A couple of weeks ago conservation campaign group Wild Justice put a full page advert in Private Eye, the UK’s number one best-selling news and current affairs magazine, to draw readers’ attention to the absurd release of over 50 million non-native pheasants into the countryside every year, for shooting.
It was the first of three planned adverts and this one caused quite a reaction, with many people commenting how surprised they were to learn that pheasants were non-native to the UK, let alone that 50 million of them are released into the countryside every year for so-called ‘sport shooting’. The advert also prompted conversations in Whitehall, according to sources.
The gamebird shooting industry wasn’t impressed with this level of awareness-raising amongst the general public and politicians – no surprise really given that they’ve been hoodwinking everyone for decades about how ‘sustainable’ gamebird-shooting is supposed to be.
Imagine Wild Justice’s surprise then when Private Eye got in touch to say it was pulling the other two adverts and didn’t provide any explanation for that decision. You can draw your own conclusions.
Amusingly, since Wild Justice announced the news this morning, Private Eye’s censorship has caused somewhat of a Streisand Effect and many people are now asking to see the other two adverts that Private Eye has refused to publish.
Wild Justice has placed the two remaining ads with another publication and they should be out in the next few weeks. It’s probably best not to name the publication in advance to avoid the possibility of it being nobbled!
For those who wish to support Wild Justice you can sign up for their free newsletter here.
For those who want to see a ban on driven grouse shooting, (not the same as pheasant shooting but just as absurd, for different reasons, and just as mired in wildlife crime) you can sign the Wild Justice petition here (it currently stands at 84,000 signatures and needs 100,00- signatures to trigger a Westminster debate). The petition closes on 22 May 2025.
It would be deliciously sweet if the petition attracted more support as a result of Wild Justice being censored!
UPDATE 27 April 2025: Private Eye ‘explains’ (sort of) its reasons for pulling Wild Justice adverts (here)
Raptor Persecution UK 
What is the going rate for a full page colour ad in Private Eye?
Have you considered The Big Issue, Ruth?
I see in the current issue is a whole page ad for Wildlife SOS in India – it is entitled Tourism or Torture? and reveals that wild infant elephants are taken from their mothers to entertain the tourist trade, such as being forced to give rides. (The Low-Welfare Activities Abroad Bill that bans UK advertising of animal torture needs implementing.)
In the days when there used to be a Big Issue in the North, I had several letters printed in response to their articles on zoos, the fur trade, hare coursing (in the days of the Waterloo Cup), kangaroos killed to make football boots.
So such topics are of interest to the editor – plus the magazine is excellent.
Whichever publication you have approached it will be good to see more of your cartoons and thanks as ever.
This is sinister. We are seeing more and more rich and influential businesses and individuals misusing our courts to suppress the truth. It is hard to imagine that Private Eye known for its courage in the face of injustice hasn’t in some way been attacked – proving once again that the game shooting industry considers itself outside the law when it suits them.
Not for the first time have I had (very personal) reason to view with a degree of scepticism what Private Eye refuses to publicise.
My wife and me have had a subscription for the Eye for many years. I am amazed that the magazine will not publish anymore Wild Justice cartoons. Ian Hyslop what the hell is going on? Paul Foot will be turning in his grave. The shooting lobby and the establishment appear to have nobbled a once proud satirical magazine. What would Peter Cook make of all this???
As a subscriber to PE, I am surprised and disappointed that they have decided to pull the other two adverts. I am even more surprised that they have not given a reason. PE is better than this or at least should be. If PE has been nobbled then there is no hope whatsoever in this world. I can’t wait to read the next Conspiracy Update in PE to see what TRUTH-IS-OUT-THERE, WHO-WATCHES-THE-WATCHMEN-WATCHING-THE-WATCHERS and MAGA536 have to say about this.
I entirely agree. Also a PE subscriber of long standing. This seems very out of character considering some of the powerful villains that PE has stood up to over the years. Could it be that a “We know where you live. Would you like your head blown off?” approach was used? Hopefully the truth will emerge eventually.
Signed and supported. It does not surprise me that Private Eye have been nobbled. Lets hope the other publications are even more widely read and even more people kick off. Its long since time that shooting of any kind of wild creature or bird was totally outlawed.
I took 10 seconds out of my entirely open schedule to pen an email to Private Eye expressing my concerns over their journalistic integrity. You can find the email address on their Contact page.
Mr. Hislop wouldn’t stand for this nonsense and neither should you.
I doubt if Private Eyw has been nobbled.
it wouldn’t surprise me if it has also refused to take adverts from the shooting lobby.
Once it takes money from pressure groups, political parties etc, it is compromised.
Private Eye’s guidelines on advertising are clearly laid out on its website
“Once it takes money from pressure groups, political parties etc, it is compromised.”
You seem to think that ‘pressure groups’ must – by definition – all hold ‘compromising’ positions, if in your opinion accepting an advert from any ‘pressure group’ would make Private Eye ‘compromised’.
This, then, would preclude Private Eye from ever supporting any pressure group, wouldn’t it? What if the ‘pressure group’ was correct in what it says? Is it the case that Private Eye has never found any pressure group to be correct on anything, ever?
“Private Eye’s guidelines on advertising are clearly laid out on its website”
Well, let’s see:
“1. PRESSDRAM LTD has the sole right to determine whether or not to accept and publish advertisements and/or promotions in Private Eye Magazine and/or on its website. Accordingly, we reserve the right to reject any advertisement submitted for publication and we will not enter into correspondence. Any adverts which include reference or content of a sexual nature, a reference to adolescents, overseas-based companies, investment companies, products or services of a medical nature, political parties, sale of animals, or personal blogs and thesis/essays will not be submitted for approval.”
There are no other relevant terms or conditions referencing rejection.
I think it is fairly obvious that Private Eye has taken a naked political decision, and will not enter into ‘correspondence’ about it (ie. defend their political position).
It is their publication, and they have the right to do what they like with it. But don’t try to dress this up as some high moral position.
Call me a cynic but PE is owned and run by the old boy network, ie those who have attended public schools. It is possible that one of the old boys has influenced someone in PE. I bought PE for very many years but stopped about 5 years ago as it seemed to be a shadow of its former self. It seemed to deteriorate after the death of Paul Foot.
I dare say many will have already seen the response from Wild Justice to the decision by Private Eye to withdraw its adverts, but just in case…
…it also covers the decision by Private Eye to now publish three letters attacking Wild Justice.
‘some followers of Chris Packham are known to be violent’ (anon), ‘see where Chris Packham and his pals go next for their wilfully ignorant attacks on… conservation in rural Britain’ (GWCT) and ‘rank propaganda… can not be substantiated even by the RSPB’ from someone in Berwickshire.
See the letters in full, and the response here:
https://wildjustice.org.uk/general/private-eye-is-blind-to-the-facts-about-pheasants/
Know your enemies.
Like 94 others, I am a subscriber and although I will not be cancelling my sub as their investigative work is more important than ever now, I did write to Lord Strobes querying the removal of the ads and the very dodgy assertions made in the 3 letters. I just received a Thank-you for your email- response. Possibly if enough of us write in, then there might be more of a response.
” I did write to Lord Strobes… “
I have visited their posh Cotswold’s estate, typically manicured, sterile, English parkland… with nothing but those hoarse-honking pheasants strutting about:-( Lovely Chapel, though. Well used.
I feel it’s a bit suspicious that they refused to publish the 2 consecutive ‘adverts.’ If it was due to Private Eye’s policy on ‘refusal of publication’ then surely they wouldn’t have published the first one.
p.s Thank you for ‘standing up’ for animals lesleymarian.
Also it’s a bit ignorant of Private Eye not to give a reason for ‘refusal to publicise’ the ‘ads’ seeing as (I presume) they’d already been agreed to.
“Also it’s a bit ignorant of Private Eye not to give a reason… “
No, not ignorant, but arrogant (and if you happen to have had dealings with them, you might already appreciate that… :-(
Point taken – your vocabulary is clearly better than mine :-) No, I’ve not had the dis-pleasure of dealing with them unlike your unfortunate self so I read :-(
My experience with Private Eye was similar to Wild Justice (but in a different sphere – the railway industry and HS2): I had (written) evidence of serious injustice and professional malpractice, but Private Eye simply refused to engage. No concern, no apparent interest, no discussion, no explanation. It was inexplicable.
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx.
Ironically, the (local) BBC also refused to publicise the issue:-( The BBC aren’t ‘hot’ on raptor persecution, either…
New research/paper related to pheasnt release.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg9k4p2ddvo
“Ticks are more likely to carry the bacteria that can cause Lyme disease in areas where pheasants are released, new research has shown.”