Back in July, the Moorland Association announced that it had been removed from the Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group (RPPDG), the national police-led ‘partnership’ that’s supposed to tackle illegal raptor persecution (see here for announcement).
The expulsion appeared to have been triggered by a Moorland Association blog, where the grouse moor owners’ lobby group looked to be trying to sabotage the work of the police’s new National Hen Harrier Taskforce, being led by the National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU) which I wrote about here, although later FoI documents revealed that prior to that blog being published, the NWCU had already warned Moorland Association CEO Andrew Gilruth that they thought he was “wasting time and distracting from the real work” of the Hen Harrier Taskforce (see here).
The Moorland Association then claimed to be “perplexed” and “bemused” by the expulsion in a hilariously distorted rebuttal blog.
Up until now, we hadn’t seen a copy of the expulsion letter written to Andrew Gilruth by the Head of the NWCU so we only had the Moorland Association’s typically contorted version of events.
After a further couple of rounds of FoI requests, the expulsion letter has finally been released. The reasons for the expulsion are laid out very clearly and expose the Moorland Association’s claims of being “perplexed” and “bemused” as being what I see as yet another example of disingenuous spin – a skill for which I consider Andrew Gilruth has somewhat of a reputation from his days at GWCT.
Here’s the expulsion letter/email:
The expulsion letter refers to alleged breaches of conduct against the terms of reference of the Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group (RPPDG), the so-called ‘partnership’ in which Andrew Gilruth represented the Moorland Association, having taken over the role after Amanda Anderson left the Moorland Association at the end of 2023.
To fully understand the NWCU’s rationale for writing the expulsion letter, you need to see those RPPDG terms of reference. Here they are:
It seems that the NWCU’s justification for concluding that Gilruth had “brought the credibility of the RPPDG into disrepute” was well-evidenced and entirely reasonable.
There’s something else of interest in those terms of reference:
- If an individual is removed, the organisation they represent should seek to identify a suitable replacement. If no replacement is found, then the organisation could be removed from participating,
and
- Organisations that have been removed can reapply if a suitable candidate is
identified.
What isn’t clear at the moment is whether it’s the Moorland Association that has been expelled from the RPPDG or whether it’s just the CEO, Andrew Gilruth.
I don’t know whether the Moorland Association has identified another representative to replace Gilruth but I understand that a formal complaint has been made (predictable or what?!) about the expulsion, no doubt “wasting [more] time and distracting from the real work” of the Hen Harrier Taskforce and the RPPDG.
Raptor Persecution UK 
Thanks for publishing this and the explanation. I suppose that the MA could try to find a suitable candidate and indeed I can think of one but I doubt he would willingly serve plus the MA seem to want to try and make capital out of Gilruth’s expulsion. In all the years of the RPPDG much of it was a time wasting exercise as I understand it having only attended one of the early meetings, mostly to do with the CA and MA representatives wasting time on minor or irrelevant points. From what I understand Amanda Anderson often sailed close to the wind but was a canny enough operator to stay on board. Gilruth clearly wasn’t as canny. In many ways the MA seems to have retreated to the bad old days when its interests were represented by Martin Gillibrand up to 12 years ago who also had a rather combative style.
Let them back in only when they bring an armful of signed letters from all of their members, all allowing the Police team full & free access to put in the surveillance program – at any time without any requirement to notify anybody about what / where they are putting stuff in place. And also when they do the courtesy of allowing the raptor monitors vehicular use of their estate roads and tracks. Failing both the above, leaving them out will make life much easier for those that actually want to protect Hen Harriers – and not give them the chance of claiming false credibility.
Sounds good and fair to me, if they are good and as honest as they claim what’s the problem? Anything else makes them look well guilty or at least protecting the guilty and they ought to have seen that long ago. Then again……….
Hi Ruth. I cant find an email address for you so sending this via comments.
[Ed: Thanks, Wendy, I’ll add it to the list of blogs that need writing!]
[Ed: comment deleted as libellous]