Extremely disappointed to see the latest politically motivated comments on “X” forum.
Cant believe such a Royal charity is stooping so low.
Paul B said: Some people become fixated that their view or belief on a subject is so important to them and become convinced that their opinion is so evidently right that no sensible person could disagree with it. Hence treating anyone that disagrees with their opinion with contempt and hostility. As previously stated it is great that we live in a democracy and hopefully the CANCEL culture is now on the decline. Had enough with you radicles now Good night
Quite right......so just to remind you for another time, I have asked you for your opinion....yes, your opinion...."how do you campaign…..as a conservation organisation…..against rivers and seas being used as a dumping ground…..without it being political as it is politicians who are responsible for the rules and for the oversight of regulators…….?"
I do agree with your point re cancel culture and hope your cancel culture is in decline and the overseas funding of stuff you read is addressed in the near future.
Paul BStating treat fire with fire is outrageous.started if this thread about how the RSPB reacted on “X”In my humble opinion. This was not a charitable majority statement, it was a minority management statement, thankfully it was retracted.I now think it is a radicle minority who always seem to have the louder voice and get more publicity.Some people become fixated that their view or belief on a subject is so important to them and become convinced that their opinion is so evidently right that no sensible person could disagree with it. Hence treating anyone that disagrees with their opinion with contempt and hostility.As previously stated it is great that we live in a democracy and hopefully the CANCEL culture is now on the decline.Had enough with you radicles nowGood night
Does that mean we are to roll over, lie down, and for a fee we might be lucky enough to get our tummies tickles!
Many organisations in their constitutions have wording that permits them to undertake actions without prior consultation to the membership. The time wasted putting things to a vote each time an action needs to be taken will slow the process down and by the time action can be taken, it will be too late.
After all, isn't our government an elected body and how often do we get the opportunity, other than election time, to vote on policies?I think the last time was the EU Referendum, in June 2016.I haven't the time to sit and read through the RSPB constitution, but if their actions are proactive for nature and wildlife, even if it means getting political, then the RSPB gets my support.I shared the following in another thread:"An interesting observation from my wife many years ago (2016 was the year), she was very ill and off work for almost a year, and with living so close to HS2, it's a field away from our home, she was watching the government reviews and how HS2 were questioned.I didn't see as much as what she saw, but it was very interesting to observe how the conservation organisations interacted, not as engaging as my wife and myself have liked.I cannot fairly comment either positively or negatively, because I don't know what the brief for the conservation organisations was, either just to be an observer (I'm sure some reading this will have been invited to sit on local club committee meetings purely as an observer with no voting or speaking rights, I did with my sons and their many activities), or to be actively involved with or without constraints, but it did open my eyes to how determined the government were to get their way with that project."
In the interim I'll find a cosy corner, lie down and save up my hard earned pension to have my tummy tickled......
regards
John
Unknown said:I haven't the time to sit and read through the RSPB constitution, but if their actions are proactive for nature and wildlife, even if it means getting political, then the RSPB gets my support.
That's pretty much it for me.
Our herring gulls are red listed birds. Think about that the next time you hear some flaming idiot calling for a cull of them.
Yeah! The Charity Commission has spoken.
The report stated:The RSPB incident was an example of what the commission would like charities to guard against when using social media, he said.
But he praised the charity for acting swiftly when it realised what had happened. “I think they [the RSPB] should be given credit for recognising it [the tweet] was a mistake, and for apologising,” he said.
Regards,
Ian.