A Channel 4 stitch up?

Last week Channel 4 news carried an item that was said to be a special investigation into raptor persecution in North Yorkshire. Am I alone in having been left thinking that North Yorkshire Police (NYP) were investigating 30 incidents of raptor persecution, reported to them over the past six months? A truly shocking revelation. Such a huge number of incidents, on reflection, seemed unbelievable so I went back to listen to the commentary again. This is a transcript of the pertinent section:-

Alex Thomson (Channel 4 News correspondent): Lockdown has seen a sharp increase in reports of birds of prey found dead. We joined Inspector Matt Hagen of North Yorkshire Police as he followed up reports of a dead bird of prey seen in the Nidderdale area.

Inspector Matt Hagen: I’m absolutely shocked and disgusted at the level of raptor persecution that I am coming across.

Alex Thomson: Inspector Hagen told us that of 30 birds he’s collected in the past six months, only one has died of natural causes and his investigations lead clearly to a single group of suspects.

Matt Hagen: All the shooting investigations that we’ve got going on at the moment are involving gamekeepers on grouse moors.

Alex Thomson: All of them?

Matt Hagen: All of them.

Alex Thomson: Every single one?

Matt Hagen: That’s right.   

What the transcript shows is that my perception that NYP were investigating 30 incidents of recent raptor persecution was completely wrong. Alex Thompson informed us that Matt had told him about having collected 30 birds during the past six months. Matt then said that all of the current shooting investigations pointed toward gamekeepers on grouse moors being responsible. What was not disclosed were the number of current investigations. It seemed to me that the production of the report had been undertaken in a way that exaggerated the scale of the problem. To establish whether this was the case I decided to undertake a little bit of fact checking. That could have included direct contact with Matt but I felt that he would not want to discuss ongoing investigations with me, and rightly so.   

Looking around the internet, including a review of news stories published by NYP since the 1st November 2019 I found six reports of shot raptors that appear to being investigated by that force. Those allegations involved 10 birds There were also three reports of raptors having been poisoned. Brief details of the six allegations are; 

29th May an incident involving the recovery of five buzzards. This incident was featured in the Channel 4 news report. 

7th May an incident involving the recovery of a buzzard in Nidderdale that was found to have been shot. 

29th March an incident relating to the shooting of a buzzard in Shipton.

17th March an incident in the Yorkshire Dales relating to a report of a Hen Harrier having been shot.

12th March an incident in Bowland relating to a report of a Hen Harrier having been shot. The involvement of NYP in this investigation puzzles me. As far as I can see this incident occurred in an area covered by Cumbria Police.   

23rd January an incident involving a kestrel having been shot in Birstwith.

So NYP seem to be investigating a maximum of six incidents, reported to them over the past six months, involving the shooting of or potential shooting of 10 birds of prey. This assumes that all of these incidents remain under investigation and have not been filed. As to the other recovered birds there was no information provided as to how they may have died or whether death occurred as a consequence of criminal activity. Some undoubtedly have gone for post-mortem and/or toxicology testing to establish cause of death. It may also be the case that there are other ongoing investigations that the police have chosen not to disclose details of. That said NYP have a track record of appealing for information relating to incidents of raptor persecution. As such I would be surprised if there were many undisclosed investigations. It is possible that many of the birds recovered by Matt could not be evidenced to have died as a result of criminal offences.

On Sunday evening the BBC's Countryfile programme also presented an article on raptor persecution in North Yorkshire. The information provided suggested that the number of current investigations by NYP into the shooting of raptors involved 6 buzzards and one Hen Harrier. This suggests that the number of current investigations might be three rather than six. For unexplained reasons Countryfile went out of their way to highlight that there was no evidence to suggest that one of the buzzards had been shot on land managed for shooting. 

This blog is not intended to been seen as a criticism of NYP nor of Matt Hagan. It is recognised that NYP are, at present, one of the leading forces when it comes to tackling wildlife crime. Their rural crime team are recognised, at present, as being one of the best, with their willingness to engage with all sectors of the rural community and to address all forms of wildlife crime being very evident. Working with the media always presents difficulties. It seems to me that, in the case of the Channel 4 news article, the interview given by Matt had been edited and presented in a manner that he may well be displeased with. 

Neither am I looking to minimise the extent of wildlife crime, in particular raptor persecution. Whether we are talking about three incidents, six incidents or 30 incidents, the message is always the same. Raptor persecution is unacceptable. Incidents need to be effectively investigated and where possible offenders given meaningful sentences. Six incidents of shooting plus incidents of poisoning and illegal trapping evidences that raptor persecution is a real problem in North Yorkshire. I would suggest that few police forces would be tasked to investigate even half that number of allegations in a year, most would investigate far less. 

What does not help is media coverage that either inadvertently or intentionally misrepresents the scale of raptor persecution. In my view Channel 4's "special investigation"  was anything but. If it was the intention of the reporter to leave viewers with the impression that there were nearly thirty investigations relating to raptor persecution being undertaken by NYP that would be nothing less than shameful. 

It would be really useful if NYP's rural crime team and similar teams in other forces would produce an annual report providing an overview as to the extent of different types of wildlife crime. To do so would provide much needed clarity.  

     

  

   

Wildlife crime counts 2.

Recently RSPB released a press release saying that since lock down was introduced they have been inundated with 56 reports of raptor persecution. They do not indicate how many of those incidents have been reported to the police, but I suspect that most have. A few weeks previously the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS) were highlighting that they had logged almost five hundred incidents of illegal hunting.

The two releases of information together highlight the difficulties of counting crime. It is a well known tactic, in policing, to talk about incidents when you want to talk a problem up and to talk about crimes when you wish to minimise the scale of the problem. For those who are not aware, an incident is created whenever a matter is reported to the police. This might, for example, be a report of a dead badger on the roadside that the caller thinks may have been left there, having been baited. A crime however, is only recorded where there is some evidence that a criminal offence has been committed. So the report of that dead badger will only become a crime if there are indications that it has been baited rather than, perhaps, hit by a passing vehicle.

The police have many years experience of manipulating crime figures. It became such an issue that some years ago reams of guidance on the recording of incidents and crimes were produced. It does of course relate to all sorts of crime and not just wildlife crime. Just one of the area's it delves into is how many crimes should be recorded when there are multiple offences. For instance where somebody walks down the road and scratches five cars, the guidance dictates that, it is likely that only one crime is committed. What is known as a continuing offence. The same guidance has to be applied to wildlife crime so if three dead buzzards are found around a poisoned bait, then again, it is likely that this will be recorded as one crime. The extent and complexity of this crime recording guidance provides jobs for many but has also led to greater transparency on the extent of crime.

It is important that those who are charged with or choose to involve themselves in the investigation of wildlife crime know the extent of the problem they are dealing with. It is no good conservationists counting, say, the destruction of three bats roosts on a development site as three crimes if the police, by application of formal guidance record it as a single crime.

To gauge the extent of wildlife crime the police should be able to provide information on how many incidents and crimes are reported in any given area. To do so removes any suggestion that figures provided by non-government organisations, all of whom naturally, have agenda's are incorrect, having been manipulated.         

I have previously mentioned that the National Police Chiefs Council in their 2018-2021 wildlife crime strategy said that they would look to introduce the recording of some wildlife crimes. Progress is long overdue. Only then we will be allowed insight into just how many of the reports recorded by RSPB and LACS revealed evidence of criminal offending. 

Wildlife crime counts.

Yesterday Cambridgeshire Police put out a press release relating to the work of their rural crime team during the past financial year. They have had some tremendous results for which they should be congratulated. Likewise, producing a report so quickly after the end of the year is to be commended. Hopefully teams from other police forces, who have similar remits  will also produce annual reports.
https://www.cambs.police.uk/news-and-appeals/Year-success-for-rural-crime-team

I did have a look at the remit of the Cambridgeshire team. As anticipated, it includes wildlife and heritage crime. Unfortunately there is little information in the report about these areas, beyond reference to the huge problem of hare coursing. It would be really nice to know how many allegations of wildlife crime they received, the type of offences they related to, and the outcomes of investigations.

Wildlife offences are rarely recorded in a meaningful manner. Much effort has been made to get the police to record such crime in the same way as other allegations of criminal behaviour. In the absence of such information Wildlife and Countryside Link, a coalition of organisations working in areas of conservation and the protection of wildlife and landscapes, have for the past three years, produced an annual wildlife crime report. The report presents views on the extent of wildlife crime as known to their contributing members.
https://www.wcl.org.uk/wildlife.asp

In March 2018 the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) produced a wildlife crime strategy for 2018-2021.  The strategy contains a number of very useful "first steps" intended to be taken. One of those steps was to extend the scope of wildlife crime reporting. It will soon be time to reflect on what progress has been made and to consider the production of a strategy for 2021-2024. I am hopeful that those responsible will follow the example of Cambridgeshire Police and produce a report detailing how or whether the first steps have been implemented.
https://www.npcc.police.uk/documents/crime/2018/NPCC%20Wildlife%20Crime%20Policing%20Strategy%202018%20%202021.pdf

Fern.

I should introduce the friend shown in my profile. A two year old cockerpoo who is the most wonderful companion. If you think that cockerpoos are mere lapdogs you could not be further from the truth. This one is so full of energy, demanding every minute of the exercise time, at present permitted. Maybe a consequence of her mum being a working cocker. She is brilliant.

   

Who'se a pretty boy then.

When I first set up my twitter account I had no intention of becoming a blogger. But, after years, of not wanting to engage in social media I now realise that blogging provides me with a wonderful opportunity to get things of my chest. I thought that if my offerings attracted half a dozen visits then it would be worthwhile. I would like to talk about a range of wildlife crime issues and I will. But at present the Raptor Persecution Scotland (RPS) blog is the gift that just keeps on giving!

Recently RPS decided devote the time needed to write a blog about me. I have been following the blog for several years but cannot recall any previous articles on those who have made contributions. Indeed I cannot recall the author or authors ever saying much about their own backgrounds and motivations. As I recall the site operated without any indication as to who might be behind it, for a significant period of time. So really, I feel rather honoured. I had heard that such a blog was being prepared and you may have seen my tweet offering to assist with any information that might be needed. I have to reveal that no such contact was made.

What an interesting choice of picture? Bear in mind my offer to assist them in preparation of their post. I would have been more than happy to provide a picture. I hope the one used is an awful picture. But maybe it is not as bad as I would like to think. Frankly I don't give a toss. I suppose one might question why it was felt necessary, in any case, to post my picture. Given that I have now retired from active wildlife crime work where does it get anybody? But, there we are, RPS, chose to use it. As I say it really does not bother me, my modelling aspirations dimmed a long time ago. I wonder whether, in choosing to use that particular picture, the thought that it might draw comment about my personal appearance, ever crossed the mind of those responsible for the post? I had a feeling that it might. Sure enough an early comment of such nature was deleted by the blog administrator. There may be those who feel that actually it was already "job done".  Perhaps having realised that the picture had the potential to draw abusive comment the blog administrator might have had second thoughts about using it and would have arranged for it to be removed. Nope when I checked earlier it was still there.

The RPS blog since it started has had over 5 million hits. That is really impressive, I wonder how many regular visitors there must be. Such a well supported site often draws a large number of comments to individual posts. So I wondered if I would now start to feel a huge weight of public opinion against me. Just had a look, 16 contributions in the first 24 hours. Hardly damming condemnation! It is worth while just delving a little more into those comments. Some of them are really genuinely interesting and useful. I would like, in particular, to respond to the point that as the NFU fund the police then why cannot Wild Justice. But that will have to wait for another time. There were  other comments made in a reasonable manner that but many of the remaining read, to me, as threats or the usual unevidenced stereotyping. But nothing from the blog administrator to identify and address such behaviour leading me to conclude that, in their view, such comment is quite acceptable.

All in all what this post does, in my opinion is paint a pretty damming picture of those responsible for it. A real meanness of spirit. I think that the police are going to look at this post and be asking some real questions as to whether they can be seen to be working in association with those who produce such material?  


 

That RPS post

   I am rather falling behind the curve here. There is so much material that I would really like to respond to, or cover, but I don't want this to blogging stuff to take over my life.

Before getting into the meat of this blog I have been trying to track down a blog or tweet or whatever where the case was being made that Wild Justice were quite entitled to bring Judicial Reviews because it is the right of every citizen to seek information and, if motivated to do so, challenge the state. If you know of such an article I would be grateful if you could let me have a link. It would have been nice to be able to reference such views prior to putting this out but I have no problem referring to it as I completely agree. That is a thought I would ask you to hold onto, as you read through what follows.

I remember, many years ago, as a raw police recruit, being given a nugget of advice to the effect that a Police Officer should have the last word in any matter. That advice suited me fine, I stopped being a police officer many years ago but still like to follow the stricture of last word. In saying that, lets return to the Raptor Persecution blog, where I made my first appearance.  https://raptorpersecutionscotland.wordpress.com/2020/04/17/wild-justice-launches-new-fund-to-support-police-investigations-in-to-raptor-persecution-crimes/

There is little point in simply repeating my concerns. It seems that RPS have some difficulty in understanding my logic. That fine, I have no problem with that, I have made my case and do not intend to revisit it. Well, at least, not in this post.

In making my comments I was quite clear in saying that I had no intention of trolling the site. I thought that maybe my concerns, although they would be unwelcome, could be discussed in a civil manner. Initially that seemed to be the case but then we came to the response to my second contribution. There are some parts of the responses from RPS that I really want to take a slightly closer look at. (I am only going to cut and paste selected sentences here but authenticity and context can be checked by referring to the Raptor Persecution blog.)

And again, I’ll repeat this because you appear to have ignored it the first time around – WJ is not a member of the RPPDG and has absolutely no intention of applying to join at this time. WJ values independence and the freedom that provides to get on with meeting its stated objectives without having to deal with malicious interventions by those who might (would) seek to disrupt those nature conservation objectives. WJ was under no obligation whatsoever to put this proposal to the RPPDG for consideration prior to launch.

Quite right I accept all you say here. But it does beg the question as to why the only quote in the original press release came from - the Chair of the RPPDG.

 Your slightly sinister comments about Nick Lyall and the NWCU are symbolic of the nasty smear campaigns aimed at both Nick and Lou (NWCU Head) that continue behind the scenes at great personal and professional cost to both individuals. Why is that, do you think? And who might be behind those campaigns? As previously stated, the integrity of both of them speaks volumes under the circumstances.

This is just a snapshot of the views of RPS where they seem to be looking to protect the reputation of specific officers. (My how times change. Several years ago I made what was intended to be a helpful comment on the site suggesting that they should focus on holding forces to account rather than attacking the integrity or competence of individual officers). What I suggested the other day was that, in one way or another, questions could be asked of the police. This was construed as being "slightly sinister" rather overlooking the fact that I had never questioned the integrity of anybody. In fact I was so concerned about this that I have written to both Nick Lyall and Lou Hubble making clear that I am not questioning their honesty and have no reason to do so.

So I will conclude by asking you to recall that thought that Wild Justice have every right to challenge decisions of the state. But it seems that that is not a view shared by RPS when it comes to challenging decisions made by the police. I strongly suspect that my observations are causing more concern to RPS than they will to any police officer who is challenged on their decision making. It is a routine part of the job.

Welcome to my very first blog.

Here we are, well into the fourth week of lock-down. The garden, what there is of it, is looking better than ever before, the shed has been creosoted in preparation for winter and all the kitchen knives are well honed. For those who know me these are good measures of just how bad things are. For those who don’t know me there is a bit of a biography towards the end of this, my first blog.

Last Friday I visited the Raptor Persecution Scotland (RPS) website. A site I visit frequently because, actually, it is a good source of information about raptor persecution, providing one does not lose sight of the prejudices that are so routinely pedalled. On this occasion there was a blog announcing that Wild Justice were looking to donate £5k to be used to “to support forensic analyses in cases relating to the illegal persecution of birds of prey”. Quite what is meant by illegal persecution will no doubt be explained at some point. Is it possible, from the perspective of the criminal law, to persecute legally?   

Anyway, I must confess to being rather incensed about the crass way in which this initiative was being launched. Especially the suggestion that, at a time of national emergency other organisations should contribute to such a fund. Had it perhaps escaped the attention of Wild Justice that many potential donors are facing, at best, a very uncertain future unable to retain staff let alone find funds for such an initiative. I really wanted to make comment about this, but Wild Justice do not allow, as far as I could see, contributions to be made on their blogs. So, I resorted to creating a twitter account and posting comments on the RPS blog. Again, those who know me will know that my decision to use Twitter evidences just how high my feelings were running.  

I think it is fair to say that my contributions to the conversation were not welcomed with open arms. Although credit is given for the fact that I was not blocked. Others were not quite so warm in their welcome. Nick Lyall of the Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group thought that one tweet was sufficient to block me from viewing his Twitter account.

But actually, a fair point was being made, should anonymous contributions to Twitter accounts and blogs, be blocked as a matter of routine. Looking at numerous comments on the RPS blog this does not appear to be a problem but it did make me think about whether I should be saying things that I was not prepared to put my name to. But that presented a real dilemma. I was Chair of Wildlife and Countryside Link’s wildlife crime and trade working group. A position that I was immensely proud of and honoured to have been elected to. Wild Justice are members of the same working group. That dilemma has now been resolved with my resignation.

There will, I am sure, still be some, for whom my identity is still a mystery. So, to be absolutely transparent. My name is Pete Charleston. My experience in matters of wildlife crime dates back to 1978 when I joined North Wales Police. My first successful wildlife crime investigation was in 1993, it involved egg collector’s intent on taking Roseate Tern eggs. In 2000 I was appointed as full-time wildlife crime officer for my force and was seconded to the Countryside Council for Wales (now Natural Resources Wales), the first Police Officer ever to be seconded to a conservation agency. After completing 8 years in that post and 30 years as a police officer I retired. Thereafter I was contracted to perform staff officer duties for 5 Chief Constables who were each the ACPO lead on wildlife crime. There was also a very enjoyable few years working as a wildlife crime coordinator for Derbyshire Police, as a contracted investigator for Natural England and other, one off, contracts for other police forces and organisations. In 2010 I was employed by the Bat Conservation Trust as their wildlife crime officer, another role I was proud to undertake. Just a few weeks ago I decided it was a good time to bring that chapter of my life to an end. 

All in all, I like to think that I am qualified to talk about wildlife crime. I hope that during the past 40 or more years I have done so in an impartial manner. I was always reluctant to talk about my personal interests but I think that having started to Tweet and write a blog I should also be transparent in that area. I do shoot occasionally and beat regularly on a number of local shooting estates. I am also a game angler. Away from country sports I am a poor birder but I do volunteer at the local RSPB reserve and have previously attended Raptor camps run by Birdlife in Malta. Bat surveys are something I began to get involved in last year.  Until recent times I was also undertaking voluntary duties for my local police force.       

There we have it. I hope, in future to tweet about wildlife crime issues, offering congratulations, challenges and criticism where appropriate. Where I feel the need I will also blog, but I promise that most blogs will be a lot shorter than this one. It is a good feeling knowing that I can voice opinion without the need to have regard to an employer! 

All views expressed are purely my own. They may not represent the views of those organisations I am connected to or have been connected with.