A grouse shooter’s moll and Defra minister. Photo: Natural England
In a closely argued, fact-packed and loquacious answer to a short question from Rachael Maskell MP (Central York, Labour) we learn much about the workings of Therese Coffey’s mind.
Surely, rather than ‘no’, the grouse shooters’ moll meant ‘no comment, no comment, no comment‘?
Michael Gove prides himself on the evidence-based approach that he claims Defra takes – except it seems that he instructs his ministers not to collect any evidence on tricky subjects?
In Scotland the government is collecting evidence left, right and centre, and acting on it, whereas Defra would rather wilfully avoid the facts that grouse moor management is ecologically harmful and that grouse shooting depends on wildlife crime.
Well done Rachael Maskell for asking the question – nul points to the Minister for her response.
If you would like to see an independent inquiry into the economic impacts of intensive grouse shoting then please sign Les Wallace’s petition. At least if it gets to 10,000 signatures it will necessitate a longer reply than a single two-letter word,
As we approach the 2-year anniversary of the parliamentary debate on banning driven grouse shooting this blog will be coming back to the words and lack of deeds of Defra ministers including Ms Coffey.
[registration_form]
Theresa Coffee cup has a mind? Obviously wasn’t using it when she answered the question. Pathetic.
Thanks for the plug Mark. This is exactly why the petition was set up so they had to put up or shut up. TC didn’t even do that, was she trying to impress certain people with her disgustingly blatant display of non interest and even obstruction? That will come back to haunt her, she’s trivialized the economic health of rural communities which Rachel Maskell’s enquiry covered. She makes it the third Labour MP in the North of England this year who has made significant remarks/gestures against Driven Grouse Shooting – Sue Hayman calling for an analysis too and Alex Sobel saying just ban it. I’ve sent a message to Rachel Maskell to ask for Labour Party support even if it’s only asking active branch members to sign it that would be a BIG help. Hopefully this latest incident might result in a wee tipping point’s being reached that will mean Labour takes just a little bit of an active role in getting us to the 10,000 signatures. TC would hardly rejoice at that being hit. Several people have really made an effort to support the petition and I feel they as well as yours truly, and of course the public are being let down by some organisations that aren’t quite doing what they could. This is a strategic petition, like one on licensing, that hits a core issue that effects (reduces/totally stops) everything nasty (an awful lot) about driven grouse shooting so I had hoped that it might get a bit of ‘preferential’ treatment given the very high number of petitions most organisations are asked to support. Anyway still not at the halfway point re the petition’s running time so if we can get one or more bigger orgs supporting it the petition has every chance of hitting 10,000 and more – as TC has demonstrated ‘just’ an official response would be quite a big deal for us, major embarrassment for them.
Sadly/strangely, nothing from LACS yet. Won’t even answer emails. Odd.
Yes exactly! I’ve been a member for well over ten years now and right up until the new director came along I had nothing but the utmost respect for LACS. This new guy is supposed to be sorting out LACS yet it’s went right downhill, precipitously since he came on board. The responses I was getting were imbecilic so not a huge loss in comparison that I don’t get any response now, but that doesn’t help the petition. LACS was the one orgf I was really depending on for endorsement. To repeat a comment made before if Mark’s Ban Driven Grouse Shooting had been on the go would they similarly refuse to support that? As soon as I started having problems dark suspicions arose in my mind, then these became open allegations from others.
Only distantly related, but here goes anyway…
Mark – what is your attitude (and that of Chis Packham, with whom I assume/hope/pray you are in regular touch) towards the Extinction Rebellion movement? I know it’s heavily focussed on climate change, but the natural world is also one of its main concerns. So many of us are despairing at the government’s response to ‘conventional’ campaigning.
Are you planning to be in Parliament Square this Wednesday? (I’m not trying to push you at all, but I respect and would welcome your opinion on these things.)
AlanTwo – I was going to have a closer look at that, Alan. I can’t be in Parliament Square but I am interested in this subject, for sure.
Thanks, Mark – it looks as though Monbiot is solidly behind it, and Molly Scott Cato as well.
I think I might try to get along – I’ve never been arrested before, and they say that doing novel things is important in old age!
I understand Therese Coffey is the responsible minister for nature in England. Under her watch the current demise of Natural England under this Government has become completely unacceptable. She also maintains unflinching support for the grouse shooting industry and refuses to saction any investigation in any way into the industry despite its manifest damage, and illegal actions to wildlife and the environment.
As far as I know her contribution to support our struggling wildlife has been minimal.so she may well rank as the worst minister for wildlife we have had for many a long time.
Maybe petitions backed on these blogs will get less signatures as some silly B on here said that I thought conservation was only about supporting Gavins petition.Guess the silly bugger objected to me giving Gavin encouragement.
Sometimes the intellectuals are pathetic.