, because it would be there for ever and so would the answer to whatever point he was trying to makeI wonder whether it is a hobby or a job?
@kevinjholmes is a BASC, GWCT & CA member who lives in Chelmsford and works in IT.
@wildlife_mgr is a NGO and GWCT member. His name is Mark Horsfall and he is a fellow blogger. He runs Yorkshire Wildlife Management from Catterick. Mark keeps asking me questions on Twitter which I’d be very happy to answer in more than 140 characters on this blog – where they would stay and could not be deleted. He has always turned down the offer. He gets a bit irritated if after slagging me off he then doesn’t get answers to his questions. He says he is an ambassador for Ridgeline Clothing.
@BeanNbgooner64 Nigel Bean can occasionally say something witty but believes that we are all plotting in some strange way. He has turned down the offer, still open., to post comments on this blog if he wants an answer in rather more than 140 characters but has so far turned down that opportunity. I wonder why? He posts widely in the media under the name of TheAldenham and has a blog too.
Anyway it was a great pleasure to be trolled by them all at once yesterday evening – while I was cutting the grass. It would be impossible for them to claim that this was anything but a coordinated hate attack from a bunch of accounts that support shooting. Thanks guys – you have done yourselves proud. You’re the type of allies that M&S really need to appeal to their customers.
Other trolls are available.
And, by the way, the photo of me belongs to Charlie Moores and the book is out of print.
[registration_form]
There is some guy on various angling clubs’ websites called Marc Whelan who is going around bragging about “winding up” yourself and Chris Packham too. Just in case you come across him as well, if you want to add to your list of known trolls.
Andrew Fox is another. He likes to ask Mark a question on here, then runs off to his FB page, to announce to his disciples that Mark refuses to answer his questions, ignoring the answers which are quite detailed and have links to back them up. Andy Richardson says of him: ‘trying to do my job? Leave it to people who know what they’re talking about.’
Hi Mark. You asked me to comment on this blig, so hear goes. How much do you personally contribute, in time and or monetary investment, in practical conservation measures? Why do you begrudge any contribtuion to upland economies via M&S shoppers?
I look forward to hearing from you.
Pssst, dude, about your M&S question, you need to make your strawman less obvious if you want to be a decent polititroll. It shouldn’t be immediately obvious from the question what direction you are planning to run on with the response. You need to work harder with that one.
That’s logical fallacy number 2.
Richard – do I get an apology for your behaviour yesterday evening?
Do you think that posting a photo of me with the caption ‘I specialise in manufacturing disinformation on a scale you couldn’t imagine’ really gives you the right to ask me personal questions?
However, I support a number of wildlife conservation organisations as my occasional updates on this blog will show you. I have also, in a voluntary capacity (yes, that means unpaid), led a campaign for a better upland future for about two years. I know it’s not one that you agree with but that’s tough.
I don’t think that M&S should sell grouse meat because they haven’t come clean on the lead levels nor on their ‘industry-leading’ code of practice. I won’t be shopping with them again until they say they are not selling grouse or come up with evidence in the public domain that they are doing something good. there is no evidence of that yet.
Now how about that apology? Or are you planning to do some more trolling?
I asked M&S about the grouse meat they intend to sell and if I could feed it to my 1 and 2 y old children. They were unable to recommend that my kids should eat it.
A naive and irrelevant comment Mr Crowhurst. The sole issue here is the criminal and unsustainable management of driven grouse moors. If you want to debate that in an intelligent and informed way then there is a large body of science available on the subject. It would be great to read your detailed rebuttal in due course.
“… this blig, so hear goes”
Sent from my iPotato
Always with the questions never with any answers. Have you read Mark’s book Inglorious? What do you personally do for conservation? Do you make a habit of smearing your opponents?
Mr Crowhurst.
How about first coming up with some evidence that Mark is spreading disinformation as you claim.
To argue, i need a reference from a reliable source preferably peer-reviewed.
In case you don’t know, not liking something isn’t evidence and not liking someone even less so.
Hey Richard,
Could we have one (just one Richard!) example of the disinformation you claim Mark peddles?
Then we could have a discussion… However, I am conscious that there are a small number of people, amongst whom it sadly seems likely that you and your fellow trolls number, for whom no amount of discussion or reviewing of the facts is likely to make any difference. The BBC recently covered this capacity to cover ones ears to the facts in an excellent article I recommend to everyone (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36744911).
The good news though is that you and I can overcome this instinctive denial of facts which contradict our established views by being alert to the tendency: “We can combat this tendency, and measurably improve our judgements, when we become alert to it. Indeed, the hallmark of pioneering institutions is that they deal with cognitive dissonance not by reframing inconvenient evidence, but by creating systems that learn from it (and thus avoid related biases such as “group think”).”
I can’t think of a better example of “group think” than the nonsense spouted by the CLA, BASC etc on grouse shooting and then repeated by their unthinking readership. This month’s issue of The Field even prints the following (laughable if it wasn’t so damaging) demonstrably false claim that “moorland ensures a rich biodiversity, in which all forms of wildlife can flourish”. Really? Do you want to quantify that claim? Are we talking species richness or species evenness? All forms of wildlife? What does that even mean, biologically speaking?!
(Gamekeeper: “Erm, you know, like it says, all forms I suppose. Like red grouse and er, meadow pipits and er lapwings and curlews, ooh and heather. Lots of heather. And maybe, erm, a merlin – I think the boss says they’re allowed? But maybe not hen harriers, or buzzards, or stoats, or weasels, or polecats or mountain hares, badgers or crows, ravens or wild cats, eagles or goshawks, red squirrels or hedgehogs. Or trees actually. Or bogs ideally – not good for the grouse you see. So not those forms. No.”)
Now, Richard, which specific bit of evidence presented by Mark that grouse shooting is an environmental affront to our natural heritage would you like to dispute in a dispassionate review of the facts?
Hello Hugh,
How utterly hilarious is that below statement?
“Then we could have a discussion… However, I am conscious that there are a small number of people, amongst whom it sadly seems likely that you and your fellow trolls number, for whom no amount of discussion or reviewing of the facts is likely to make any difference. The BBC recently covered this capacity to cover ones ears to the facts in an excellent article I recommend to everyone (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36744911).”
So you want facts? Ok if your confirmation bias allows read this, very relevant as Lord Bonomy is due to report in Scotland.
https://thealdenham.wordpress.com/2016/06/15/a-trail-of-lies-and-money/
Nigel – welcome – but you should actually use comments to comment not to promote your own work (which all seems a bit dated really doesn’t it?).
Hi Mark,
Lord Bonomy has yet to report his findings.
Cheers
Nigel
Mr Crowhurst. You seem to have disappeared. Don’t you want to tell us how factually incorrect Mark is?
I gather from your attack on Mark that you are a great fan of the truth, facts and transparency.
That is wonderful. So please could share a copy of very had to come by report “81 and Flying” by Gift of Grouse Campaign/Scottish Moorland Group and launched in the Scottish Parliament.
I can find some vague extracts of the report in a cached search but for some reason the report itself, which we know must exists because we have seen a photo of the cover, is not available for the public or scientists to scrutinise which i’m sure you will find quite shocking.
http://www.andywightman.com/archives/category/land-use
It’s a clear sign that bullies don’t like losing and that you’re success & visibility is soaring Mark. The murky life of an upland keeper is being opened up and some clearly think that what goes on should be kept from the public gaze.
If you mentioned Logical fallacy to these lead eaters they would think it was the latin name of something to be shot.
Have i just fallen into one? Probably.
No true grouse shooter would – oops – there’s another one!
I thought it was @wildlife_mgr but either way they all made good points.
It’s all good and well believing in a cause and I have respect for anybody who does. But if they then don’t practice what they are so righteously preaching, well that’s a different matter.
Regards the argument about grouse shooting I posted on your other post about it and you did come back to me. However you did kind of contradict yourself slightly or it was just a misleading comment as you turned the conversation towards using lead free shot and not keeping to the ban. As I’m sure we have all seen the outcome of banning of lead ammunition or not banning it as the case maybe. Good luck with your money making scheme sorry petition and book sales however until it happens I will continue to support our hard working conservationists, that’s the keepers and estate managers not yourself and Chris
That’s a piss-poor attempt at humour – for every decent keeper there seems to be a half-crazed killer in a Barbour coat masquerading as a ‘conservationist’. Get rid of them!
Please say something logical and factual (with source) and then we can debate.
No Hen Harriers though are there? That in itself disproves everything you’ve said.
Yeah you rumbled him, Darren. Leaving a well paid job at RSPB to sell books freelance and promote petitions at his own expense, cunning.
I struggle with your prose but what you seem to be saying is that it’s OK for gamekeepers and estate managers to earn their crust doing what they do (and, in the process, a disproportionate number of them evidently feel obliged to break the law) but wrong for Mark earn money for what he does. Quite why you think it’s somehow morally wrong for someone who has a lifetime’s experience working in conservation to get paid for writing about the fruits of their experience, critique what they firmly believe is damaging to our wildlife whilst managing not break any laws (I hope) mystifies me. I am fairly certain that a man of Mark Avery’s background and experience could make a far better living as an environmental consultant to various large companies so doing what he does simply for monetary gain seems an unlikely motive. In fact, it seems to me to be what I’d call a baseless slur something decent people apologise for …
Ah John, there’s the rub, ‘decent people’.
Intelligent and informed, well now that would be interesting from trolls? Probably why they troll, given they’ve no robust science to support their stance they have to lurk in shadows?
Their contributions appears to be helping nudge the 61k to the next notch ….
“…then they fight you…”
So basically they all have a vested financial interest in ‘why shouldn’t we be allowed to kill everything’, except Nigel Bean who is just bonkers. And every time they start stirring we get another thousand names on a petition to ban driven grouse shooting. The landed gents will be pleased with their minions. It should be pointed out that this petition is here because of the indiscriminate killing of British wildlife by a sub-human minority. The trolls are associating themselves with the killers – not smart.
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
I wonder Mark, which piece of disinformation your opponents are concerned about. Could it be the risks to consumers of lead in game meat, the potential for intensive moor management to increase the risks of downstream flooding, the mass slaughter of mountain hares on some estates, or the shooting and poisoning of legally protected species? Perhaps they would like to tell us rather than just indulging in meaningless, childish antics.
Or, perhaps, they are just ignorant of the mass of supportive evidence available from other sources!
Sandra, this post has just taught me a lesson. The grouse lobby etc. deliberately avoid facts and only attack with vague unsubstantiated claims and ad hominem. I must be very thick because the penny has only just dropped. They deliberately use these tactics, unconsciously or otherwise, precisely because they can’t be argued with.
Mark I see you are now sharing posts from “stop the cull” – does this mean you support this organisation? Are you aware that they promote criminal damage and give out personal phone numbers and encourage people to phone them up in the middle of the night? Do you support these kind of tactics?
One example of what I feel would go beyond mere trolling – was that given in evidence by {edited by MArk – way off topic]
Oh and while we are on the subject – you are a high profile LACS supporter – why don’t you ask them about {edited as off topic]
giles – I’m not high profile and you are wandering off the topic, and saying ‘while we are on the subject’ is no disguise.
“I’m not high profile” – aren’t you? well Mark you are very clever you must be it says so on the introduction to your blog.
Why don’t we have an argument about whether further restrictions on moor burning to prevent environmental damage would be a good or a bad idea. Which side would you be on? Maybe you agree with me? We don’t have to disagree on everything.
I would genuinely be interested in what your view is. And yes I now what you will say read your book. But you are trying to get an argument gong are you not? Or maybe a debate? Perhaps there might be a consensus here.
I’ve been trying to persuade your friends at LACS that making animal cruelty illegal would be a good idea. I have to ask why wouldn’t they? And in a similar vein why wouldn’t you be in favour of tighter environmental regulation on moor burning. Sometimes I think the hardest subjects politically are where people agree not disagree.
From what I understand your position is that DGS in it’s present form depends on intensive moorland management. If that is true and such management is damaging – wouldn’t restricting such management effectively ban DGS in it’s current form? Moreover such restrictions could also apply to damage resulting from other activities.
giles – stick top the point. Remember? Stick to the point.
giles – no.
But you must surely be aware that by posting their publicity you are giving them credibility?
giles – it doesn’t work with you though does it?
Giles guilt by association is a logical fallacy as is your ad homini about a persons shape. So along with straw man, you have scored a hat trick (at least). And yet you wonder why you are ignored!
What’s your number Giles? I keep trying Wittgenstein but he must have changed his. I don’t like admitting it but, in desperation, i’ve been using the Dogs and Deer Chatline, but it’s just not enough to get me through the small hours.
Also could you kindly include me on your list – I’m a bit upset about being left out.
My key argument is that a better approach to environmental damage caused by Grouse shooting is to introduce better regulations over such damage. Regulations that would apply to everybody not just one form of grouse shooting.
A good example is moor burning. If moor burning is causing serious damage to SSSIs it seems to me that there would be a good argument in favour to changing the law on it.
I’ve made this point several times but you’ve never responded to it perhaps because you write it off as ‘trolling’?
I’ve also suggested that a way of reducing the killing of protected species on estates would be to introduce punitive civil liability for it. As this would be civil liability it would have a lower standard of proof and would effectively bankrupt estates that kill raptors. I’ve ‘trolled’ you with that argument too several times but you also have never addressed it.
I don’t know about the word ‘trolling’ actually. I think it may sometimes be used to describe the actions of slightly frustrated people who are keen to engage in a debate and feel they have positive suggestions and contributions to make but are generally dismissed because what they say does not fit in wth what they feel to be ‘group think’
I am not sure if your comment is trolling or not, you have made some actual statements but why the obsession with what Mark thinks?
If you have a solid argument it should stand alone why do you demand an answer to every comment? It seems very childish.
My questions are rhetorical.
I’m not “demanding an answer” Mark has made a post suggesting people who want an ‘argument’ on DGS to post here. I’m not actually suggesting an ‘argument’ just perhaps a debate about a slightly different approach to the issue that that which he favours.
I’m also not expecting Mark to engage in such a debate as I know how he operates.
‘Argument’ means ‘debate’ Giles …… as in ‘arguing the point’ …… well it does in my thesaurus anyway ………
Perhaps you should also take your point re. debating to those who troll – I would welcome a slightly different approach from them ……
Well yes – although can have other connotations.
There seem to be two topics here 1 DGS and the other trolling and the use of the internet to attack people in an unpleasant way – although it seems we are only allowed to talk about people attacking Mark and not people mark supports attacking others.
The fat controller does not like having his hypocrisy pointed out.
giles – I really may not get to that comment for a very long time now. You wasted my time with over a dozen dull comments.
You aren’t debating you are asking opinions, again and again.
Most are straw man fallacies. You assume that Mark has an opinion that you then argue with yourself.
Has Mark ever opposed licensing, subsidy withdrawal or vicarious liability which fit under some of your suggestions? He just blogged about the former the other day. I gather he just prefers a ban but he has written a lot on other methods. I agree with what he has written in Inglorious. Deterrents aren’t going to work if the criminals are never caught. It is a delaying tactic.
But i am glad you support subsidy withdrawal and vicarious liability in England where ever the crimes occur and have signed the petition to licence shooting in Scotland.
Please spread to your comrades.
https://markavery.info/2016/07/13/game-licensing-scotland/
Annad it’s difficult to have a debate with you on here – I made a long post abut DGS and alternative means to resolve the issue. Unfortunately Mark won;t publish it.
giles – you’ll have to be patient. I’m reading it. If you just spam this blog with multiple comments then don’t expect me to give a high priority to your comments. this comment has delayed the possible publication of your earlier comment. See?
Don’t get stroppy with me. That’s not very likely to make me rush to publicise your comments. See?
I’ve not said I support vicarious liability – why are you putting words into my mouth?
I’d be happy with licencing upland grouse moors, vicarious liability, really stiff penalties for breaches of environmental and wildlife protection laws, and more funding for wildlife protection unit of police. As is, there is already adequate protection written into the law, but it is ignored. If these things don’t come soon then I am sure that in the UK, a majority of the population will simply support full on rewilding of the UK uplands.
Missed you Giles, but surely you could have squeezed in dogs/deer/dogs/deer/dogs/deer. What’s happened to you, man? I hardly recognise you?
As we seem to be asking questions of a personal nature, I would like to know:
What the mole-catcher/fencer (aka @wildlife_mgr) personally contributes financially to conservation ….
What use is @gethinjones123 ….
Where the hell did @kevinjholmes get those dreadful, tacky tan shoes ……. not really appropriate sailing gear are they, hey, Kev?
And trolling Giles ….. I block people who troll me ….. they don’t want to get into a debate ….. all they want is to make smart comments ….. The only shooter I respect (and I know some don’t) is the only one I’ve ever had a decent debate over DGS with and that was Ed Coles – I respect other views if they can be justified ……
Don’t forget; trolls are one of our greatest assets! Your typical troll is just sharing laughs with their own little crowd, while offending many previously non-committed bystanders. The best example I can think of the top of my head is
https://twitter.com/voice_rural/status/742859957884866560
(though at first glance it’s often taken as a parody account, on the lines of the excellent Iffy Gamekeeper https://twitter.com/BreadIsMurder, honest, it’s real!)
‘Smashing foxes’ may play well to the home team, the rest of the nation just thinks ‘what a tragic bell-end, give me whatever he doesn’t want!’.
Keep it up trolls, you do us a great service.
Fascinating that Mark seeks to out ‘trolls’ on one side of the debate but censors posts about what most people would consider far far worse than mere trolls on another.
giles – not odd if you could get it into your head to stay ON TOPIC.
ON TOPIC!
on topic means on the topic of the blog not on your favourite topic whatever the subject of the blog.
On topic.
Get it?
On topic.
Mark I am not stupid. This blog post is about the use of the internet to attack people in an unleasant way. I am pointing out hiw you support people who do just that.
That is not off topic it is on topic and that’s exactly why you don’t like it.
On topic.
get it?
On topic.
I’m quite sure you do.
giles – you see how you keep slowing me down? I’m off to have a meal out in a minute. You might have to wait a while for that comment to be read – and even later for it to be published (if it ever is).
No probs Mark enjoy your meal. I’m sorry if you were upset about your picture being posted but maybe have a think and see the connection. It really isn’t “off topic” to point out that you support other people that post videos of peoples children they have secretly filmed.
You may not like that picture being posted but at the end of the day you give your backing to people who do far far worse.
And maybe think how you would feel if people were encouraging others to ‘phone you and your family in the middle of the night. You support people who do that remember.
I really don’t think you backing of people and organisations that do these things is off topic as you say it is.
giles – we’ve done all this before.
As a great man once said { edited out by Mark]
giles -stop spamming.
Yep they are crawling over BBCspringwatch page as well they sure don’t like you and Chris and any mention of hen Harriers..They have shared their post with each other about 127 times which got them 400 plus ‘likes’.Although their arguments are never backed up although I was told that potatoes have as much lead as shot birds!and some resorting to mocking Chris on how he talks..v sad.
A mere bagatelle; 62K. Of great import; 7976/12 days away from a free book!
Correction: 5976 from a free book!
Re the picture; will I get a tenner with it?
62,000 signatures! Oh yes… 🙂
Giles – you say that “A good example is moor burning. If moor burning is causing serious damage to SSSIs it seems to me that there would be a good argument in favour to changing the law on it.” You seem confused. The law already makes it illegal to damage a SSSI what would you have it changed to? Its the same issue as Hen Harriers in a way – grouse moor management leading to illegal activity which damages the environment which doesn’t get dealt with by the law. I hadn’t realised you misunderstood the whole concept.
A couple of other points.
Mark can you please tell me how you made all this money from your petition? I’m curious and would like to try myself.
So many of the pro-shooting fraternity love to come on here/twitter/fb and fling questions (often irrelevant) or accusations around. However when the answers or evidence is presented (they love evidence, lots of it and some must clearly struggle with google)you get one of three reactions 1. its not enough and they want more info/evidence which you may or may not present. Anyway, it won’t be enough, or its the wrong sort, or its too old, or from a different country, or in a different decade, either way move to number two or three. 2. they call you names and block you from their social media or, 3. they disappear only to reappear on another debate with the same questions as before, in which case go back to number 1.
And finally, the trolling must have been incredibly successful – I only saw it via Marks own twitter feed. I’m sure theres a phrase that can be used to describe what they were trying to do vs what they actually achieved.
Bilyo you say that the law makes it illegal to damage an SSSI yet most moor burning is done legally so either you are wrong or the moor burning isn’t causing damage otherwise it would be illegal.
Many thousands of acres are burnt legally every year it’s not done in secret. You can’t burn thousands of acres of land secretly.
Exmoor National Park Authority is very supportive of moor burning – and no nothing to do with DGS. Are you seriously suggesting that they are promoting crime? I’m sorry but they are not. The moor is legally burnt.
If you are really suggesting that people just don’t bother with the law – neither the land owners or the authorities then what exactly is the point of having laws?
maybe look here – and then understand [edited by Mark – way off topic]
How on earth is a post {edited by MArk because Giles is wandering off topic as usual]
giles – this post is about trolling. Shall we keep it on that subject?
You will have to wait for the opportunity of a post about grouse moor management to splurge your views in a comment. Just because you want to say something which has popped into your head doesn’t mean that this is the right place for it to appear.
And if you can’t be a more disciplined about posting a few thoughtful comments rather than a deluge of comments which attempt to take the conversation into your favourite areas then you won’t get many more comments published here.
It’s going to be a hot day – cool it! You have been warned and not for the first time.
Mark look at your own post it says: “If you want an argument with me about grouse shooting then come here and try your luck.”
here I am
giles – oh! are you? I had hardly noticed your spamming posts. Behave or be gone. You want to talk about LACS or dogs all the time and are exhausting my patience. Come back tomorrow, why don’t you.
giles – or it is illegal but the system isn’t very good at catching people and prosecuting them? Hence the RSPB complaint to the EC
Ahh Giles. Your last paragraph “If you are really suggesting that people just don’t bother with the law – neither the land owners or the authorities then what exactly is the point of having laws?” is precisely why a petition calling for the banning of DG is needed.
As per the sssi’s OK, fair point regarding my use of the word illegal. The point is that burning is detrimental to the environment and may be contrary to the requirements of EU legislation hence the RSPB complaint which the EU seem to be taking seriously. This may conclude that the activity is illegal.
I’m sure theres a phrase that can be used to describe what they were trying to do vs what they actually achieved.
“Have a laugh vs had a laugh”?
Giles wrote
‘I’ve not said I support vicarious liability – why are you putting words into my mouth?’
True, for some reason you appear to want civil vicarious liability
”I’ve also suggested that a way of reducing the killing of protected species on estates would be to introduce punitive civil liability for it. As this would be civil liability it would have a lower standard of proof and would effectively bankrupt estates that kill raptors.’
No not civil vicarious liability just stronger civil liability because civil liability does not require the same standard of proof. For criminal liability guilt should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It’s a simple matter of natural justice which I don’t think should be circumvented.
Good Evening Mark!
Just to clarify, when our paths first crossed, on gunsonpegs Facebook page, were you looking for a days shooting? Maybe a double gun day on the high pheasants? Or were you, trolling?
Regards Edward
I’ve looked on gunsonpegs several times Ed ….. don’t consider that trolling ….. just as I look on political party pages or met office pages ……. browsing …….. learning curve ……. Oh! Nice dog btw …….
Hi Mark,
Still waiting for a response?!
Regards Edward
Hi Mark,
Still waiting for a response!
Regards Edward
Less than 300 gets us above “stop the planned referendum……’ .
Er, OK, maybe I need to go to bed.
But gosh, it has been fun reading all the above. But Filbert, come on, he’s never going to understand that comment.
Meanwhile, as we speak, up on the moorland edges there will be many a fox struggling with a snare around its neck/body; will all of them be humanely dispatched at first light? And then I remember why those animals have to suffer at the hands of men – in order to maximise the number of grouse on the moor so that in just over three weeks time a very small number of mainly rich men will be able to blast that surplus of Lagopus lagopus scotica out of the sky. Well that’s all right then – isn’t it? Of course it’s all right because the people involved in grouse shooting say so. And woe betide anyone that attempts to prevent the suffering of our natural heritage for they will be at the mercy of the trolls.
Phew wotta scorcher!
Sorry to see you’ve become a victim of trolling Mark, especially as you are always at pains to be fair and open and offer those with all views the opportunity to comment on your blog. Sadly what you’ve been subject to seems to be just the tip of a very nasty iceberg. There was a documentary on Beeb 3 not so long ago with horrific examples of cyberbullying which in an extreme case lead one young woman to commit suicide and I believe some female MPs for example have suffered sustained harassment.
Fortunately your new friends aren’t in quite this league, but nevertheless what they’ve done is unpleasant and unwarranted. No doubt they feel strongly enough about something e.g. to defend shooting, to think the ends justify the means, but they do their cause and their argument no favours whatsover. They should take a long hard look at themselves. Those of us who care enough to debate the arguments properly should stand with you in support.