To be fair…

To be fair… he got there in the end

To be fair, it felt a bit like getting blood out of a stone.

Website Pin Facebook Twitter Myspace Friendfeed Technorati Digg Google StumbleUpon Premium Responsive

Get email notifications of new blog posts

Registration confirmation will be emailed to you.

4 Replies to “To be fair…”

  1. Yes Mark he did but no MP is going to endorse criminal behaviour are they! the question is will he still be pally with the DGS brigade of the NYM in his constituency and continue to say nice things about the management by the keepers, some of whom have been convicted in the past of wildlife crime.
    Also the previous MP Ann Mackintosh was very vociferous locally about wildlife crime and supported those local interests against DGS---- result dropped for Kevin Holinrake.

  2. To be fair "And yes, I condemn unreservedly anyone who breaks the law" are meaningless weasel words (my apologies to weasels for associating them with this). RPUK highlighted some years back how many Scottish shooting estates who'd signed an accord condemning the illegal persecution of raptors had continued to employ those convicted of raptor persecution.

    The shooting lobby has been using similar weasel words for decades. For a start they have to say that don't they. Can we imagine them saying "I support the illegal persecution of raptors". Even though when they condemn this illegal behaviour of course what they are really saying is that I condemn anyone sloppy enough to get caught or detected, because we ensure there is so little investigation into the illegal killing of raptors, and we ensure that powers of investigation and resources for it are so poor, that anyone who gets caught must be very sloppy.

    What matters is this. Firstly, these people are in total denial, or at least in public they refuse to acknowledge the true scale of illegal raptor persecution, and only acknowledge cases which have led to a successful prosecution even though this is a tiny tip of the iceberg. Secondly they do not support the proper resources and powers to investigate these crimes, and the proper punishments to deter this crime.

    As I've repeatedly pointed out these politicians know very well the long tried and tested means for clamping down on persistent crime problems - not least of all because they back this approach in other matters. First of all you provide the resources and powers to investigate this criminal behaviour and order the police etc to concentrate on it. Then you ensure proper punishments as a deterrent, say considerable prison sentences, and then offer the inducement of a lighter sentence if those convicted assist the authorities by identifying those behind this organized crime.

    We see this pattern of disingenuity throughout field sports issues. Look at say the issue of trail hunting, which the National Trust allows on it's land. The NT gives the usual weasel words about condemning illegal hunting, whilst steadfastly ignoring the crystal clear evidence that trail hunting is not an actual thing, but a pretty weak legalistic contrivance to hunt illegally. Even fox hunters themselves to little to deny that they set out each time to break the law, just in a way difficult to prove.

  3. "No that was not at all my point"

    Well what the heck was the point he was trying to make?

    Well done for forcing him to disassociate his condemnation of crime (however mealy-mouthed) from his spurious 'balance'.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.