Last Friday I wrote about how Moorland Association Director Ben Ramsden had been convicted at Skipton Magistrates Court for three counts of illegal burning on his grouse moor at Middlesmoor in the Nidderdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) in April 2023 (see here).
At the time, details of the fine imposed by the court were unavailable. I also wrote how his profile had curiously ‘disappeared’ from the Moorland Association website, even though he was still listed as a Moorland Association Director on Companies House documents.
I can now provide an update on those issues.
Ramsden has ‘resigned’ his position as Director of the Moorland Association, according to updated documents. His resignation was lodged at Companies House on 11 October 2023, nine days before his court hearing, presumably because he knew at that stage that he was going to plead guilty to three charges of criminal activity on his grouse moor and so his continued Directorship of the Moorland Association, alongside a conviction, would come under great scrutiny.
Unsurprisingly, the Moorland Association hasn’t mentioned Ramsden’s conviction or resignation as a Director. Not even PR contortionist Amanda Anderson could put a positive spin on that. Besides, I suspect she’s busy formulating campaigns against the reintroduction of beavers, supporting the burning of vegetation on peat-rich grouse moors, supporting the continuation of hen harrier brood meddling and promoting the use of neonicotinoids in her new position as Vice Chair of this lot.
As for Ramsden’s ‘punishment’ from the court for his three offences of illegal burning on a deep peat moor, there’s an article in today’s Craven Herald & Pioneer (here) which states that Ramsden was ordered to pay a grand total of just £925 in fines and costs (£300, £100 and £200 for each fire, a surcharge of £240 and costs of £85). Gosh, that’ll learn ‘im and what a daunting deterrent for anybody else considering of setting fire to their grouse moors, eh?
The article includes some interesting commentary about how the fires were a ‘genuine mistake’ and how there had been ‘ignorance to the regulations’ by Ramsden.
Ignorance? Really? Is this the same Ben Ramsden who not only was a Director of the Moorland Association but who served on DEFRA’s Project Advisory Group for a multi-year project called, ‘Restoration of blanket bog vegetation for biodiversity, carbon sequestration and water regulation’??!
And is this the same Ben Ramsden whose grouse moor was the subject of a five year £1.5 million peatland restoration project undertaken by the Yorkshire Peat Partnership? A project on which after completion in 2020 Ramsden said: “…Our moors are essentially wall to wall deep peat…”?!! (And by the way, how many traps can you see on those logs – that looks like quite intensive predator control to me):
And is this the same Ben Ramsden whose Moorland Association profile said was ‘instrumental in establishing the Nidderdale Moorland Group‘, the same group that repeatedly states on social media posts:
“We do not burn peat, burn peatlands, burn deep peat or blanket bog. All areas are managed under agreement with Natural England and DEFRA“
and whose work ‘restoring peatland‘ was celebrated ‘under the Moorland Association banner‘ (here)?
It seems incomprehensible to me, given his position and experience, that Ben Ramsden would be ‘ignorant’ of the burning restrictions on deep peat. Of course it’d be impossible to prove what exactly he did and didn’t know but it just doesn’t seem credible that he’d be ‘ignorant’ of the risks of lighting fires on his moorland that he has previously described as “wall to wall deep peat“.
The court must have seen some credibility in this mitigation argument though, given that the maximum fine for an offence under this legislation is £1,000 per fire, and Ramsden received just a fraction of that for each one (£100, £200 and £300 respectively).
Had someone other than the landowner (or working under the landowner’s authority) set fire to this blanket bog they could have faced a custodial sentence for arson (criminal damage by fire). It clearly pays to be a landowner.
It’s more than a little sickening that this landowner’s grouse moor can benefit from multi-year, multi-million pound projects (much of it publicly funded) to restore vitally important peatland during a climate emergency, then the landowner can burn it, claim ‘ignorance’ of the rules, and be fined a teeny tiny fraction of the cost of even bringing the prosecution, let alone any damage he caused.
We so desperately need a dedicated environmental justice court, populated by expert judges and backed up with sentencing powers that actually hold people to account.
Raptor Persecution UK 
Two what looked like muirburns today on the A9 north of Slochd summit. One on each side. [Ed: Thanks, Chris. I’ve removed your final sentence out of respect for the deceased’s family]
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
I don’t think the timber structures across the watercourses have anything to do with predator control, Ruth.
[Ed: Thanks, Bog Trotter. The picture isn’t brilliant but if you look closely each of those timber ‘rails’ has an indent carved out of the middle and on all the rails except for the once closest to the camera appears to sit a ‘rail trap’ – classic old school traps for stoats (and many other species) trying to cross watercourses]
I can’t see any legal ‘rail’ traps on any of the timber dams either – just an overflow notch in the middle of each one.
Pathetic. I always thought ignorance of the law was no excuse!
Dream on that would be the day this government only pays lip service to doing anything about climate change and all we can do is highlight their failings! Unfortunately to a small number of people most have no idea about all this cap doffing and IF Labour do get this lot out I for one do not see this being very high on their list of priorities so nothing to look forward to any time soon there seems a big similarity to the banana republics to me especially when the police are supporting the foxhunters who break the law and cause a lot of trouble up and down the country. I used to think the laws in this country applied to all I now know better.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
I suppose we must put this down to the weakness of justice against a guilty plea in what the courts and the law see as a pretty minor ( but its not really ) series of offences. ” Sorry guv, I didn’t realise and it won’t happen again” the courts accepts gives a minor fine without really looking at the facts. He xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ( in fact anyone who has been on that moor top knows its all on deep peat, some of those old peat gullies were 6 feet deep and still bottomed by peat) so a man who had pleaded not guilty might have seen real justice meted out xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx. Who should we blame, smart owners/lawyers overstretched and possibly badly informed courts or the whole system, whatever it is/was needs to change and currently there is fat chance of that.
I think Bog Trotter might be right. The indents cut out of the timber across the water gully is to channel the water flow, when it reaches almost to the top, through the middle of the dam. This is to reduce the possibility of the water flowing round the sides and eroding the peat, thereby defeating the object of the dams. A leaflet from Moors for the Future is here https://www.moorsforthefuture.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0031/87529/Timber_Dams_Factsheet.pdf There may be traps too I suppose.
Normally this would be a V shaped notch….but traps dont come in v shapes.
My thoughts exactly. Differing notch profiles for different purposes. A flat wide notch presents a flume which is less damaging to the soft substrate on the downstream side than any other easily made notch profile.
Just the usual slap on the wrist punishment then
Ignorance – I just don’t believe that. We are always hearing how keepers know every tuft of heather on their ground like the back of their hand, and there is some truth in that. And also that part of the world is especially known as having extensive peat hags and the like. So I think it would be more a case of “it’s our land, we think it’s best – let’s crack on” and I daresay that place is considered tricky terrain to operate a tractor & mower on. Regards the dams in the picture – I don’t think those ones have ever incorporated a stoat trap (rail or log, etc), but it wouldn’t take much to incorporate a rail above the top plank leaving a gap for the water, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this was being done elsewhere, it’s the type of crafty time/efficiency hack that they are always dreaming up.
Its a shame he didn’t plead not guilty and then he could have been questioned in court by a prosecution brief in the hope of showing up his ignorance claim to be what we all think it was. There is no way you could get a tractor and mower on much of that top it is heavily gullied and now very wet, so i for one am surprised they needed to burn. Then lots of landowners these days to quote an old now dead keeper friend “think grouse rise like the phoenix from burnt ground.” The gaps on the plank dams are for water flow. I think Circus is right too there aught to be an agreed burning plan, perhaps there is but the peat restoration project did finish before the latest burning restrictions came in. Its an interesting case on an interesting moor, the highest drive on that top starts at above 1800ft asl.
The “ignorance” bit is xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx. If yer man is that “ignorant” he should step down from adult life immediately.
I don’t know if the magistrate is allowed to take such xxxxx xxxxx into account when deciding punishment or not.
Surely if Middlesmoor was part of a funding scheme for peatland regeneration there would have to be an agreed muirburn plan…which both co-owners would have to sign up to? And that the public funding contract would require that they stick to the muirburn plan. And if they break the conditions of the funding package then that funding could be reclaimed?
The fines are pathetic but hopefully Ramsden will feel embarrassed by this, but then again. Ruth, thanks for the link to ‘this lot’. I did not know about the Conservative Friends of the Countryside and once again I just despair. Looking at their website and the bit about Trophy Hunting ‘read more’, yet again there is another pop at Chris Packham. It’s like a broken record and I really wish that these people would move on. Interesting that they think the best logo for the countryside is a Tractor.
“In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.”
ERASMUS
Compare this to the sentences handed down to peaceful protesters as shown on Chris Packham’s C4 programme. And the £10k + Covid fines on ‘Partygate’. Not of course to Richi or his ex-mate, who got £50.
Tory justice. Sickening.
In my experience of reporting court cases, magistrates and judges especially did not accept ignorance as a mitigation, a bit like using drunkenness as an excuse. Maybe times have changed. But someone in his position is xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx by saying he didn’t know.
Pleading ignorance of the regulations is utterly absurd for a person in his position and with his background. Still, if we take it at face value it rather seriously undermines the common shooting community assertion that those who protest about the excesses of the game management industry are ‘ignorant townies’ who don’t understand anything about the ways of the countryside, nature and how it works! It’s a bit tricky to claim superior knowledge and understanding whilst also pleading ignorance!