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.