I keep a kindly eye on those MPs who spoke in the ‘debate’ over banning driven grouse shooting in October 2016. One, the MP for Brecon and Radnorshire described me thus;
‘Only the other week I had the privilege of attending the evidence session on grouse shooting. Several right hon. and hon. Members have already referred to Mr Mark Avery, who was on the first panel to give evidence, along with the RSPB. I understand that he is a former employee of the RSPB. It was interesting to hear his evidence, which seemed to be based on ideology and prejudice. He wanted driven grouse shooting to be banned, whereas his former employer wanted no such thing. I want it to go on record that the RSPB does not want to see grouse shooting banned.’
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-10-31/debates/06472E95-10EC-49A0-BF93-84CAD2BE4191/DrivenGrouseShooting
Mr Davies is in the news – I hope he gets justice.
[registration_form]
Karma
He is, of course, entitled to his opinion about your evidence. I blame the school system, chronically mismanaged by Mr. Davies’ party (he seems to have forfeited the Rt Hon bit). He clearly doesn’t understand the meaning of “ideology”, nor “prejudice – nor, indeed, “forgery”. Yes, I too hope he gets justice. The least he deserves.
That’s funny, because here was me thinking that the honourable member’s opinion appears to have been based purely on “ideology and prejudice”. After all he doesn’t seem to offer any cogent evidence to support his claim. If Mark has any fault, it’s that he’s too kind to shooting industry apologists.
A lot of detailed evidence was presented at the evidence session and in written evidence prior to that and Mark and the RSPB were very much in agreement as far as their diagnosis of the problem was concerned. Where they differed was in their proposed solution where, as we know, Mark took (and takes) a harder line – for reasons that were clearly explained. There was nothing in the evidence sessions to justify any allegation of prejudice against either Mark or the RSPB.
As to the accusation of being ideological, well, I guess that it rather depends what Mr Davies means by the term. I am sure many of us would be happy to say we are motivated by an ‘ideology’ that seeks to protect and preserve wildlife in as rich and abundant state as can be achieved, that seeks to ensure that laws to protect wildlife are rigorously enforced and are strengthened where they are found to be ineffective and that is angered by those who flout wildlife protection laws and destroy wildlife in pursuit of their own selfish aims. I suppose, though, that when Mr Davies used the term it was intended as a snide attempt to suggest that Mark’s motives had/have nothing to do with the conservation of birds but were just driven by ‘class envy’ and it’s a feeble and disreputable attempt to divert attention away from the substantive arguments. The use of this term by Mr Davies in fact reveals that he does not have any better arguments and exposes the weakness of his case.
The grouse shooters evidence in the debate was all forged from the one source….
Chris Davies is the M.P. for the constituency in which I live. I have written to him on several occasions, invariably regarding the environment, wildlife crime, hunting or grouse shooting. Although from knowing his background I did rather expect it, every reply was effectively a polite and seemingly rather poorly informed dismissal of the subject from a closed mind. He deserves a fair hearing.
locked up, disbarred from standing again and having to repay the money is the least we should hope for.
Paul – but only if guilty?
No Mark he is the worst of all things a Welsh Tory!
I am afraid Mr Davies has got it all wrong. The RSPB as I understand, is not permitted under its charity status to give an opinion as to either supporting or disapproving of driven grouse shooting. The RSPB’s “raison d’etre “ is to protect wild birds. So they are campaigning to is prevent the dreadful killing of our Hen harriers, mountain hares and environmental damage that occurs especially on grouse moors. They therefore believe the best way to stop these atrocities and not infringe their charitable terms is to campaign for the licensing of driven grouse shooting.
Mark Avery however is not restricted by charitable status and can therefore adopt a much more direct approach for banning the key cause of the slaughter on our Hen harriers, namely driven grouse shooting.