Ah. So, assuming that your answer is directed at me, Robbo, thank you. I didn't know that the Society is against a ban. So it's opposition to a ban is in contradiction of its Objects (point i of my previous post) and if it's not actively placing the pros and (particularly, given that it's against a ban) cons of th present petition before the public, its actions are in contradiction of its objects (point ii of my previous post).
Does that make more sense?
Dave
Ah... I think I see now. The Society is taking a part in this question as it's against a ban. I just find it hard to reconcile non-opposition to Grouse shooting with 'To promote the conservationof biological diversity and the natural environment for the public benefit' (from the Objects) (emphasis mine).
Re my second point, if Simon Tucker is right and the RSPB is proving ambivalent regarding the petition, I would have thought---as a simple layman trying to understand what is a complex issue, I'm sure---that this wouldn't sit well with 'to raise public understanding and awareness of, and to provide information on, such matters' (from the Objects).
Contradiction? No contradiction?
In reply to Dave - CH:
Dave - CH said:
So, Robbo, the Society's neutral stance on the current petition is in contradiction with the passages in the Objects that refer explicitly to (i) the public benefit, and (ii) the raising of public understanding and the provision of information, or?
I'm asking because the sentence itself is unambiguous, but 'impact on the Objects' might be interpretted in more than one way.
Yes Robbo nearly always disagrees with me. I interpret the sentence that Robbo quotes from the RSPB’s royal charter, much different to what Robbo interprets it as!
Regards,
Ian.
Simon Tucker
In reply to THOMO:
In reply to Robbo:
Well looking at that sentence you quote from the Royal Charter, it makes it very clear that the RSPB have to be neutral on shooting game birds, as long as that is done legally and within the law. And yet again I have to disagree with you.