Not so nice people

Here is a selection of messages that Wild Justice has received over the last couple of days since news of our General Licence victory has emerged:

  1. What a bunch of tossers you lot really are you couldn’t run a piss up in a brewery 
  2. Fuck off
  3. Are you aware that your fantastic legal work on the ban of the general licence has only caused more and more people to dislike your and Chris packham work? 
  4. Legal attack towards natural England and genuine conversationalists. Can you guys please explain how on earth you think the latest attack you have made regarding general licenses to cull vermin will have any type of positive effect on the countryside? I am not a shooter however i have lived in a beautiful area and been involved in conservation for many years, of which i can assure you ALOT more is involved than the dipstick on BBC thinks he is aware of.

22 Replies to “Not so nice people”

  1. There’s a lot of evil people out there, I’m glad wildlife have you on their side, thank you.

  2. “Conversationalists” . An alleged “conservationist” who can’t even spell what he or she claims to be. Pitiful.

  3. As I have else where brilliant work by Wild Justice. Who would have thought only a year ago that you could stop Natural England and this wretched Government in its tracks and with so much publicity. The comments from the not so niece people could not illustrate any better the typical type of generally ignorant people we are up against and that this Government through Natural England, is backiing.

  4. These are clearly not pleasant but this is not so different death threats, threats of acid attacks, and criminal damage that shooters and countryside workers receive from animal rights activists on a regular basis. I speak from personal experience. I am ashamed of these comments Wild Justice has received but I am also frustrated by the vitriol shown by some animal rights activists to people carrying out their lawful business. Given responsible shooters and shooting organisations want the same as Wild Justice, increases in biodiversity and protection of threatened species, it is a great shame that the debates and feelings around this issue have become so polarised. I would so love to see people representing all views and sides sitting together to discuss how their passions, intelligence, knowledge and commitment can be used for the common good of conservation.

  5. Such a bunch of tossers that they’ve pulled off probably the biggest environmental coupe since the cancellation of forest sales in 2011. Think what it would be like if they could run a piss up in a brewery ! And I fear that Chris Packham’s fan base won’t be badly dented by the loss of people who don’t like what has happened – as with Hen Harriers they’ve rather missed the point that when you are in a small minority agreeing with each other doesn’t get you anywhere.

  6. All that wild justice have done is highlighted that the GLs were badly worded. Within a short time period the GLs will be back up and running. Shooting of crows etc will continue. I don’t agree with the abusive messages but I have said before. All interested parties in wildlife and conservation need to put personal differences aside and work together. We all want to see more song birds, curlews, grouse etc flying around. Let’s make it happen.

    1. Some already have Gareth. Glen Tanar estate in Scotland has been held up by both Mark and the RPUK site as an exemplary one that still does some shooting, but also incorporates wildlife photography courses, being a wedding venue and genuinely makes an effort to protect wildlife including raptors. And what reward did Glen Tanar get from the more traditional estates for being such a shining light? One moorland forum posted a ridiculous essay trying to rubbish it, another moorland forum reposted it, then the Scottish Gamekeepers Association did so on their FB page. Sitting round a table doesn’t work when one of the party’s talk consists largely of lies that the criminals in their ranks are a tiny minority, when they most certainly are not.

  7. Brilliant work by you all in the Wild Justice team and great that you’ve rattled cages. A lot of sensible people support you.

  8. Social media frequently demonstrates that these people are often of low intellect, have no moral compass and react badly when their callous, selfish behaviour is confronted. They’re too stupid to understand that Natural England are to blame here for issuing the GLs illegally, not Wild Justice for pointing it out; they also can’t see that it is their own arrogance and blatant abuse of the GLs that led Wild Justice to decide to make a legal challenge in the first place.
    The ‘country sports’ industries may have been surprised that the money to make a legal challenge was raised quite easily and quickly; hopefully it’s sinking in now that plenty of decent people have had enough and were only too happy to put their hands in their pockets to support Ruth, Mark and Chris when they showed the leadership that was needed.
    It seems the GLs will now have to be significantly modified to make them compliant with the Wildlife & Countryside Act and I would expect individual licences will be required for some activities previously covered by the GLs, which will be much harder to obtain. The cost of individual licences may add some value to the lives of wild birds that have previously been taken so cheaply. Whatever licensing looks like once NE have recovered from the shock and put their house in order, this successful legal challenge looks like the start of an exciting fightback against the incompetence of NE and the abuse of protective legislation. I, for one, will be more than happy to donate again to support Wild Justice in future actions.

  9. It is difficult to comprehend how you can determine personal choice as being “selfish”, “callous” and “without moral compass”. It is assumed then that all of the supporters of this attack on personal freedom are vegetarians and do not purchase their meat from Asda or other such retail outlets. I have yet to meet any person involved in shooting, or any other field sports for that matter, that insists that those that choose to abstain should change their views and should conform to the beliefs of the true conservastionist and protector of the balance of wildlife that nature has provided. Control and freakery spring to mind.

    1. Fruitcakes with guns spring to mind when reading the drivel posted by you and your sorry gang of wildlife abusers.

  10. This brings to mind the old adage:
    ‘First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

    Widely but incorrectly attributed to Ghandi. Whoever said it, it’s appropriate here.

    Keep at it, Mark

  11. Unpleasant and unnecessary.
    I have written to my MP today highlighting the debate on 13 May on the petition to make netting of trees and hedges a criminal offence, pointing out that NE is currently in crisis, having admitted illegally issuing licences to cull wild birds, and highlighting the requirement in planning regulations that developments should leave wildlife in a better state after the work than it was before; enhanced Biodiversity must be demonstrated. NE is falling sadly short of our expectations.

  12. to be honest when you read the outpouring of delight that invariably gets expressed online when someone involved with a fox hunt falls off and dies it’s easy to conclude that there are nasty people on most sides of most debates.

    1. G – that’s true and is an almost inevitable consequence of there being nice people and nasty people in the world. And most people do not get sent to prison for their actions of course.

      1. Well Mark there was a certain person intimately involved in a certain organisation who was EXTREMELY unpleasant – far beyond just making unpleasant comments online. This person actually DID very nasty deviant stuff and was prosecuted for it.

        My view was that this should be publicised – mainly in order to make that organisation properly vet the people it uses for covert monitoring.

        I appreciate I may have gone too far with that and it is certainly possible to give different interpretations to tweets especially when taken out of context.

        However FWIU and talking to my contact within said organisation it did make a difference to how they carry out their work – so not all negative.

Comments are closed.