Raptor Persecution UK Refuse the right to reply.

five dead buzzards

What would be the best solution, control Buzzards using licenced killing, or use a suitable non lethal device which does not harm the Buzzard?


I am sure regular visitors to this website will have seen the post on the 4th January, concerning non lethal electrical deterrents, and their possible use at game bird release sites.

This article was criticised the same day by Raptor Persecution UK, I in turn responded to this by placing a comment disagreeing with their interpretation of the ethics of using such a device, and it’s possible illegality here in England. However the device would only be illegal if it was used without a licence should a licence be required, this has so far not been determined.

In this comment, I referred to a situation experienced by me during my career as a gamekeeper.

This was greeted firstly by incredulity, ( partly I think because of a misinterpretation of my statement), closely followed by an attack of the most virulent mockery, concerning my knowledge and observational skills regarding Goshawks.

Only one critic, Anandprasad , approached the subject in a reasonable manner .

I realise that my related experience was (to some obviously), hard to believe or accept.

This does not excuse the manner of my criticism, nor the refusal to allow me a right of reply to my detractors. On two occasions since my last critic posted his comment on the 5th January, I have had my reply up for moderation, only to see it removed shortly afterwards, without any explanation.

I am grateful to Raptor Politics for agreeing to publish this reply, printed below. It is changed slightly from the original, to take account of the time that has passed, and to give a little more detail of Goshawk nest spacing in the woods where I worked.

It may help to set my reply in some context, if readers would refer to the post on Raptor Persecution UK, scroll down to read comments that were published, before reading my words of reply that were not allowed, but have now been kindly published below by Raptor Politics.

Thank you very much.



My comment below, which I attempted to post twice on Raptor Persecution UK without success.

I really must apologise for misleading you all, but at no point in my comments posted did I state that I had seen 17 Goshawks in the air together. That would be a stupid exaggeration even from a member of the “Nasty brigade”, wouldn’t it?.

The term “main Pheasant release area”, referred to up to five pens in the central area of my beat.

My figures were based on the number of Goshawk nests with just fledged, or about to fledge young, plus adult (and at least one sub adult) birds on my beat at the time my Pheasants were released in June. These juveniles gradually dispersed through the autumn, though I feel certain that some remained on the ground till at least the following spring, (I can regularly hear contact/ begging calls to the end of September ).This does not preclude the fact that juveniles from other sites may have dispersed into my area also.

The four nests were situated in an approximate L shape, the total distance between them amounting to about 1.75 kms. The closest distance between successful nests being 250 metres .

When intersecting lines were drawn between the nests, they were found to be contained in a “box” measuring 1 km by 0.8 km.

The two further nests on my beat were 2.6 kms and 3 kms away from this group.

A nest on a neighbouring estate was, at this time I think, less than 3 km away, other nests on our ground at a slightly greater distance.

I am a founder member of two Raptor study groups. My schedule one disturbance licence which I have held for thirty six years now runs to twelve sides of A4, covers species much rarer than Goshawk, and is valid for six counties. That’s before we get onto the one for Scotland.

I do not recall any of the authors of the above smart arse comments being quoted in the available literature on Goshawk. Websites such as this, while generally doing a good job bringing issues to the fore (at least to those who are interested ), tend to encourage a herd mentality.

It’s the old, I think I know a bit about raptors (so many seem to nowadays), let’s jump on the bandwagon, and have a collective laugh at the stupid gamekeeper who can’t know what he’s on about syndrome.

I resent insinuations enclosed in comments posted by Raptor Persecution UK that I had shot any of these birds, and now request these libellous comments are immediately removed.

I somehow don’t think Mr Newton, or Mr Kenward approach things in quite the same manner.



We at Raptor Politics feel very disappointed that anyone should wish to criticise a gamekeeper who has  demonstrated his commitment to protecting goshawks on the estate where he has been employed for many years. In addition, preventing this man who has been unreasonably criticised and prevented from making a right of reply is utterly disgraceful.  Inappropriate and inaccurate comments posted by people with little or no experience of the goshawk shows a distinct lack of intelligence. This man who was a gamekeeper and also had a licence allowing him to work with and protect goshawks must stand for something.  We would suggest it would be reasonable to congratulate such a person, a beacon of light showing that at least one gamekeeper really cares for our raptors instead of killing them. How many gamekeepers do you know that are prepared to welcome the goshawk onto the beat they are employed to protect?

We have enough battles to fight with the shooting establishment, we must not under any circumstances do battle between ourselves.

24 comments to Raptor Persecution UK Refuse the right to reply.

  • Wayne Law

    I’ve had a look on the Raptor Persecution site and it is a little confusing and rather than stick to the actual topic of using a non lethal device, as opposed to killing buzzards, or other raptors likely to sit on the posts around the pheasant pens, it has drifted into mockery of the comments made by Trapit.

    I agree that anyone has a right to reply, especially as the mocking comments just make Trapit out to be an idiot.

    So here we have a retired Gamekeeper (if I have read it right) sharing some of his long term actions to allow a number of Goshawk to live alongside a pheasant release area and there are obviously enough pheasant about for the numbers on a shoot not to be questioned, or pushed the opposite way.

    I don’t think Trapit would go on the site in the first place, if he/she hadn’t been sympathetic to the Goshawks and with many years of experience in game-keeping, he/she must be very knowledgeable about the birds and more so, about his/her particular area.

    No-one picked up or commented that the adjoining estate were also sympathetic to the Goshawks (I assume the GK’s were friends or had mutual respect). This would obviously be a key factor in the likelihood of success.

    Nobody knows the area concerned either and my first thoughts were based on the areas I go myself, where there isn’t a cat in hells chance of any such success, but I am assuming it is in an area well away from there and probably well away from the areas of other posters on RP site. (obviously I don’t know this, but am trying to keep an open mind)

    We all want the GK’s to leave the raptors alone and their orders may be to simply get rid of any raptors, so there has to be some middle ground.

    Rather than go on the attack of an individual, perhaps posters could stick to the topic and give their opinions on the actual pole device.

    I for one would be all for a monitored trial (the pole device) but I also agree that the pens should be covered over, as if left open (I do not understand why) the birds are just there for the taking aren’t they?

    Perhaps Trapit can elaborate on why in some circumstances the pens are left open topped.?

    The REALITY at present is that buzzards are being shot to bits and their numbers will be rapidly dropping.

    It may be simplistic thinking on my part, but just for supposition, let’s say there were 2,000 pheasant being released and when all the % of loss were taken into account, raptors were responsible for taking 100 of them.

    Is it too simplistic to trial the electrified posts device, leave the raptors be and add another 100 pheasant to the pens to counterbalance the loss to raptors and get some much needed PR for anyone brave enough to actually agree to try a different approach.

    Something has to give and when someone is prepared to go against the grain and actually manage to allow raptors to breed and chicks to fledge, they get abused.

    That will never help and anyone who might, just might have been looking at options for change, could be put off by such personal attacks.

  • Trapit

    Wayne, thank you for a well thought comment.

    Open topped pens have been the preffered method of releasing Pheasants for about fifty years. This came about with the decline of rearing under broody hens, and a steady increase in the numbers of Pheasants required.

    Good pens should acclimatise the young birds to the outside world, containing open sunny areas, low cover against predators and the weather, and taller trees to encourage safe roosting at night.

    As the birds wing feathers grow ,they can start to fly out of the pen, most often first thing in the morning. Crucially however they can return via re-entry tunnels or “pop holes”, until their confidence increases. It is a very good method of release, but was thought out when much smaller numbers of raptors were present in the countryside.

    An increasing number of shoots now use netted pens, sited near thick cover they can give good results, I have used them myself. However for larger releases open topped pens are preferable.

    The argument seems to have become fixed on open, verses closed, pens, with many people not realising that much of the raptor problem, in the form of disturbance takes place after release.

    This can have a greater effect than purely numbers killed, but having suitable cover helps a lot.

    ,To take another of your questions, there are shoots that instruct the keeper to release extra birds to compensate for losses ,and it would be nice to see this attitude become more prevalent.

    Finally I think you have hit the nail on the head regarding “attitude”.
    As with Grouse shooting, not enough people are willing to break rank and try a different way for fear of being seen to let the side down, although things have improved greatly ,regarding low ground shooting in my time.

  • david holden

    I have a similar experience to Trapit on the RPUK site where I posted under the name on my wordpress account Hector. Initially I reported my experience of losses of livestock to ravens and given the reaction I have to plead guilty to trolling a few of the more rabid “experts”.Havng taken the decision to ignore the more extreme elements on the site as there are some genuine posters now if I am attacked by one of the faithfull my reply never clears moderation while the attack remains. I have contacted the site and not even had a reply which speaks volumes about the mindset of the site author and/or moderators. I am afraid . As with Trapit above I can find no trace of the claimed research some of the “experts ” on RPUK claim to have produced and frankly some of the claims made are the stuff of fairytales. As I write this I see another poster is getting the same treatment from the usual suspects with their usual charm. I am afraid the RPUK site is in danger of becoming a bit of a cult site for some of the more extreme elements of the animal rights movement which is sad .Given the history of Trapit and his schedule 1 licenses I suspect the problem is his profession as RPUK seems to spend a lot of its time keeper and farmer bashing at least in the comments section. The response to the electric buzzard scarer post on this site by the ” experts ” on RPUK sums up the mentality of that site better than I could hope to.

  • “We have enough battles to fight with the shooting establishment, we must not under any circumstances do battle between ourselves”.

    I totally agree with your comments made above in your footnote. However I can speak from my recent harrowing experience regarding my so called own turning on me. After being a very loyal, competent and hardworking raptor fieldworker for almost 20 years with Tayside Raptor Study Group in Angus my membership was recently terminated. A few so called professional people within this group lied and made up false accusations to try and discredit me, etc. Adding insult to injury the Angus merlin coordinator was unknown to me falsifying my merlin fledging figures for several years (data can be supplied).

    I’ve also been subjected to derogatory comments from those in the RPUK blog. Any balanced comments that I try to make on this site are immediately deleted. Begs the question, what are these people frightened of?

  • Alastair Henderson

    As somewhat of an aside I have read conflicting information in recent months regarding the status of game birds when in, and or released from, release pens. Initially the judicial review last year claimed that game birds both in release pens and subsequently outside of release pens were considered to be livestock while dependent upon their keeper. Hence the decision by NE to issue buzzard control licences on a time limited basis.
    Most recently in connection with the regulations surrounding the control of avian flu it has been stated that “Once game birds are released they are classified as wild birds. The person who released the birds is no longer classed as the keeper of the birds”.
    This blurring of the status of reared game birds is confusing and could perhaps form the basis of a challenge to NE’s buzzard control policy?

  • Think we should all get a grip here you should not have to put anything on a post to move birds away from these pheasant pens it is ileagle to kill BOP END OF.

  • George M

    The replies predispose that introducing so many pheasants (up to 40 million per year) into our countryside is either a good thing or simply inevitable. This attitude ignores the fact that policy of this type is seriously damaging to our biodiversity and negatively affects the food available to our native birds as well as potentially damaging the numbers of many other species. For example they eat small mammals, reptiles and a whole array of insects as well as grasses, seeds and nuts. They are also vectors for Lymes Disease and are credited in a scientific study which concluded that pheasants are reservoir competent for Lyme borreliosis spirochetes and potentially play an important role in the maintenance of B. burgdorferi s.l. in England and Wales. The increase in Lymes Disease appears to mirror increase in numbers being released.
    I find it strange that RPUK has been singled out for not automatically being given the right of reply by those who oppose their aims. I, personally, have bene refused to right of reply and had my comments deleted on The Angus Glens Moorland site and that of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association over the past couple of years. This is a regular occurrence on most blogs which deal with a whole variety of contentious topics.
    Indeed, I know of a couple of Blogs which appear to be constantly attacking RPUK, Mark Avery, Chris Packham on a personal level which, in any civilised society, could only be seen as abuse with much of it having no obvious connection with what is being, or has been, discussed. That given I see no reason that those associated with the cause that leads to this abuse should be guaranteed any right of reply.
    There are comments critical of RPUK which are posted and I have had no reason to object to their content but to open the door to the abusers by given them an automatic right of reply is, in my opinion, nonsense, which would soon lead to the demise of the site…. which, I might add, could be the reason for the fuss they are kicking up.
    There are many pro-shooting sites where they can, and do, air their own concerns. I know this because I access those sites as some who hold opposing opinions access sites similar to RPUK.
    In my opinion this is simply an attempt to edit another blog when I feel it would be best to focus on your own and ask, that by enlisting your support, whether or not you are simply being manipulated by forces which are, in the long run, opposed to your stated position of protecting raptors. Already they have gained a license to kill buzzards and many feel that this is the thin edge of the wedge.
    Let me finish be saying that in my opinion RPUK has done more to further the work of raptor protection in the short time it has existed than all of the work done in the previous 20 years. To attack it and then warn them of splitting the raptor lobby is ingenious at best and appears an attempt to distance yourself from your own behaviour.
    What encourages me is the fact they feel the need to pursue an issue like this as they now seem to realise that their days are numbered. Any previous attempt to lure sincere raptor workers into discussions has led to prevarication as the crimes against the birds continued. All it requires for the gap between the two parties is that the shooting lobby stops killing them and preventing them nesting.

  • Trapit

    There seems to be a pattern emerging here.
    You have to wonder at the legitimacy of any online conversation on RPUK,if the moderator is controlling comments to suit herse…, sorry,theirself.
    This could never happen on Mark Avery’s blog,and I am damn sure it doesn’t happen on Raptor Politics.

  • George M

    Yes, Trapit, there does appear to be a pattern emerging…. a pattern is emerging. You are obviously acquaint enough with the debate to have formed an opinion as to whom the editor is at RPUK as your attempt to expose their supposed gender is qualified by an apology. This is both devious and unobjective as it could only lead to a targeting of an individual as there is no other obvious reason for you presenting it as such. The same tactic was employed on another blog some time back but the full name was used … and this was immediately condemned and police action recommended by most who read it. Your immediate apology indicates that you also know it was wrong and serves no purpose…. but still left “mistake” in your contribution. That said it gives support to their position of not publishing certain comments coming from a person who engages in this type of behaviour.

  • Trapit

    George M, to begin with your second comment. I was aware of the disgraceful behaviour online, including threats, to the editor of RPUK, this type of thing should be dealt with by the full weight of the law.

    My “slip” was in no way intended to further this behaviour, but was a small dig at the person I hold responsible for my grievance.

    I think most people relevant to these online debates know the moderators identity anyway. As for being “a person who engages in this type of behaviour”, you will see from my comments on various websites, and topics, that nothing could be further from the truth.

    If you think that my treatment on RPUK, without publishing my very reasonable reply, was the moderator’s prerogative, you have a very strange view on the subject.

    As for the gist of your first comment,I confess it has left me a little baffled. Yes there are issues that need addressing regarding Pheasant numbers on sensitive sites. That is another discussion.

    How can you accuse me of being against the aims of RPUK, when you read the account of Goshawks on my beat, and my long experience as a schedule one licence holder? Your arguments just do not hold up.

    In your final paragraph, you state “any previous attempt to lure sincere raptor workers into discussions has led to prevarication….” There was precious little discussion in my case, and that, and nothing else has been the only reason for this post on Raptor Politics ever seeing the light of day.

  • Trapit

    Peregrine Pete, yes it is illegal to kill birds of prey, but as I understand it Natural England were backed into a corner over this by a high court decision.

    Raptor Politics argues that had these electrical deterrents been trialled, they may have given a viable alternative to lethal control, which as I understand it, has not actually happened yet.
    If it does, it will be a spectacular own goal for the shooting community.

  • George M

    I accept your explanation Trapit, but would add that there was no reason to all but identify a person who prefers, and quite rightly, to remain out of the public eye, especially after the experience of a few months ago.
    Like any blog the editorial policy is the remit of the owner of that blog and though my comments have been deleted on a number of occasions I did not complain, either privately or publically. It is much the same in newspapers where some letters are published and some are not.
    I have seen discussions begin reasonably on various websites only for them to quickly degenerate into abuse once news spreads that “so and so” is in the discussion.
    A joint research project in Aberdeenshire in the late 1990’s where landowners and gamekeepers were informed of the nesting sites and territories of hen harriers had an unfortunate outcomes, with more nests failing and less nests being present the following year. Of course no evidence exists for this to be laid at the door of the gamekeepers but given the history and continuing record of convictions against them for offences against raptors then it is not surprising that suspicions linger. The ethos of the Blog might simply be to highlight issues from their perspective and is not designed to host any other type of activity … I have no idea.
    As far as the overall position goes it might ease the situation a little if uncontrolled access and camera’s were to be allowed on the land. If no wrongs are being committed I also fail to see why there is such a push against licensing.
    Instead just last year we were treated to a game keeping website urging their colleagues to make sure that Mark Avery got a “good welcome” if spotted on a moor and then a few months later allegations of possible sexual impropriety were made regarding the same person and a woman raptor enthusiast in the grouse butts. It might help communications between the two parties if some energy were expended in bringing to an end this type of bullying and harassment on the Blog of a high standing member of the game keeping community. Indeed, it appears to some that the very Raison D’etre of that Blog is to antagonise and to provoke a reaction which might discredit them .. as, indeed, is happening.
    It is also strange that this has now become a topic of debate on a site like this as some might believe this is simply another attempt to split the opposition so to speak. Stranger things have happened. I’ve no doubt if you posted this on a pro shooting or pro game keeping blog then it would come to the attention of those who do take an interest in these matters.

  • Trapit

    George,I accept your point regarding revealing the gender of the moderator involved,however I can assure you there was no motive other than the one I have already stated. I think RPUK is an excellent website,on the whole.
    May I also reiterate there is no attempt to “split the opposition”,either on my part or on the part of Raptor Politics. It was I who contacted this website in the hope that my reply,so unfairly denied me on RPUK,may possibly be brought to the notice of anyone who had been following the discussion ,if you could call it that, on the said website.
    I appreciate that “editors”, whether online or in print,have the final say on content.
    However, anyone following the tirade of mockery directed at me on RPUK, and being happy with the final post moderated, has a very strange sense of fair play

  • david holden

    George I would suggest it is a bit of a stretch to imply that Trapit all but identified the author of RPUK as I am sure about half of the population are of the fairer sex. I agree the editorial policy of a blog is the remit of the owner but having rubbished the claims in his post and accused him of shooting protected birds of prey I think he should have been given the chance to respond . You then go off on a good bit of whatabootery as what the treatment of Mark Avery on other blogs has got to do with this case escapes me. Bullyng and harassment happens on all blogs including RPUK authored by ” a high standing member of ” the raptor community . In fact the reacton of RPUK to the post on this blog about non lethal scaring of buzzards comes very close to ” bullying and harassment ” . This blog has been willing to call out bad practice including the case of the peregrines driven to abandon a nest site after the bungled installation of a nest cam by what is likely to have been by an RSPB employee. This case was missed by RPUK for whatever reason. Anyway you have an interesting name and I wonder if you are the George M that writes in the Guardian and wants to re-wild my home county.

  • George M

    Those with knowledge of the context hardly need to be Sherlock Holmes to identify a lady who has already been harassed and bullied by pro-shooting interests online. By including the gender in the manner in which Trapit did only betrayed a possible underlying emnity that he feels toward the editor .. and, like yourself, fails to see that the victim in this, given what has went before, might understand this as a veiled threat, as no doubt others will. It resurrects an issue that should have been dead and buried simply as a piece of spite and should be seen as such. You defending it does your cause little good. If you disagree with an editorial decision then I suggest you start your own blog as your objection that people online are denied a right of reply is as common as sand on a beach. It is even more common on the letters page of the general media. Television newscasts operate and edit to an end too. You and Trapit are trying to cause an issue of what is general practise in many areas to suit a pre-ordained agenda.
    Now, David, you can accuse me of something that I have not done as many times as you wish but it will not alter the fact that I have not pointed any finger at Trapit in the context of him personally shooting any protected bird of prey. Clear and simple .. the fact that some game keepers do is not in question given the criminal convictions which exist in that context.
    Abuse of the type aimed at Mark Avery and Chris Packham issuing from a pro-shooting is outrageous, obscene and juvenile. Language like that is not permitted on the forum of RPUK … I have never seen any instance of where disability and weight are used in such an hurtful sense … and now you who frequent that site have the audacity to complain that I have raised the issue to give some sort of context. I have enver seen you object to what was said other than to say it will give the wrong impression … implying that simple I’m impression is all. Modern day sophistry, David, no more, no less.
    I would have been more impressed if this site had done as I am trying to do i.e. present the context as to why a right of reply is A) not a right and B) common practise in quite a few fields. As it is I have the same type of feeling I experience when I come across the H&O Trust.
    Once more you seek to edit the content of a blog with which you are highly critical off when it fails to include a story that YOU think should be covered. Well David, the only saving grace in that position is that there are many thousands out there, if not millions, who would like to do the same to any blog whose editorial positions they disagree with!!! The solution is the same … invest the time, put in the hours, create your own blog and publish what you wish.

  • Trapit

    David,thank you for your support over my treatment by RPUK.
    I must correct you on one point,Raptor Politics has never,to my knowledge,
    Bullied or harassed, and prints comments whether or not they sit well with the moderators opinions.
    Wow! have I got the better of George Monbiot?,that really would be a scalp.

  • Trapit

    On second thoughts,after reading another rambling piece,going completely off subject,and yet again failing to see the main point of the argument,it can’t be him. Even the Guardian has standards.

  • George M

    I suppose I must expect a bit of personal abuse from you Trapit, given the “slip” you had in regard to your first post which revealed, once more, an identity you obviously wanted others to know but shirked the responsibility that comes with exposing it. I think devious would describe it correctly. I may also add that you choose your subject and what priority you put on it … but others might differ in their estimation as to what is important. You finish off with yet another sly dig at a newspaper you obviously hold in low regard. The type of behaviour you exhibit when events do not conform to your strategy allows other to see what sort of person lies behind the public presentation. The phrase “got the better of” reveals you see this as a competition as opposed to an investigation .. as Freud might say, your slip is showing!”

  • Trapit

    George,this is becoming tiresome and getting nowhere, so here is my final word on the matter to you.

    No matter what you may think of my motives,hidden agendas, or whatever,I repeat,the only reason I started this correspondence was due to my treatment on RPUK.

    I have noted the “names” of all my denigrators, and one day I will find a method of publicly verifying my claims of Goshawk breeding density, without breaking promises of confidentiality.

    One final question, if you were the editor of a discussion, on whatever media, would you be happy to publish five straight criticisms of a person, and not allow a reply?

    As I have stated, this is my last word to you on the subject.

    Whatever your answer, I will leave it to others to judge.

  • david holden

    Trapit I would not bother with attempting to verify your claims of goshawk density to the “experts” on RPUK as it is a waste of time a bit like trying to herd cats using a terrier. I suspect the blocking of a right to reply is down to a ham fisted attempt to avoid egg on face given your track record in raptor work. Best to mark it down to experience and move on or get sucked into the circular arguments with some of the pedants that haunt RPUK. Life is too short. You can lead a horse to water but you cant force it to think.

  • George M

    Yes, Trapit, it is getting tiring. What you complained about happens to thousands of people every hour of the day and why you believe you are special and why Raptor Politics thinks it is newsworthy God only knows. It appears more of an attempt to damage what has become a very real threat to those who are continuing to persecute our birds of prey.
    Once I commit to contribute to a website then I implicitly accept their editorial policy, whether it suits my agenda or not. I’ve had it happen on many an occasion.
    If I were the editor of a Blog and had received the type of threats and abuse that the editor of RPUK has had on a regular basis then I would not feel at the beck and call of others who share the same platform as the abusers without complaint. You call for some sort of responsibility to a group of people who have spent the past few years insulting, abusing and making false allegations against these people running the website, against all other norms in this field. Man up.
    I feel sad that Raptor Politics has chosen to host this piece as I do not feel it to be in the interests of those who are concerned about the welfare of raptors. I am only too well aware that in replying to you I refused to follow your agenda as I viewed this whole exercise, and it’s Raison D’etre, from a very different perspective from your own and responded accordingly.
    Indeed, you presented yourself as the victim and this was what was all about from the beginning. I see the whole exercise as an attempt to discredit RPUK and this has been supported by the evidence of contempt and bitterness which has been apparent in the words and language you chose to employ.
    Of course what you have claimed in relation to goshawks should be debated but why not choose a forum where the authors identity and thus integrity is open for all to see. You sound as if you have something to say and, if you are serious, then it might be an idea to stop seeing yourself as a victim and engage with some positive energy to raise these observations to an official body where they can be dealt with… but to do it in the manner you have and then complain about it only serves to increase suspicion that all is not as it seems with any of the parties involved.
    Stick to the subject, accept the setbacks, dust yourself off and carry on. Do not create expectations for yourself that contradict the norms associated with online Blogs, especially on topics addressing the persecution of birds of prey as vast majority of dedicated raptor workers have formed a very, very poor opinion of the integrity of the shooting lobby over the years…. with a very good reason if you accept only a small part of what has been alleged, much of which has been proven, on RPUK.
    That’s my lot too. It’s sad we could not achieve a meeting of minds but has been beneficial in discussing the limits and policies of online Blogs and how they can be seen as being misused. You see RPUK as abusing privilege while I question the motivations of this site in progressing with this particular issue when all it is doing is highlighting standard practise in these types of disputes. It’s a Blog for crying out loud, no more, no less.
    Have a nice day.

    Editor’s Comment. Hi George, it appears Trapit has supplied his last word, and will not be making any further replies to any more of your posts.

  • Trapit

    Thanks David.

  • George M

    erm, I was replying to his posts if you check the history of the thread! :)

  • Trapit

    There is a good discussion at the moment on RPUK, concerning moderation of comments.
    It is after a post on illegal traps on Glen Dye estate.
    The editor uses quite a bad word.