Are you funding the antis?

[spanj]

Well, I'll write off Lush and, TBH, I never did like Richer Sounds anyway. Neither is a great loss to me

 

As for the Co-op, this is old news from 2007 when hunting foxes with hounds was more of a political hot potato - see >>here<< . Can't really blame them for wanting to distance themselves from what was (and still is) an illegal activity. There is no mention in the article that banking services were offered to two other shooting orientated businesses, so it's amazing what spin people can put on an article.

 

For the record I buy my shooting mags from my local Co-op, and unless someone can come up with some real hard evidence of them being anti-shooting then I'll continue to shop there - my next nearest convenience store involves a 20mile round trip, so it ain't a decision I'm gonna make lightly!

try a subscription...............

[keg]

As above its very interesting reading !

I for one wont be using Co-op again, i didnt realise the above.

 

It would be good to have a name and shame "Stickie" of companys that are anti`s so we can all avoid them and spend our money with supporters or even those who remain nutral !

 

ATB

 

Matt

Me too Matt, will not shop there or have anything to do with them. Have stressed the same to the Mrs to .

[sitsinhedges]

http://money.aol.co.uk/2013/05/11/we-dont-need-support-insists-co-op/

[alendil]

after reading this i did unsubscribe from richsound and will never have to do again with co-op

[WelshAndy]

No more shopping at the co op for me.

Edited May 11, 2013 by WelshAndy

[saddler]

Get BASC et al to look into it, then get all the shooting organisations to put the resulting information on their website about which companies are supportive of the antis and exactly what links they have to them.

 

Very interesting piece from The Field about the indirect funding of the ill-informed anti brigade

 

"The rural community has serious financial clout. Make sure you are not inadvertantly backing the opposition and the antis...

 

Then there is the Co-operative Group. Most of us have long known about the Co-op's stance on hunting and have avoided its shops. The Co-operative Bank is especially bigoted and in 2008 withdrew banking facilities for a riding centre in Berkshire that permitted a hunt to use its land on the basis that the hunt had failed to take steps to ensure foxes would not be hunted. It even has a written policy not to invest in organisations involved in "the use of ferrets to catch rabbits".

 

But you could, unwittingly, be doing business with the Co-op. In 2009, the Blencathra hunt was surprised to be contacted by its local branch of the Britannia Building Society and told it would have to close a Hunt Supporters Club account. The Britannia had merged with the Co-operative Bank, which had imposed its "ethical" policy of not providing banking for "bloodsports" organisations. The Co-op also owns Cleveland Finance and internet bank Smile.co.uk.

It has extensive interests in the travel industry through the Bourne Travel Group (not Bourne Leisure), Manchester Airport Travel and even a holding in Thomas Cook. The Co-op owns Somerfield Stores as well as its own branded shops, but most of all you must be careful not to let the Co-op profit from your death. Co-operative Funeralcare is one of the biggest undertakers in the country but also owns a dozen or more others, including Fairways, Anglia and Browns funerals. In fact, it is worth asking any firm you deal with whether it is owned by the Co-op.

 

BASC you say?

Mmm - say I

 

WHO is the President of BASC? Lord Home

 

The residence of Lord Home is the Hirsel Homestead, in Coldstream.

I know this as I had my first workshop premises on the Hirsel estate back in 2004.

 

As time has gone by some of the workshops, as they came empty, were not leased out...

 

I visit after a few months, to see that there is now an extensive business partnership on the estate - with the Co-Operative Society

 

CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR WHAT?

 

The head of BASC is taking money from one of the most hard line anti-shooting businesses in the country

 

HOW he is allowed to do this & yet remain as head of BASC is beyond a joke...

 

I'll support BASC in principle, but I refuse to be a member while the organisations head is in the pockets of the Co-Op group

Edited May 11, 2013 by saddler

[stoogey]

lol you mean taking funds off them?

 

or taking back handers..hmm.

Edited May 11, 2013 by stoogey

[muffin]

This is what we need knoweledge and organisation nothing will change until we make our voice heard the USA do it.Before I retired I ran my own corporate entertainment buisness you would be surprised how many charities wanted you to run a clay shoot for them and how few would put pen to paper saying they support shooting.Take with one hand criticise with the other Never spend or give money unless you know they are on your side

[stoogey]

nothig will change whilste theres a two law system..thems with and without money/power thingy effert.

 

popularity and pampering is the god now.

[Flashman]

As a follow-up piece, the attached is from today's Times:

 

"Why I refuse to give money to the RSPCA

 

A once great charity’s aggressive prosecutions and campaigns risk undermining donations to animal welfare

“A dog reflects the family life,” says Conan Doyle in The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes. “Whoever saw a frisky dog in a gloomy family, or a sad dog in a happy one? Snarling people have snarling dogs, dangerous people have dangerous ones.”

Our family is finally getting a dog and no doubt its character will soon reflect our own. It has taken us years, graduating from Russian hamsters to leopard geckos and chickens but we now feel responsible enough to provide a happy home for a chocolate brown cocker spaniel who was born six weeks ago next door to us in Devon.

All I can think about is dog collars, vaccinations and home-cooked dog food. I am not alone. Almost a quarter of households in Britain have a dog and nearly half of us own animals. Nearly a fifth of our charitable giving goes to animals, more than to the elderly or the disabled. And we were the first country to have a charity to protect, rescue and re-home pets, farm animals and wildlife. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, founded in 1824, was a great British invention, created even before the police force. Today this institution is the eleventh largest charity in Britain, enjoying an annual income of more than £100 million with £50 million in legacies from grannies wanting to remember their beloved furry friends in their wills.

I once spent a few days with caring RSPCA inspectors and volunteers rescuing squirrels from trees and hamsters caught in drain pipes. It continues to do this work, rehoming 64,000 animals and treating 210,000 in its clinics. Its website still provides valuable practical advice about worming and neutering.

But the charity seems to be losing its way, more obsessed by animal rights causes than animal welfare. In the last few years its membership has declined to 25,000 members, compared with 1.1 million for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Farmers who used to benefit from help with animal husbandry increasingly view the organisation with suspicion. Owen Paterson, the Environment Secretary, recently told the RSPCA it needed to be wary of muddling charity and politics.

Under its new chief executive, Gavin Grant, a former PR man, the RSPCA has campaigned vigorously against farmers willing to help with trials for the Government’s proposed badger cull to eradicate bovine TB, which kills 28,000 cows a year in the UK. Calling on consumers to boycott these farmer’s products, Mr Grant said people would not want to “buy milk from farms soaked in badgers’ blood”.

Last year the Charity Commission received more complaints about the RSPCA than all but two other charities in Britain, one of which was the Jehovah’s Witnesses.Under Mr Grant the RSPCA is now thought to be Britain’s most zealous private prosecutor. It pursues around ten cases a day at a cost of more than £8.7 million a year, double the number brought in 2008; yet if it loses, the taxpayer often pays the defendant’s costs. This week details of discussions between the RPSCA and the Charity Commission emerged; the RSPCA said it used successful prosecutions as part of campaigns after it had won.

Its highest profile case has been against the Heythrop Hunt in the Prime Minister’s constituency when the RSPCA brought 52 charges against four hunt members. Two were acquitted, two pleaded guilty to four charges of hunting a wild mammal with dogs, a charge so small it is classified as “non-recordable”. They were fined £1,800 and £1,000 respectively, and the hunt £4,000, but the RSPCA had spent £326,000 of donors’ money that could have gone to rescue centres. The district judge called it “a quite staggering sum” and said he imagined “members of the public may feel that RSPCA funds can be more usefully employed”.

This isn’t just about hunting. The RSPCA pursued 4,000 prosecutions last year, some against callous and brutal animal owners, but others against the elderly or frail who could have been treated compassionately rather than as criminals. Pauline Spoor, a pensioner from Manchester, was convicted and tagged for not having her arthritic dog put down. She admitted that her actions were misguided but said she couldn’t face losing him as he was her only companion. A Bournemouth woman accidentally killed her beloved cat by trying to cure it with a paracetamol but was still prosecuted by the RSPCA.

The organisation is acquiring a reputation for behaving unkindly towards humans in a way that would not be acceptable towards animals. Last month one of its former inspectors, Dawn Aubrey-Ward, a mother of four, was found hanged. She had becoming embroiled in a bitter dispute with the charity after accusing it of putting down pets without justification. The RSPCA had responded to her complaints by describing her as a “disguntled former employee who was subject to a disciplinary investigation for alleged theft of animals”.

A single case of this kind, however tragic, is not evidence of endemic bad behaviour. But others have made similar accusations, including a barrister, Jonathan Rich, who says he has had to give up defending clients against the RSPCA. He claims he has now spent almost £1 million defending professional allegations made by the charity — and others working with it — about his conduct, all of which have been dropped, dismissed or struck out. He believes it set out to ruin him and has “little regard for humanity”.

Unsurprisingly, few staff are now prepared to speak out openly but they do off the record. “We aren’t merely disgruntled, we are alarmed about where our charity is heading,” said one West Country inspector.

The RSPCA is not alone in struggling for contributions, but its high profile gives it a special responsibility not to undermine Britain’s admirable tradition for charitable giving. “These big charities have to start behaving responsibly so people don’t lose trust in all not-for-profit organisations,” explained one animal sanctuary boss. The RSPCA may gain a few big donations from wealthy individuals who are anti-hunting or badger culling, but most of their traditional donors give in an attempt to save and treat abandoned or abused animals.

Mr Grant says: “Any serious brand focuses on its reputation.” I agree, and I’d point out to him that I’ve donated to the RSPCA in the past because I still remember the starving pony its inspectors rescued from an old lady’s field with my ineffectual help. But I’m not subsidising an aggressive, litigious, politicised organisation."

[Steppenwolf]

I also refuse to donate or use any Oxfam charity shop due to their stance on the Small Arms Treaty.

[HDAV]

Co-op bank.......... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22932330

Oooops!