• Locked Locked
  • Replies 15 replies
  • Subscribers 11 subscribers
  • Views 6340 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Latest posts
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Roseanna Cunningham: Political Advocate of the Year 2019

Simon Tucker
08/12/2019 17:23

I see that Ms Cunningham has been awarded Political Advocate of the Year for 2019. Can I ask: how?  Who voted for her?

As far as I can see her advocacy is promotional for the shooting industry: the "Gift of Grouse".  You know, those people who are slaughtering mountain hares to remove food for birds of prey; those people that protected raptors immediately go missing every time they fly near one of their estates.

From where I am sitting she has dragged her feet over Werrity, one nothing much to stop wildlife crime and done nothing to advocate for nature. You should have given the award to Andy Wightman or someone who actually deserves it!

Apparently she likes beavers!

Simon Tucker

  • 12/12/2019 14:50
    Posts reinstated.

    Simon Tucker

  • 13/12/2019 10:01
    Hello. Whilst we as an organisation are politically neutral, as some of you have mentioned above, we do actively support lively debate on all subjects within the Community. However, we should remember to remain respectful towards fellow community members, even if their opinions differ from our own. When using the forums, please ensure that you bear our terms and conditions in mind. You can find the RSPB Communities terms and conditions here: ww2.rspb.org.uk/.../terms.aspx

    I hope my post doesn't discourage anyone from engaging in active conservation discussions on RSPB Communities.
  • 13/12/2019 14:34 in reply to RSPB Admin
    Thank you for this: better late than never.

    I have no problem discussing issues with people but the replies to this post were not people disagreeing with my point but my right to make the point.

    They trolled throughout, reporting non-abusive posts as abusive, all of which were reinstated on appeal.

    They, by contrast, indulged in personal attacks, which you allowed to remain on the thread.

    Simon Tucker

  • 13/12/2019 17:34

    I have been reading all the posts to this thread but this will be my one and only post here.
    It is obvious that there is not going to be agreement on the timing of Simon's original post & whether any of the subsequent posts have been rude, disrespectful or whatever. I am not going to express an opinion on any of that.
    No-one has responded to the content of Simon's original post, might I suggest that now we should just let anyone who wants to comment on Simon's original post do so. If people do the post will remain "current" if not it will slip down the forum pages as with any other thread.
    Ian.

  • 14/12/2019 17:39 in reply to Ian S
    I am perfectly happy to trade informed opinions but that is not what happened here. Three people tried to censor a discussion which I think is valid - and I have had a personal email from the administrators confirming that, whilst the RSPB maintains a neutral stance politically, they are perfectly happy for such discussions to take place on the forum. As you can see, a version of that email has been posted directly by the administrators. They also confirmed that they had reinstated my posts.

    That said - those three should have the decency to delete their posted objections, as it has been confirmed that those objections are not valid, and they are not contributing to, but detracting from, the discussion I had hoped to spark. If no-one is interested in that discussion, that's a different thing, and I am not arrogant enough to think that because I find it interesting others would also.

    Simon Tucker