Three videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spzyg6RZIPg

It was just over a year ago that the video (above) was filmed of poletraps being set on a Yorkshire grouse moor. This evidence led to a man receiving a police caution for this offence.  One wonders what would have happened if the case had proceeded to an English court.  We might still be unaware of the case, given the length of time that such cases seem to take to be heard, or in Scotland, sometimes not to be heard.  It has been viewed over 3,500 times.

 

This video (above), released by the RSPB today, shows events from mid July 2015 and have not led to a court case where anyone had to face charges.  It has been viewed less than 500 times – but this is only Day 1 of its public exposure.

 

The video above was filmed in 2013 (for heaven’s sake!) and was released only a week ago and has now had over 14,000 views. These events, about which we have only just learned took place at the time that John Armitage had an e-petition running asking for licensing of shooting estates and before any of the three e-petitions that I launched to ban driven grouse shooting.

 

I guess there are quite a few thoughts stirred up by just these three cases (and there are others):

  • is the justice system fit for the purpose of dealing with wildlife crime? And if the answer is ‘no’, what has to change? How do we change it?
  • how can our dismay and disgust at these crimes be most effectively channelled into action that will deliver a better future for wildlife?
  • these cases are clearly just the tip of the tip of the iceberg – wildlife crime is rife on shooting estates and there should be no doubt about it
  • how effective would licensing of shooting estates be to reduce wildlife crime?
  • what options, if any, are open for the RSPB to challenge decisions made on these matters?
  • how many more cases are there in the system stretching back several years?

The RSPB must have been assuming that the two Scottish videos above would have led to high-profile trials and probably convictions of some guilty people.  They haven’t.  What next?

 

 

 

 

 

[registration_form]

6 Replies to “Three videos”

  1. I would suggest that everyone in Scotland who has a canvasser coming to their door mention their abhorrence of the Scottish cases above & ask what their candidate will do to enable such cases to be brought to court. At the very least it will raise awareness.

  2. IN yesterdays blog referring to someone caught by cameras driving in a bus lane. Jason Roberts said “Even if you didn’t see the sign saying you will be filmed there will have been one. If however there wasn’t one and you could prove it then you could have challenged the fine, in the same way the defence challenged the “evidence” in these recent incidents.” In the bus lane case, as a driver new to the area if the notice is not in “large print” how am i to read them. Seems a bit of a lame way of making it legal. Car parks have to have legible and visible signs of there charges and penalties and cannot hide them behind a bush. Anyway, so if RSPB put up a notice in this size print by the camera would that cover them. The argument does not seem to be about having a camera on someones property, but I guess that would arise.

  3. Very relieved to read your list of questions at the end of your blog, Mark.
    I was beginning to worry that there was no strategy, or even much of an drive to formulate one, during the months following the Westminster ‘debate’.
    My view, for what it’s worth, is that you/we should focus on applying pressure in areas where there might be some hope of progress – Scotland, the RSPB, the NT (and NTS), the National Parks, the Wildlife Trusts and so on.
    My guess is that most mainstream politicians are more likely to respond to animal cruelty arguments rather than conservation ones, although both are obviously important.

  4. I am absolutely appalled at this decision. Someone in the criminal justice system has decided if the RSPB monitor raptor nest sites in Scotland and detect criminality, or contact the police after placing a camera on detecting criminality, that evidence can not be used in court. I have written to all my MSPs. Even with an evasive or negative response I shall persist and if necessary meet each one to get a face to face response. The organised criminal activity of driven grouse shooting has people in many places prepared to assist those who break the law, and the law needs to be changed to make this loophole closed to the organised criminals and their supporters.
    I shall draft a proposed change to the law to show how simple this would be. I believe that the RSPB should do the same.
    I would urge RSPB members in Scotland to contact their MSPs.

  5. Mark,is the justice system fit for the purpose of dealing with wildlife crime? And if the answer is ‘no’, what has to change? How do we change it?
    Well what a frustrating thing this continued persecution is.
    How will it ever get changed when it seems to me the politicians need attitude changing rather than giving the upper class freedom to do as they like,seems the same with crown prosecution service,same with judges and magistrates and I even wonder if these who kill wildlife put money into police charity’s.
    The big question is how can all that be changed.For sure a simple change of party in power will have no effect because killing birds is way down the list of priority’s of any party.

Comments are closed.