Beware, Wild Justice are at it AGAIN!

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Wild Justice continues anti-shooting campaign   4th Jun 2021 by Tim Bonner

The new Defra general licences to release pheasants and partridges on or near special protected sites came into force on Tuesday and with sad predictability, anti-shooting campaigners Chris Packham and Mark Avery announced their intention to return to the courts within 48 hours. The opportunity to use funds donated by gullible donors to drain the public purse is, apparently, too much to resist.

You may remember that in November a judge rejected a claim by Messrs Packham and Avery’s vehicle Wild Justice for £35,000 of costs in relation to its original Judicial Review on this issue, and also concluded that it ‘would not have been successful’ had the case not been settled. Despite this, Wild Justice is desperate to return to the courts to argue that the General Licence issued by Defra for the release of gamebirds on and around protected areas does not give those sites sufficient protection.

There are three very obvious conclusions that can be drawn from this extremely expensive and increasingly pointless campaign. The first is that Wild Justice’s interest has little to do with protected sites and everything to do with its obsession with restricting and prohibiting shooting. Its claims that it is not an anti-shooting organisation are frankly ridiculous given that its entire focus is on shooting issues.

The second is that attempting to deal rationally with such groups, as Defra did during the initial legal process, is utterly pointless. Wild Justice and its fellow travellers have no interest in settling issues or in sensible agreement. Every action is merely a stepping-stone to the next assault so the government would be better to fight where it stands, rather than trying to reach a logical consensus with people who reject logic.

The third is that the ‘precautionary principle’ which the UK has inherited from EU legislation provides a licence for activists and lawyers to challenge every decision that might have an impact, however vague, on protected sites. This principle means Defra is constantly being challenged to prove a negative – that activities like shooting are not having an impact on protected areas – which is an almost impossible task, especially when Defra’s agency, Natural England, has not been monitoring protected sites.

Defra Secretary George Eustice has long been an outspoken critic of the Habitats Directive which includes the precautionary principle and his view is increasingly shared by others in government and elsewhere. It will be wonderfully ironic if Wild Justice’s obsessive pursuit of shooting actually leads to the demise of the ‘precautionary principle’ on which it relies.

[CaptC]

Any dealing with George (Useless) Eustice will be a succession of false promises and hopes - Ask the Cornish fishermen!

[adzyvilla]

14 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

The second is that attempting to deal rationally with such groups, as Defra did during the initial legal process, is utterly pointless. Wild Justice and its fellow travellers have no interest in settling issues or in sensible agreement. Every action is merely a stepping-stone to the next assault so the government would be better to fight where it stands, rather than trying to reach a logical consensus with people who reject logic.

Been saying this for ages. You can't negotiate with terrorists, there is no middle ground. Sadly the damage is done now, the appeasement was never going to work, and instead of going after them as aggressively as they have gone after us, we have let them gain too much ground. What was the point of the likes of basc schmoozing with MPs who couldn't give a fig, whilst sitting on millions which could have been spent bankrupting these loudmouth bullies with the same lawfare tactics they have employed so successfully against us.

[bluesj]

You could hope that now we are out of the eu things could be changed os as to not keep going through this all the time, but now we have a new first lady can't see that happening cos boris won't get any if he lets that sort of thing happen

[Dave-G]

Having quite recently realised I fall somewhere within the autism/aspergers affliction (never diagnosed - just became aware while googling issues with close younger relatives) I'm thinking Packams aspergers has given him a bit more drive along a narrow path than most might pursue.

I also suspect woke sympathy regarding his illness carries him along more than it ought. I'm sure others can word that better than me.

[PeterHenry]

16 hours ago, adzyvilla said:

whilst sitting on millions which could have been spent bankrupting these loudmouth bullies with the same lawfare tactics they have employed so successfully against us.

So - and asked entirely in good faith - how do you propose BASC / CA / etc would have done that?

Edited June 6, 2021 by PeterHenry

[adzyvilla]

16 hours ago, PeterHenry said:

So - and asked entirely in good faith - how do you propose BASC / CA / etc would have done that?

I've no idea but then I'm not a lawyer. But seeing as people are suing other people all the time for all sorts of things, surely it wouldnt take much for some clever barrister to dream up a scenario where they could pursue the group or the individuals and tie them up in court for as long as it took to ruin them financially. I don't think the crowd funded money would last as long as BASCs 'fighting fund'. The major difference between us and them is that they fight dirty and we do not.

[udderlyoffroad]

1 hour ago, adzyvilla said:

I've no idea but then I'm not a lawyer.

That much is obvious.

1 hour ago, adzyvilla said:

But seeing as people are suing other people all the time for all sorts of things, surely it wouldnt take much for some clever barrister to dream up a scenario where they could pursue the group or the individuals and tie them up in court for as long as it took to ruin them financially. I don't think the crowd funded money would last as long as BASCs 'fighting fund'.

And Shooting really doesn't need the PR that dropping to their level would bring with it.

Moreover, were BASC or A.N. Other organisation to resort to fatuous 'lawfare', the pockets of WJ's gullible supporters would prove quite deep.

No, the legal doctrine of "don't start something you can't finish" applies here.

That doesn't mean roll over and spend the rest of eternity fighting their nonsense, making lawyers rich, there has to be a long term plan.  But obviously the shooting orgs aren't going to publish said plan....

[adzyvilla]

17 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

That much is obvious.

And Shooting really doesn't need the PR that dropping to their level would bring with it.

Moreover, were BASC or A.N. Other organisation to resort to fatuous 'lawfare', the pockets of WJ's gullible supporters would prove quite deep.

No, the legal doctrine of "don't start something you can't finish" applies here.

That doesn't mean roll over and spend the rest of eternity fighting their nonsense, making lawyers rich, there has to be a long term plan.  But obviously the shooting orgs aren't going to publish said plan....

So easy to criticise, and I'm sure you and others like you will always find a way to continue to do nothing and fail to find ways to fight our corner. At the moment, the long term plan is to keep fiddling while Rome burns. Shooting will never get good PR, no matter how angelic we are.

[udderlyoffroad]

27 minutes ago, adzyvilla said:

So easy to criticise, and I'm sure you and others like you will always find a way to continue to do nothing and fail to find ways to fight our corner.

As opposed to your suggestion, which wasn't a suggestion at all, because it was completely lacking any contact with detail, but hey some clever lawyer could figure it out?

What exactly would you tie WJ up with in court?

And when I pointed out the consequences of your it has to be said, ill conceived notion, your response was "well I'm doing something, you're doing nothing" - well, you don't know me, so how could you possibly know that?

And your suggestion would be counter-productive, and only serve to make the lawyers richer and shooting's image poorer.

37 minutes ago, adzyvilla said:

Shooting will never get good PR, no matter how angelic we are.

I disagree, demonstrate real conservation and ethical meat, and you can likely get the vast majority of the "don't know public" on board.

[PeterHenry]

6 hours ago, adzyvilla said:

I've no idea but then I'm not a lawyer. But seeing as people are suing other people all the time for all sorts of things, surely it wouldnt take much for some clever barrister to dream up a scenario where they could pursue the group or the individuals and tie them up in court for as long as it took to ruin them financially. I don't think the crowd funded money would last as long as BASCs 'fighting fund'. The major difference between us and them is that they fight dirty and we do not.

You have to break the law in some manner before you can be taken to court - even the cleverest barrister cant make something out of nothing. Tell me - what contracts can we hold them up for breaking? What statutory rights of ours have they impinged so that we could (helpful to our cause) call for a judicial reveiw or just plain take them to court? I cant think of a single one off the top of my head. Even if you found something to hold Wild Justice againt, it's a limited company - its directors arnt going to be effected if the company folds.

I note the Country Squire magazine is persuing Chris Packham in a personal capacity. Time will tell if that bears fruit - but from the perspective of your average person, it must look like the Pharisees hounding Jesus....

[enfieldspares]

4 hours ago, adzyvilla said:

So easy to criticise, and I'm sure you and others like you will always find a way to continue to do nothing and fail to find ways to fight our corner. At the moment, the long term plan is to keep fiddling while Rome burns. Shooting will never get good PR, no matter how angelic we are.

This. +1. 

[Saltings]

sadly some people are like mushrooms keep them in the dark feed them **** they will grow  without questioning anything and it must be true its on facebook    we dont have a platform to educate  the benefits of game meat  or any wild harvest     Ostridge farming was a thing years ago   a fad now dead          we need tv chefs on board     farmers  markets        charity  dont waste food  tell the game dealer to go forth and multiply  with rapid jurking movement        get in touch with food banks  locally  have someone teach prep and cook once a week    teach the lost art of dressing a bird     as granny did     not oven ready with junk    pop de ping   a scabby fat chicken about a fiver   or a healthy low fat meat 25p a brace     i cant give away a brace of any game in the feather or fur      dressed out they are queuing up         they are conditioned to Tesco   lazy oven ready  ****        re education is needed  a good meal from nout  with a little effort          why cant basc sponsor a good chef  to cook game recopies for families  at home  for nout    good halesome food    hello fresh can do it            and       not restaurant  ego massage all in the  gravy  over rich  food          teach how  grandma fed a family for nout  game   tates veg   with a wild harvest pudding      any crumble with a bit of custard       i can speak from experience we had nothing   we always had enough to eat nothing wasted  leftovers were made into another meal   its now a lost art    to make a meal from nout             why cant BASC  with all the money in the bank sponsor someone     and       teach moms good family food   game meat  for nout       save 2/3rds ££  weekly shop at tesco  junk        game meat is cheap and free range  its time for BASC to step up and promote to mothers      rather than game tasting evenings       feed a family for pennies and show them how              WJ dont have a chance they are dead in the water        a bit long winded  has taken a few hours  to right         i  like good food  i hate pissy pork      BASC threw us under the buss on lead shot  maybe they could promote steel shot game to mothers  ill be ****eed if they do

Edited June 7, 2021 by Saltings

[Ajarrett]

The CA writing in a recent article that WJ has been a failure is frankly deluded. Whilst it may have failed with some of its narrow aims, overall it has caused an immense amount of harm to shooting, not least through making Natural England (NE) scared witless of doing anything that is remotely pragmatic. NE now hides behind the 'precautionary principle' which is there just in case WJ or anyone else decides to take them to task.

The precautionary principle is a gift from heaven to the antis. It just needed WJ to shine a light on it and job done. Now we have species being taken off the quarry list by stealth (pintail), and we have all SSSIs being increased by stealth via the 300-metre buffer zones within which you cannot shoot pests without Consent from NE.

The tactic from those holding the purse strings should be to make NE as wary of the shooting lobby as it is from WJ et al. What use will be £millions in the bank if shooting continues to go down the tubes? Apart from paying wages and pensions like some bloated employment agency. 

 

Shooting is dying the death of a thousand cuts, and due to inertia at the top we seem powerless to stop it!

[Pushandpull]

Absolutely Alan. Some of these things such as buffer zones have been mooted for years. They just get put back on the shelf then brought out again and again. Just look at the notorious Green Paper on firearms. In 1973 (?) we thought we had a win but it turned out to be a long term Home Office strategy/wish list under every shade of government.

[wymberley]

1 hour ago, Ajarrett said:

The CA writing in a recent article that WJ has been a failure is frankly deluded. Whilst it may have failed with some of its narrow aims, overall it has caused an immense amount of harm to shooting, not least through making Natural England (NE) scared witless of doing anything that is remotely pragmatic. NE now hides behind the 'precautionary principle' which is there just in case WJ or anyone else decides to take them to task.

The precautionary principle is a gift from heaven to the antis. It just needed WJ to shine a light on it and job done. Now we have species being taken off the quarry list by stealth (pintail), and we have all SSSIs being increased by stealth via the 300-metre buffer zones within which you cannot shoot pests without Consent from NE.

The tactic from those holding the purse strings should be to make NE as wary of the shooting lobby as it is from WJ et al. What use will be £millions in the bank if shooting continues to go down the tubes? Apart from paying wages and pensions like some bloated employment agency. 

 

Shooting is dying the death of a thousand cuts, and due to inertia at the top we seem powerless to stop it!

You can't get any closer to the top than BASC (et al) council(s), so yes, in that case we're stuffed.

Just what is it that we have that we can threaten EN with exactly? In short, nothing. 

The answer as ever is money. We've got some, but what are we going to do with it? The legislators are only frightened of one thing and there's not enough of us. The vast majority of the great British public don't give two hoots. I've said it before, tried my best and failed. The only thing that will stop these folk is to deprive them of funding. Crowd funding should only be permitted for 'pro bono' whereby the funds raised  must not be used against any law abiding individual or body of people. Funding for these activities must be properly regulated and raised from within any organisation. This means that our organisations are able to pursue this avenue. It would work as no doubt the gang of three would transmute into the CEO, Secretary and Treasurer of WJ Ltd and cream so much off the top there's be very little left for good works and with little or no benefit for their members it would soon cease to exist.

Edited June 7, 2021 by wymberley