Journalist, broadcaster and Sunday Times columnist Rod Liddle will be hosting a 20 minute piece on grouse shooting during his Saturday morning show on Times Radio, from 12.05hrs.
Rod Liddle is no stranger to this topic – having previously written, “Every way you look at this industry…its existence is an absurdity” (see here).
About his forthcoming show this Saturday, he writes:
“This Saturday at 1205 on my Times Radio programme I’m devoting 20 mins to reclaiming the grouse moors, with contributions from rewilders and conservationists and a confrontation with the Moorland Association. Lots of opportunity to comment“.
His Saturday morning show airs from 10am – 1pm and can be listened to on DAB radio (channel 11A) or the Times Radio App, or through a smart speaker, or online (where catch-up is available).
UPDATE 12 August 2025: The grouse shooting industry’s grotesque distortion of reality laid bare on Rod Liddle’s radio show (here)
Raptor Persecution UK 
Really? Him?! The way you’re promoting this suggests you’re either unfamiliar with Rod Liddle, or that you are familiar, and don’t care. Can I ask which it is?
Yes, a revolting man. One’s enemy’s enemy and all that.
Yes, I’m surprised too, No way am I promoting anything by Liddle. A thoroughly nasty piece of work.
“No way am I promoting anything by Liddle.”
Puts you on the side of the shooters, then.
Sometimes sarcasm is lost when written down, so I assume that wasn’t a serious comment, Keith? 🤣
“so I assume that wasn’t a serious comment, Keith?”
Absolutely serious. Someone says they cannot support anything by Rod Liddle. Rod Liddle appears to oppose grouse moor mismanagement. Hence they cannot support opposition to grouse moor mismanagement, can they? Along with the shooting industry…
That is the sort of difficulty you get into when you confuse the messenger (for other unspecified reasons) with the message.
The message that current grouse moor mismanagement is a national disgrace is not dependent upon who says it! It is all about the whys and wherefores…
Perhaps you disagree with that?
Dont worry Keith, I don’t think anyone’s confusing the message and the messenger. We raised a not unreasonable concern about the choice of messenger, and got a wholly inadequate, patronising response from RPUK. Hope that helps!
“I don’t think anyone’s confusing the message and the messenger.”
and
“We raised a not unreasonable concern about the choice of messenger”
Contradicting yourself, immediately. It is only a ‘choice’ in your head.
“and got a wholly inadequate, patronising response from RPUK.”
How ‘precious’ and patronising of you.
Keith, it’s hot and you’re making yourself look daft. Want to take a break?
“Keith, it’s hot and you’re making yourself look daft.”
I don’t think so.
I think we need to make common cause with anyone making the arguement. People who wouldn’t listen to you or me will learn something here in a place we might find distasteful and from a person we might disagree with on many other topics. Great! Let’s build a broader movement.
Point taken and I hope that will be the case. It doesn’t mean Raptor Persecution UK has to advertise the xxxxx xxxxx [Ed: gratuitous insult deleted] show though:
“His Saturday morning show airs from 10am – 1pm and can be listened to on DAB radio (channel 11A) or the Times Radio App, or through a smart speaker, or online (where catch-up is available).”
“It doesn’t mean Raptor Persecution UK has to advertise the xxxxx xxxxx [Ed: gratuitous insult deleted] show though”
Censorship of grouse moor mismanagement, then?
I think if you don’t know what censorship means it might be wise not to post about it.
“I think if you don’t know what censorship means it might be wise not to post about it.”
It can mean suppressing the advertising of a radio programme about grouse moor mismanagement, can’t it?
Really strange that you would want to suppress Raptor Persecution UK from advertising such a radio programme about such a topic.
And all because you don’t appear to like the messenger?
It doesn’t sound like you know what suppress means either, so this could prove difficult…
“It doesn’t sound like you know what suppress means either, so this could prove difficult…”
Yes, it means preventing Raptor Persecution UK from advertising a radio programme about grouse moor mismanagement to its subscribers because you do not ‘approve’ of the messenger.
Cancel culture writ large.
It means putting your personal political preferences before the interests of the welfare of UK raptors.
It’s a good job that no-one prevented anyone from doing anything then, isn’t it?
Thanks for the inevitable, meaningless reference to cancel culture though – another one to tick off on the bingo card!
“It’s a good job that no-one prevented anyone from doing anything then, isn’t it?”
Indeed, but against your protestations.
War of The Words
Words have meanings.
What do you think of “and got a wholly inadequate, patronising response from RPUK.” then?
I said what I did mainly aimed towards the fact that Andy was accusing you of not knowing what the words you were using meant, you made it clear you do – it did turn into a bit of a war of words.
For what it’s worth bt to answer Keith (really surprised you care for my opinion)
…sorry Andy bt I didn’t find Ruth’s response to be patronising, maybe I missed it, nor did I feel that it was inadequate. She explained all the points she needed to and kept her decor by not giving her personal opinion of Mr Liddle, maybe / maybe not that’s what Andy was digging for thus saying her response was inadequate, bt I don’t know why he felt that it was. I just didn’t have any input and you were doing well enough yourself Keith (sometimes I feel I share my opinions too often on here, have the odd mild regret + think afterwards I should have kept them to myself)
I raised an issue that I and several others thought was important, and was told to grow up. I think the above covers that pretty well.
[Ed: Don’t misrepresent what happened, in an attempt to justify what others are recognising as an extremely fragile ego. I didn’t tell you to grow up in response to you raising an issue. Me telling you to grow up was in response to your childish reaction to my initial explanation. It’s clear as day that you don’t respond well to criticism because since I told you to grow up you’ve bombarded this blog with insults and snide comments, which until now, I’ve published without restriction. From now on, unless you’ve got something constructive to contribute to the conversation on here, your comments won’t be published. Life’s too short, mate].
Andy,
“The way you’re promoting this…” – eh? It’s basically an advert for a radio show where people will be discussing grouse shooting., which is relevant to readers of this blog. It doesn’t suggest support or otherwise of Rod Liddle. My personal view of him is irrelevant. If you choose not to listen to the debate because of your dislike for him, fine, that’s your choice.
Did you just question my use of ‘the way you’re promoting this’, then immediately follow it with ‘it’s basically an advert for a radio show’? Make it make sense! Yes, you have the right to promote the show, I have the right to choose to not listen to it, and I also have the right to call out your decision to offer him some free advertising. You also have the right to throw a hissy fit on Bluesky and tell me to ‘grow up’. Free country and all that…
“The way you’re promoting this suggests you’re either unfamiliar with Rod Liddle, or that you are familiar, and don’t care”
You are simply playing the man, and not the ball.
In your case, the ‘man’ is far more important than the ‘ball’.
When deciding how to play the ball, some prior understanding of the man can be very helpful.
“When deciding how to play the ball, some prior understanding of the man can be very helpful.”
In this case you wanted all mention of a radio programme about the mismanagement of grouse moors to be suppressed on RPUK, thereby serving only the long-term interests of the shooting industry (who also want such discussion suppressed).
He is not “revolting”, nor a “nasty piece of work”. He just has a different point of view to you on some issues and writes about them. I posted the message about the radio show not in order to boost numbers. It really doesn’t need that. But in order to let you know because I thought some would be interested. It really didn’t deserve the bile occasioned.
I am interested in it and welcome the fact you are thinking about it and discussing it on your program. I wonder if you could tempt your MP to join the discussion, and maybe elaborate on his receipt of that ten grand from the NPMG?
Here, for those who aren’t sure what clay hog is talking about:
https://raptorpersecutionuk.org/2025/07/03/pro-grouse-shooting-labour-mp-sam-rushworth-received-10000-donation-from-local-grouse-moor-gamekeeper-group/
Incidentally, a complaint has been made to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner about Sam Rushworth’s failure to declare his donation during the Westminster Hall debate. We await a response.
Did you write that thinking you were actually replying to Rod Liddle?
Are you a regular reader of this site / or RPUK articles elsewhere Mr Liddle? or did you just use it to inform readers of your show. If not, if you’re concerned with the mis-management of moors you should be. Both the articles + the comments are very informative on the matter.
Don’t worry about your listeners getting sick of hearing it, the shooting industry are a minority (and their just sickos anyway – the way they kill all animals, shoot birds + destroy the environment so there is no need for concern over any backlash from them) and they offend the public in many ways.
Out of interest, I listened to the radio broadcast on the rewind today, Sunday 10th. The piece about Grouse shooting is quite a long way in, more than an hour into the program. I did think for what ever you think about Rod Liddle, that it was quite a good piece of journalism. He interviewed Mark Avery and asked him some awkward questions, then a rewilder who I haven’t heard of, and then our beloved Andrew Gilruth, who got a bit shirty. I noticed that Gilruth was going down the line that I’ve seen many of the shooters going down in their defence recently is that claiming that it’s just the RSPB trying to make money. This is rich considering that’s exactly what they’re trying to do with driven grouse shooting. Anyway, it is worth a listen.
[Ed: Thanks, saxonjohn24. I’m currently transcribing the debate & will blog about its content shortly].
Here’s a thing…
Rod Liddle has sometimes written criticising blood sports’ enthusiasts, on and off, for a long time.
In 2002 it was the Countryside Alliance, whereby the BBC promptly decided to shut him up (as they do):
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2002/sep/30/pressandpublishing.bbc
In 2023 it was shooting:
https://www.thetimes.com/culture/tv-radio/article/red-kites-are-glorious-murdering-them-in-aid-of-a-shoot-em-up-for-spivs-is-grotesque-gkcdbrtsx (paywall)
Transcript kindly provided here:
“I asked one gamekeeper up here what proportion of supposed “vermin” he intended to kill. He replied: “The aim is for 100 per cent, but some slip through the net”.
These vermin include all our magnificent birds of prey (including kites, which feed mainly on carrion), mountain hares (which carry a tick dangerous to the bloody grouse), foxes, badgers, stoats, weasels and pine martens (in Scotland – they’ve already made them extinct in England)...”
The shooting industry responded to Rod Little’s ‘latest rant‘ thus:
https://www.countryside-alliance.org/resources/news/rod-liddles-latest-grouse-shooting-rant-is-beyond-the-pale
Now, I do believe you will search in vain for any statement whatsoever opposing either fox hunting or so-called game shooting from our National Treasure Sir David Attenborough, very close friend to the Royal Family, long-time patrons of both fox hunting and shooting.
Interesting, isn’t it?
One receives opprobrium here – from some first-time posters – and the other does not. But, guess which?
“really surprised you care for my opinion”
Shouldn’t be: I am endlessly interested in what everyone says, when it comes to protecting our wildlife.
Thanks for your explanation:-)
Sorry to bother you yet again – regarding moor mis-management so slightly relevant
…besides all else my point of view is that it’s sick and beyond extremely greedy that a single family can say they own a moor / moors / vast estates in the first place. How come throughout history (apart from a handful including non moor estates) no conservationists / animal lovers have inherited moors. Is it all only down to the money that can be made from the land combined with heartlessness.
There is an ongoing work of monumental effort by Guy Shrubsole called Who Owns England.
Within that there is one ‘blog’ called Who Owns England’s Grouse Moors? and another called Revealed: The Aristocrats and City Bankers Who Own England’s Grouse Moors (together with others such as The 50 Companies That Own Over a Million Acres of England & Wales, What Land Does the Duchy of Cornwall Own?, The Thirty Landowners Who Own Half A County, The Companies & Corporate Bodies Who Own a Third of England and Wales etc etc etc)
https://whoownsengland.org/2016/10/28/who-owns-englands-grouse-moors/
“A large chunk of the Yorkshire Dales is essentially owned in Lichtenstein, Guernsey and the Caribbean.”
https://whoownsengland.org/2018/08/12/revealed-the-aristocrats-and-city-bankers-who-own-englands-grouse-moors/
“around half of England’s grouse moor estates turn out to be owned by the aristocracy and gentry, whilst the other half are owned by wealthy businessmen and women, City bankers, hedge fund managers, and Saudi princes.”
Guy does not deal with the history of ownership: that can be largely unknown even to the Land Registry, since such registration is a modern requirement upon a sale only, and ancient ownerships passing down families will never have been so registered in the first place.
I think it is fair to say that the aristocracy obtained land through a long history of local, regional and national conquests (violence, essentially) – whereupon the most successfully violent ended up owning the most land – until that process gradually mutates into the richest owning the most land… and we end up with a complex mixture of both.
Guy’s website could keep you occupied for months with fascinating insights into the land ownership of England:
https://whoownsengland.org/
Thanks for all the info + references Keith. You’ve made me see my last comment was very simple minded and showed ignorance to what I was talking about. Hearts in the right place though when it comes to animals + their environment.