The weekend before last we were out filming in Scotland with Chris Packham, at a number of locations and with a number of experts. We’re not going to say too much about that at the moment because….well, you’ll see in due course.
At one particular location we were followed and filmed by an individual. Those photographs were subsequently doing the rounds on social media last week – some of you may have seen them – and they led to a wide range of absurd accusations and claims, including one particular favourite – that Chris was ‘caught filming on a grouse moor and as soon as he was spotted by the gamekeeper he literally ran back to the car and hid his face’.
Now, what was it that Scottish gamekeepers have been accused of doing recently? Was it something about making “greatly exaggerated” claims? Have a look at this video that WE filmed of us leaving that grouse moor, having been followed and filmed by this gamekeeper for at least half an hour – can you see anyone “literally running back to the car to hide their face”?
Note the gamekeeper filming us, sitting in the black 4×4 parked in the lay by behind our two vehicles.
There have also been claims that we were filming “illegally” on the grouse moor. No, we weren’t. Our accusers would do well to read the Land Reform Act and learn about public rights of access in Scotland.
There have also been claims that Chris broke BBC guidelines by filming with a BBC film crew without landowner permission. No, he didn’t. This wasn’t a BBC film crew and landowner permission was not required (see above).
There have also been claims that Chris broke BBC guidelines by ‘campaigning on social media’ during his Springwatch contract. No, he didn’t. Chris wasn’t the one who posted the photos and associated commentary on social media (i.e. ‘campaigning’) – that was done by those in the game-shooting industry, who shot themselves in the foot by bringing it to the attention of Springwatch viewers while the series was still on air! How can Chris be held responsible for someone else’s decision to post photographs of him on social media, accompanied by a string of false accusations?!
There have also been claims that one of the people involved was (a) a security guard or (b) an ‘animal rights extremist/thug’ – no, he wasn’t either of those. It’ll become apparent later in the year exactly who he was and what he was doing there!
There have also been claims that this particular member of our team was violently intimidating towards the gamekeeper, and that he “wouldn’t back down against him”. Have another look at our video – can you see any evidence of violent intimidation or can you see a man walking back to his vehicle and immediately getting in to avoid any confrontation with the gamekeeper who was filming him?
On something of a tangent, it has also been claimed that Environment Cabinet Secretary Roseanna Cunningham and Ruth Tingay of RPUK are “shagging”, which is apparently why the Cabinet Secretary agreed to appear in our Fred video last year. Erm…..
It’s pretty clear that there are some within the game shooting industry who are so terrified about our work and the impact we are having they’ll try anything to discredit us, no matter how pathetic or defamatory the accusations.
It looks like they’re the ones running scared….and so they should be. Some of the footage we filmed in Scotland will be devastating to the grouse shooting industry. Forget Werritty and the long-awaited review – what we have transcends anything that Professor Werritty can report.
Raptor Persecution UK 
Why no sound?!….
Why did you feel the need to publish his license plate?….
Why the lies about Chris “literally running back to the car to hide his face”?
Why the data security breech & subsequent witch hunt?!…
Edward – you sound like a man who’s a little bit worried. Fantastic.
I’m not worried at all, Gavin!…. Which is hilarious!
You’re not fooling anyone, except yourself, which you’re more than used to by now.
Delightful, Ruth!
Teetering on the verge of vigilante. I’d just be careful, that’s all I’m saying. Could be detrimental to future cases.
Your veiled threats just expose your weakness of character and why nothing you say can be taken seriously. You clearly don’t even understand the most basic public access laws, either.
Hi RP. Just for clarification, there was no threat, veiled or otherwise! I was referring to adversely effecting any potential legal case. We’ve seen rspb cases thrown out on technicalities.
“Be careful”, you say. The day environmentalists take advice from you, Edward Coles, will be the day you form a coherent and honest argument (never).
Hunt? Hunt,hunt hunt hunt,… Is that all you think about? Could be an investigation that would be a bit more mature. I would have thought that his face was more of a give away than the number plate…. why the concern about the number plate? Was it his vehicle with his number plate or was it a company car and it should have been somewhere else? Who knows? Anyway I thought it was a great photo, in this disposable digital age, I;d say it was definitely a keeper.
LOL LOL LOL A different location and the cars were not parked like that LOL
Really clutching at straws aren’t you Norman? No matter where the original picsl were taken isn’t this the actual incident your lot are referring to? Certainly no running away or hiding the face here. I think you need to save your breath for when the videos come out, by the sounds of it you and your pals are going to have an awful lot of explaining to do….can’t wait.
If you look, it is the same location, the keeper’s (for lack of a more appropriate description) pickup is clearly in the same spot in the video as in the 3rd photo on the other post, and as for the cars facing the wrong way, simple explanation for that, they turned around and headed back the same way that they came.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[Ed: Bye Norman, you’re banned]
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[Ed: banned for homophobic abuse]
Where those comments directed at me? If so I have to wonder what was it about what I wrote which resulted in comments of such an unsavoury nature.
No not at all xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
That is pure conjecture whether it is the same incident that was filmed or photographed!
Do you eat much lead-shot game, Norman? Just curious….
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[Ed: comment deleted. Homophobic abuse will not be tolerated]
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[Ed: banned for homophobic abuse]
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[Ed: banned for homophobic abuse]
Psst Norman,you had better talk to Bert quick… you guys need to get your story straight before you launch a campaign which pulls the rug out from underneath each other…oops you already have!
You just said you were filming,whether it was for the BBC or Wild Justice you needed permission,the public could film for personal use no problem .but when it comes to evidence or for public use you have to have permission.
Nope, you’re wrong, Norman. Try reading the Land Reform Act.
Try reading it yourself
Try reading in conjunction with the right of access
Section 1, Subsection (3)(b) looks like it may be the relevant point in the LRA. With reference to subsection (5)(b).
It does annoy me the way some pro-shoot people get things completely wrong when it comes to things like public access. You see those “moorland monitor” groups being wrongly accused of trespassing when they find snare sites on open access moorland. I’ve seen people accusing the RSPB investigations team, when they filmed at that harrier roost late last year, which would have been open access land as well (of course they do have to trespass sometimes, but not on that occasion).
Anyway, I can’t wait to see the full story of this when it comes out, certainly looks interesting.
Click on the Youtube link, bottom right. You can watch and hear it all there.
The more paranoia we can create, the better, fear of being caught will stop them or make them very careless, either way we will get what we want.
I live in hope.
Doug
Those who need to lie are the ones runnig scared.
I can’t wait to see what you’ve got. 😁
I know!!! Better than looking forward to the summer blockbuster isn’t it?
Cant wait to see what footage you have :) Chris ‘running scared’ never will he do that , keep the faith Chris and all ‘The times they are a changing ‘
I certainly hope so. There’s been shooting near here from 3.45am til 11.45. I simply can’t believe that there are that many pest birds causing serious damage around here. It’s truly sickening.
See the DPO view on number plates and GDPR -> https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/286454/response/695984/attach/html/3/FOIR4817%20Mark%20Slater.pdf.html under a previous FOI.
“DVLA considers a vehicle registration number (VRN) to be personal information
where the registered keeper of the vehicle is an individual. If a vehicle is registered
to a company for example then the Data Protection Act does not apply and the VRN
cannot be considered to be personal data. ”
I guess until you know whether or not the registered keeper is an individual or a company, then it would be bettr not to publish.
Yes DVLA might consider registrations of personally held vehicles as having the DP Act apply, but that is them acting as a public body.
Surely as a member of the public, if I took a photo or film of say a wedding party leaving a registry office and incidentally captured the registration of one or more cars parked there, then I can’t really be in breach of the DPAct by showing my photos/video online, can I?
Surely that gamekeeper is guilty of some legal transgression? Filming someone going about their lawful business without their permission is surely illegal? Harassment or stalking?
Interesting question, which you could turn the other way, add in publishing his registration and enquiring if he has gun a licence, all gets a bit sticky!
Pales into insignificance when compared to the intimidation I and some of friends have suffered at the hands of you bastard keepers , shotguns being waved about, filming individuals and car reg, intimidating cross examination like you are the bloody police, being followed , being assaulted (thankfully he was too pissed to do much harm still continued onto main road however) threats to shoot dogs ,blocking access littering the countryside with disgusting stink pits (try explaining that to a six year old) etc etc.
I really hope RPUK has dynamite footage I would love to see you despicable bastards get it right up you.
Breath, blow your nose & count to ten!….
I have also experienced over many years the kind of behaviour from people in the grouse industry which he is describing and I doubt if we are alone. I was always aware that I was dealing with aggressive and, in some cases, potentially violent people. That comes through also in the online behaviour of shooting types. That and the fact that the systemic crime in the grouse industry is largely committed with firearms represents a level of threat to raptor workers in the field which should not be ignored. No other form of armed crime is indulged by the courts in the way that wildlife crime is and that indulgence could have serious consequences in a conflict such as this.
I think this is one of the obstacles we face, there’s still this quaint, manufactured image of the gamekeeper as the dignified, knowledgeable countryman – which I very much doubt was ever really true. Some were and are, I know a retired gamie who is, but a hell of a lot aren’t and that’s obvious from social media. You just have to look at the number of friends the loudest and most repugnant ones have on Facebook to see that they are the most conspicuous arseholes as opposed to being unrepresentative of their profession. I feel sorry for any decent person that’s wound up in game keeping, at the end of the day it entails killing some things so other people can kill other things for fun. What sort of person is actually attracted to that, kind of detracts from being in the great outdoors doesn’t it? Keepers have been convicted of involvement in badger baiting and dog fighting as well as raptor persecution, which is badly surprising. I’ll never forget (and I’ve mentioned it often enough) the single summer when an apprentice gamekeeper from Glasgow was convicted of kicking a hedgehog to death and another in Broxburn was convicted for participating in badger baiting. Neither Glasgow or Broxburn are exactly in the midst of shooting estates, this wasn’t a case of taking up a local job opportunity those ‘lads’ were attracted to game keeping. I wonder where they are now? A significant proportion of keepers appear to be out and out neds and the stories I keep hearing about people meeting them in the flesh confirm the impressions gained from Facebook etc. So frustrating the image the public get is the highly selective one presented on Landward, Countryfile and those puke inducing Pace Production ‘The Untold Story of…..’ videos. Shame they don’t get to see what we see. Mind you that might start to change with these new videos😁
Then they laugh at you, then we win !!
Asking a person if they are complying with the law isn’t harassment! What would the police and judicial system do if asking a simple question like that was illegal!
I haven’t time to double check but there are a number of offences of harassment under (I think) the Criminal Justice Act and the Protection from Harassment Act. One requires intent to harass, the other requires a course of conduct of harassment on two or more occasions.
Keep up your good work we all love you forget about the nasty gang
Photographs and video of unknown people in public situations, are not illegal. When the photograph is used for commercial purposes, then the permission of the subject is required through the signing of a model release form. The use of blurred out faces is acceptable anonymity.
Great work everybody , sounds like one or two starting to get a little sweaty under the collar.
“On something of a tangent, it has also been claimed that Environment Cabinet Secretary Roseanna Cunningham and Ruth Tingay of RPUK are “shagging”,”
And so what if they were? Of all the batshit claims out there, this is the most baffling; it ain’t the 1950s, people.
no, it’s the 1850’s if your professionally involved in grouse shooting iirc.
I don’t know the land reform bill inside out and don’t know the legalities of filming where and when without permission but it seems fairly logical to me, that if you go into somebodies land or property to film a programme/documentary/advert/or to use in promotional material or to further your cause, surely you require the landowners permission.
If not, that means anybody can walk on Balmoral and start filming a video for the aforementioned purposes?
‘I don’t know the land reform bill inside out’
****
Here you go then. It’s only Part 1 you need to bother about.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2003/2/contents
In theory you could film on Balmoral Estate for the purposes allowed by the Act but it might be advisable to let them know in advance just to avoid any unpleasantness or embarrassment.
legislation for land reform/right to access and to film and photograph on private land are two different things, hence why so many covert ops by rspb etc fail in a court of law.
Tell me, did springwatch just pitch up in the Cairngorms estates (even the RSPB reserve) and start filming without permission? And if they weren’t granted permission , they said to hell with the landowner, we’re doing it anyway?
What’s the difference between Springwatch filming and Wild Justice / RPUK filming?
If the film makers were doing it from the roadside, then fair enough but we’ll not know that until the video is released.
‘legislation for land reform/right to access and to film and photograph on private land are two different things’
No they’re not. Read the Act.
***
‘hence why so many covert ops by rspb etc fail in a court of law.’
You are confusing the law regarding the admissibility of evidence in criminal court proceedings with the right of access. If, as you claim, it is illegal to film without the landowner’s consent, why, in the cases you allude to, was no action, civil or criminal, taken against the RSPB, or whoever did the filming?
My comments in bold assuming formatting works
“1 Access rights
(1)Everyone has the statutory rights established by this Part of this Act.
(2)Those rights (in this Part of this Act called “access rights”) are—
(a)the right to be, for any of the purposes set out in subsection (3) below, on land; and
(3)The right set out in subsection (2)(a) above may be exercised only—
(b)for the purposes of carrying on a relevant educational activity; or
(c)for the purposes of carrying on, commercially or for profit, an activity which the person exercising the right could carry on otherwise than commercially or for profit.
(5)A “relevant educational activity” is, for the purposes of subsection (3) above, an activity which is carried on by a person for the purposes of—
(b)enabling or assisting other persons to further their understanding of natural or cultural heritage.”
(3)(c) looks to be saying that commercial/ profitable activities can take place so long as those activities can also be of a non-commercial/ non profit making nature, so if a member of the public can go film and take photos for personal use, a filmcrew can film and take photos for professional use.
At the same time, the filming by RPUK and the Springwatch team for that matter could possibly fall under (3)(b) as the material could be classified under (5)(b)
“2Access rights to be exercised responsibly
(1)A person has access rights only if they are exercised responsibly.
(2)In determining whether access rights are exercised responsibly a person is to be presumed to be exercising access rights responsibly if they are exercised so as not to cause unreasonable interference with any of the rights (whether access rights, rights associated with the ownership of land or any others) of any other person, but”
Something like the Springwatch main site, which involves hundreds of people would surely cause unreasonable interference if they just turned up and as such would not be permissible under the Land reform act, so they would require permission.
However, a group 5-10 persons out filming for a couple of hours (such as a team making a pre-recorded springwatch segment from a remote location or in this case RPUK) is unlikely to cause unreasonable interference.
Twice I’ve tried to respond on this thread and twice my comment has vanished, without saying that the moderator has deleted it.
Any suggestions why?
Hi Scm,
Yes, because you keep writing ‘In Private’ at the head of your message so it was assumed to be a private message, not for publication.
If you want it to be published, please re-send (previous versions have been deleted).
Thanks
Ah the poor aul gamekeepers being bullied – the little shrinking violets who never hurt a fly!!
Classic responses by the shooting industry and all those who support such blood ‘sports’, to lie, exaggerate, deceive and plainly just make up stuff, with the hope of moving focus from the shocking and uncomfortable truth of the real issues being raised. What’s that saying? First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they attack you. Then you win. Sadly, here, on the issues covered by RPUK, due the enormity of the problems relating to raptor persecution and other wildlife criminality taking place on shooting estates, it will be a while before there is any real winning, but we are definitely moving in the right direction. Let’s keep it up!
Look forward to discovering which estate this happened on. Obviously a location a lot of blog readers and concerned members of the public would like to visit. We won’t mind if that’s an official information release or a leak.
I’d be happy to go for a stroll there, but not on my own.
This is making Malta look like a stroll in the park!