Sounds right?Government Departments, seem to be listening to Chris Packhams views on countryside matters MORE than they listen to the NFU, or am I missing something???
Of course Gov Depts personnel perhaps know as little about how the countryside,nature and agriculture work in reality,as Packham,so not really surprising they take notice of him , more than the NFU who so say represent uk farmers.Sounds right?
If you go on Facebook, there's a majority of uneducated "animal loving" idiots who think it's clever to teach their little pooch to prance about on it's hind legs and / or feed tit bits until it is clinically obese. The popularity of such things does not make it any more rightThat might be how it seems.
The General Licences were illegal for the following reason: Under the Wildlife Directive, a general licence is fine but there must be an annual review based on surveys. When Labour split MAFF into DEFRA and Natural England they left no provision for the surveys, therefore the licence was technically illegal because the rules weren't being followed. Wild Justice saw this missing part & used it to force the judicial review. We now have one general licence for carrion crows reissued with more to follow imminently. https://naturalengland.blog.gov.uk/2019/04/28/general-licences-update-and-the-next-steps/
I've been keeping an eye on Facebook & Twitter since this whole thing blew up & frankly there seem to be more Packham fans than NFU ones, not that social media chatter should be taken as a gospel indicator of mass public sentiment. A government does need to be aware of popular culture because this kind of emotion alters the way swing voters, er, swing. There's a great deal of pandering to the crowd going on here. That's just modern politics. You've also got to look in depth at where party political donations come from - single issue pressure groups spend a lot of time and resources on lobbying. Look at the accounts for the RSPB and see that the Common Agricultural Policy is their next biggest source of income after membership fees and legacies. They are sing for their supper too. The NFU doesn't want to play that game & getting ahead in the corrupt "free lunch" game for government services would not be endorsed by the electorate and members IMO. I'm not sure the NFU is given sufficient credit for the work they do in NOT participating in this p*ssing contest but quietly working away in the background to ensure our voice IS heard. Tony Juniper will have a more productive conversation with Minette Batters than he will with Mark Avery, even if he has more in common with Avery & Packham.
On the flip side of this, Westminster do not always follow public opinion - they all seem to know better than the mandate from the masses on a certain process that has been dominating the headlines recently...
Tin hat firmly on!
Thanks for taking me up on the word “seem”, and well balanced reply.That might be how it seems.
The General Licences were illegal for the following reason: Under the Wildlife Directive, a general licence is fine but there must be an annual review based on surveys. When Labour split MAFF into DEFRA and Natural England they left no provision for the surveys, therefore the licence was technically illegal because the rules weren't being followed. Wild Justice saw this missing part & used it to force the judicial review. We now have one general licence for carrion crows reissued with more to follow imminently. https://naturalengland.blog.gov.uk/2019/04/28/general-licences-update-and-the-next-steps/
I've been keeping an eye on Facebook & Twitter since this whole thing blew up & frankly there seem to be more Packham fans than NFU ones, not that social media chatter should be taken as a gospel indicator of mass public sentiment. A government does need to be aware of popular culture because this kind of emotion alters the way swing voters, er, swing. There's a great deal of pandering to the crowd going on here. That's just modern politics. You've also got to look in depth at where party political donations come from - single issue pressure groups spend a lot of time and resources on lobbying. Look at the accounts for the RSPB and see that the Common Agricultural Policy is their next biggest source of income after membership fees and legacies. They are sing for their supper too. The NFU doesn't want to play that game & getting ahead in the corrupt "free lunch" game for government services would not be endorsed by the electorate and members IMO. I'm not sure the NFU is given sufficient credit for the work they do in NOT participating in this p*ssing contest but quietly working away in the background to ensure our voice IS heard. Tony Juniper will have a more productive conversation with Minette Batters than he will with Mark Avery, even if he has more in common with Avery & Packham.
On the flip side of this, Westminster do not always follow public opinion - they all seem to know better than the mandate from the masses on a certain process that has been dominating the headlines recently...
Tin hat firmly on!
There are probably 500,000 farming, pro countryside voters.Government Departments, seem to be listening to Chris Packhams views on countryside matters MORE than they listen to the NFU, or am I missing something???
Thanks for taking me up on the word “seem”, and well balanced reply.
Hypothetical question, would the general public interfere with how farmers should run the countryside ,so much, if agriculture was not subsidised from the “public purse”.??
Government Departments, seem to be listening to Chris Packhams views on countryside matters MORE than they listen to the NFU, or am I missing something???
Could someone please explain what these do gooders have done for the countryside?
Other than roaming about with dogs and binoculars?
Farmers and landowners do a multitude of conservation and tree planting plus beetle banks and bird covers.
Where are the NFU and CLA that they don’t release a statement to counter Chris packchoi and his band of the great unwashed.
The trouble, is that if ones livelihood is dependant on creating propaganda about how the countryside is being mismanaged, one is not going to stop creating that propaganda any time soon. Now Chris Packham ( Chris Packham Ltd) ,as registered at companies house, www.chrispackham.co.uk. has got his audience/ followers well and truly hooked line and sinker he needs to keep winding them in with his propaganda bait,to feed him/his business with lovely money.Could someone please explain what these do gooders have done for the countryside?
Other than roaming about with dogs and binoculars?
Farmers and landowners do a multitude of conservation and tree planting plus beetle banks and bird covers.
Where are the NFU and CLA that they don’t release a statement to counter Chris packchoi and his band of the great unwashed.
The trouble, is that if ones livelihood is dependant on creating propaganda about how the countryside is being mismanaged, one is not going to stop creating that propaganda any time soon. Now Chris Packham ( Chris Packham Ltd) ,as registered at companies house, www.chrispackham.co.uk. has got his audience/ followers well and truly hooked line and sinker he needs to keep winding them in with his propaganda bait,to feed him/his business with lovely money.
Can’t see him going away any time soon, like all the others that are feeding on the propaganda of how we are SUPPOSEDLY mismanaging the countryside.
Thanks for taking me up on the word “seem”, and well balanced reply.
Hypothetical question, would the general public interfere with how farmers should run the countryside ,so much, if agriculture was not subsidised from the “public purse”.??