A new BBC documentary aired last night that charts the police investigation into a missing charity cyclist, Tony Parsons, who vanished at the Bridge of Orchy in 2017 and whose remains were found three years later buried in a stink pit on the Auch Estate.
The programme follows the criminal trial of twin brothers Alexander (Sandy) and Robert McKellar from the Auch Estate, initially charged with murder but in 2023 Alexander was eventually convicted for the lesser offence of culpable homicide and Robert for attempting to defeat the ends of justice.
This case was of interest to me because the Auch Estate was at the centre of another criminal investigation in 2009 after walkers discovered a dead Golden Eagle. Tests revealed it had been illegally poisoned with the banned pesticide Carbofuran.
In 2012 Auch Estate farm manager Tom McKellar was convicted and fined £1,200 for possession of Carbofuran (not for poisoning the eagle, even though he had reportedly admitted during interview of putting out poisoned baits). He was also found to be in possession of two unlicensed handguns but instead of receiving a mandatory five-year custodial sentence he was given a 300-hour community service order.
The new BBC documentary provides a fascinating insight into the difficulties of investigating serious crime on a remote rural estate and the parallels with investigations into illegal raptor persecution in these glens will not be lost on blog readers. The ease with which the McKellar twins could hide their appalling crimes for so long is sobering.
The two-episode programme is available on BBC iPlayer (Murder Case: The Vanishing Cyclist).
Raptor Persecution UK 
Yes, if they were that blithe about killing someone and hiding their body for 3 years, for ever, probably if one of them hadn’t told his new girlfriend about it, it makes you think that killing any bird or animal would be small beer
Might the same fate happen to an innocent walker who chanced upon the killing of an eagle?
If you knock about on some of the fieldsports / shooting forums and comments sections on YT & FB you will sometimes see comments when say, Chris Packham, “Anti”s” , or “do-gooders” or RSPB (they usually mean RSPB investigators or keen supporters/members) are under discussion – along the lines of theres “plenty of holes in the peat” , “dark corners of a quiet wood” followed by some emojis, etc, etc. Unwise banter? Yes I know that is almost certainly the case. But then again as a keeper or a close ally of one you do have a lot of places to hand where you can hide things and disappear things up to and including the size of 4wd vehicles, simply as a mere part of your daily business.
I have had several keepers threaten me over the years, my comment has always been the same, that we all know where they live but us they have no idea. I was also threatened, very carefully so he didn’t fall foul of the FB police, recently on FB to not venture on a series of moors in North Yorkshire for the benefit of my health. Answer I don’t go alone. Yet they constantly go on about how many keepers are threatened or assaulted. Over the years I’ve met very many keepers I’ve got on well with despite my views but I’ve also met a few complete Rsoles some of whom I’m sure would given the opportunity would be violent.
Be interesting to hear from the raptor monitors who covered the estate these thugs were on – and how shocked they were or not by them being responsible for this horrible crime. I know that you well know all about the calculating category of sly keeper whose ploy is the smiley befriending of the unwary good hearted birder, to gain insight into what they are doing, where they go, when they come, where they are from, where they park…basically how much of a minor nuisance or a real risk they might pose. Funny how on thousands of acres of moorland at funny times of day you can seemingly end up with the only people on it all in one claustrophobic corner all looking for the same couple of species of birds (for opposing reasons) all while trying damnedest not to seen by each other.
Time to waken up for those who are not aware of the dire straights the UK is in. Our prisons are overcrowded and prisoners are being released after only serving half their sentences. Big backlogs of untried cases, plus thousands of unsolved crimes. We are also facing serious challenges to the rural scene from housing, road/rail and inappropriately placed solar power ‘farms’. Sewage discharged rivers threatening human welfare and wildlife (fish species essential for biodiversity).
The UK indigenous population is alarmed at how fast their culture that took hundreds of years to build, is being eroded by poorly controlled immigration from mostly non-environmentally and animal welfare concerned societies. Our UK movement for animal welfare began with the Quaker politician element to removing dog fighting and bear baiting from the House of Commons (then MP “entertainment”), and then focused on that other curse of its time, Slavery. This was the kick-start to make us the first nation to ban that despicable trade. It also lead to the avalanche of animal welfarists from all walks of life – aristocracy (Lord Shaftesbury, Charles Dickens and well-placed others), leading to the formation of the RSPCA and RSPB. That early impetus made us the centre for charity creation, some of which with great overseas influence. Our concern for birds of prey has to take into account the gross countervailing forces we face from muscled lobbyists of the shooting estates, which paralyse our politicians with specious “arguments” that shooting estates are beneficial rural job creators, aye, for country yokels,
who want to beat the grouse into barrages of cartridges, slaughter thousands of wildlife species with cruel poisons and devices and burn moorland to the detriment plant and animals, along with boosting climate change. Our politicians of all parties, just will not enforce hard-fought for legislation for reasons given, and through ignorance of the environmental dilemma which grasps the Earth today. BIRDS OF PREY slaughter shows a rude sign as to the outdated and powerful “sports” shooters, whose long arms stretch out to trophy shooting of endangered species in other countries with compliant politicians. We will not win the battle for a control of what lives and dies on our rural landscapes, if we not have a more reality informed politician, who is prepared to learn about the compassionate and essential policies to give us a seriously intended role in saving the biodiversity of the Earth. Revolution through Education is the main option, if not, then Nature will take its painful course!
You’re not wrong. Thanks for that.
What are our politicians thinking about?
“The UK indigenous population is alarmed at how fast their culture that took hundreds of years to build, is being eroded by poorly controlled immigration from mostly non-environmentally and animal welfare concerned societies.”Having watched the documentary, I don’t think Alexander and Robert McKellar fall into that category, do you? These two charmers seem pretty “indigenous” to me, and are part of a long-established “culture” that doesn’t seem terribly concerned with animal (or in their case even human) welfare. And where’s the evidence that immigrants are less environmentally aware than natives?In short, why bring up immigration at all – how is it relevant?
“And where’s the evidence that immigrants are less environmentally aware than natives?In short, why bring up immigration at all – how is it relevant?”
It is not relevant to this case at all… But memberships of UK environmental groups is disproportionately weighted towards white British, in my experience.
“memberships of UK environmental groups is disproportionately weighted towards white British, in my experience.”
That may be true. But to use that as evidence that immigrants are “less environmentally aware than natives” is a huge stretch.
Of course, none of this anything to do with the distinctly “indigenous” individuals involved in the case under discussion here, so it’s far from obvious why the OP felt it relevant to include his off-topic culture-war remarks.
Greer wrote: ” poorly controlled immigration from mostly non-environmentally and animal welfare concerned societies”
But you asked “where’s the evidence that immigrants are less environmentally aware than natives?”
That is two slightly different things: ‘non-environmentally and animal welfare societies‘ and ‘immigrants are less environmentally aware’.
I tried to answer your first specific question (from experience).
You also ask “it’s far from obvious why the OP felt it relevant to include his off-topic culture-war remarks.” but Greer’s paeon of pain / cri de coeur included many topics not covered by the BBC documentary (so, off-topic for this specific thread) including the long-standing culture war between conservationists and the shooting industry (not off-topic for this blog).
You also asked “why bring up immigration at all – how is it relevant?”
It is relevant to conservation, because it has lead to significant increased pollution and significant loss of habitat.
Allow me to illustrate with some official data:
“The number of immigrants to the UK has been greater than the number emigrating for every year since 1994”
The total number of net immigrants to the UK since the year 2000 is about 7 million – according to the ONS (equal(*) to the current combined populations of Glasgow, Birmingham and Manchester) – the vast majority of which being to England, of course.
In 2023 the ONS claimed that there were 11.4 million non-UK born residents of England and Wales.
Net immigration for 2022 – 745,000 (equal(*) to the current population of Sheffield)
Net immigration for 2023 – 906,000 (equal(*) to the current population of Liverpool)
Net immigration for 2024 – 431,000 (equal(*) to the current population of Leeds)
98% of the population growth in England and Wales since the year 2020 has been due to net immigration, with 65% of the population growth over the 2004 – 2023 period also due to net immigration. The ONS predicts that around 90% of our future population growth will be due to net immigration over the next decade.
This population growth has been and will continue to be devastating for our wildlife. It has caused the Labour Government to announce changes to our Planning Laws in order to build-baby-build on the Green Belt, for one thing:-(
Where I live, the Green Belt has already been completely destroyed (by Order of the Secretary of State).
We also know population growth is unsustainable:-( It stopped being sustainable many decades ago.
(*) According to https://worldpopulationreview.com/cities/united-kingdom
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/longterminternationalmigrationprovisional/yearendingjune2024
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06077/SN06077.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migration-advisory-committee-report-on-net-migration/net-migration-report-accessible
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/annualmidyearpopulationestimates/mid2024
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-impact-of-migration-on-uk-population-growth/#:~:text=Net%20migration%20exceeded%20natural%20change,of%20population%20growth%20since%202020.
Your misrerabilist far right focus on runaway crime, law enforcement, immigration and your racist prejudice regarding the environmental and welfare practices of immigrant cultures might qualify you as an ‘EcoFascist’, a prejudiced label, once used by opponents of conservation, and to which you might have given a new lease of life.
And btw, there is no ‘UK indigenous population’ or ‘culture’. There are several and most of these have always been far more concerned about the threat to their culture from the Anglo British.than from immigration. Nobody from Syria or Senegal is plastering Scotland’s supermarket broccoli with the odious Union flag but plenty are working productively here in a country which needs immigration.
“Your misrerabilist far right focus…”
I think there is an awful lot to be miserable about:-(
“… most of these have always been far more concerned about the threat to their culture from the Anglo British.than from immigration. Nobody from Syria or Senegal is plastering Scotland’s supermarket broccoli with the odious Union flag but plenty are working productively here in a country which needs immigration”
That is nationalist, isn’t it? Nothing wrong with that. It is similarly reflected in other parts of the UK, as you must know, and the inherent strains are increasing.
When you think about the wider issue, mass immigration has proved catastrophic to indigenous populations throughout history, and continues to fuel endless conflicts worldwide. Over population exacerbates such conflicts.
But we have also moved way beyond the planet’s ability to sustain current populations, so new existential threats face human societies world-wide, and we are not only no nearer to solving them but are managing to make them worse…
Unfortunately, wildlife is always the first to suffer for our ‘foolishness’.
You ‘think there is a lot to be misrabilist about’. Correct. The trick is identifying the causes and they do not include immigration. They are entirely the work of those blaming immigration entirely for their own ends which of course involve the furtherance of a constitutional, political and economic system designed to stuff you along with everybody else You seem unaware of the basics here.
My second para. is certainly nationalist, a civic nationalism which welcomes anyone willing to contribute irrespective of their origins – even Englishmen. Once again you seem unaware of the basics of the Scottish position on this. You however are not nationalist, you are Nativist, a quite different and very ugly item and one which has been subtly and not so subtly promoted by your racist media and your succession of disreputable governments. In your defence you do sound very like someone who might actually be daft enough to trust good ol’ Auntie Beeb.
‘When you think about the wider issue, mass immigration has proved disastrous to indigenous populations throughout history’.
Well, when I ‘think about the wider issue’ I see European/USA colonialism and the forcible mass displacement and slavery of indigenous populations to accommodate European settlers starting 300 years ago and continuing still. I assume that even you are acquainted with the realities of Palestine but you would have to include the endemic disruption and instability almost everywhere in the Southern Globe and the continuing colonialist grip of Western capitalists on other people’s natural resources everywhere. And here’s the thing Boss, when you actually do get round to really really thinking about it, all of that is exactly what is driving people north to squat on your doorstep.
Any inability of the planet to sustain populations can be laid at the door of the issues in the previous paragraph but I suspect from your comments that the excess populations you see are not white. Overpopulation is the oldest right wing racist excuse for the damage caused by the economic and political status quo world wide The planet is viable if its resources are used properly, which will require the reform of a global economic system run for massive Western corporate profit.
I
If the planet were to be ‘viable’ ALL COUNTRIES would have to stop eating animals, use only solar / water / wind energy, drive electric vehicles, and Africans + other countries would have to stop poaching. Slowing down reproduction rates wouldn’t hurt either.
To RPUK – this is irrelevant to the topic so I understand if it’s not published bt it’s the way the conversations gone although I will say notably the documentary was broadcast because of a human death and not because of the cause of death of the Golden Eagle.
…you mentioned overpopulation. I believe that overpopulation is the primary cause of nature destruction and the environment / planet destruction crises’ bt none of the organisations ever address it. Over population is one of my main concerns and I’m sickened by it. I think everybody must be too scared of upsetting people to ever tackle it.
…for the sake of this argument I’m aware that minority folk’s groups of bird watchers are taking off around London bt who’s to say whether or not their members were born in this country. I appreciate nobody is saying in any way that there are no immigrants who care about nature.
…apologies again for those that read it (if Ruth bothered to publish such nonsense from me) I did know the correct way round for the proposals of burning on certain peat depths courtesy of RPUK, I just had an unexplained moment of madness causing me to get the from 40cm to 30cm the wrong way round.
…not sure I see how this country NEEDS immigration BSA (not saying we shouldn’t allow immigration) bt extra housing is ruining our nature.
This country, ie Scotland, definitely does need immigrants largely because of an aging population. The British will do nothing about that because they have weaponised immigration for political reasons and so are Incapable of producing a coherent system which could address diverse circumstances. They are also viscerally opposed to the simple device which would allow a Scotland only system.
I can’t believe you when you say ‘because Scotland has an aging population’ considering 99.8 % of people are currently having multiple kids – constantly / ongoing. Bt you’ll know best. You said previously the planet can sustain overpopulation – certainly doesn’t look like it can though does it!!! Nor will it ever be able to sustain it. Overpopulation is blatantly, painfully + obviously destroying the planet + nature + wildlife in more ways than you can count – endlessly. Why don’t you open your eyes!!! – increases in energy use causing planet damaging oil drilling + mining + pollution, billions more cars on the roads = pollution, billions of trees deforested, billions of acres of land stripped and stolen from animals + people alike to farm animals to sustain billions of people, the arctic melting because of the carbon billions of people have produced, endless housing estates being built to accommodate the BILLIONS INCREASE in population that destroy natures habitats, the extinction crisis that all countries have contributed to – all caused by man. Can’t be bothered to go on and people aren’t on here to read rants like this!! And it’s a constant that endlessly gets worse. Look up what the population was in 1950 then in 1970 then now, I can’t be bothered looking it up for you I know it’s an endemic that’s grown exponentially. Can’t comprehend how you can be blind to it or how you can possibly say it’s sustainable …anyway like I said people aren’t on here for this.
Sorry I’ve re-read – you said the planets viable not sustainable if it’s resources are used properly – I take that more or less as the same thing – it’s not happening though is it, nor is it going to. Other than all tribes people, people are the problem.
p.s nor do I believe that Keith sees ‘excess population’ as a non white problem. Nearly all countries are to blame.
I baffled as to how you managed to get immigration and ‘indigenous’ into that screed. Or why? There are plenty of wildlife initiatives and national organisations in numerous other countries, and the propensity to care for animals and wildlife is not ‘unique’ to people in this country. It’s part of a universal human condition. There is a minority of individuals in all societies that are cruel to animals and people.
As for ‘indigenous’, then there is no such thing in Britain. Africa is the only place where that idea holds any credibility. All inhabitants of these islands have arrived here from somewhere else, or are descended from those who did.
This killing and the subsequent cover-up was perpetrated by two individuals who not only killed animals for a living, but who were also morally defective in their actions. Neither were immigrants. If there was any cultural influence to what they did then it was a culture developed over centuries by the community they lived in. But even that culture would not normally extend to killing someone and then concealing both the crime and the body for as long as they could get away with it.
Oldlongdog – totally agree with all you say here -it’s very reasonable.
Broadcast live in Scotland only (so iPlayer for me), but it was mentioned on the BBC web site:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9d0j2y3w3eo
So much to unpack from this case. I don’t think that the countryside culture was as significant a cause in this case as much as the character of the two individuals concerned. Nevertheless, that culture of impunity clearly made them think they would get away with it.
It’s clearly the case (and I’ve been making it to police here in Glos for years) that the countryside is big and the population relatively small. That’s especially the case in the Highlands of Scotland. That means that crimes are much easier to commit without being seen. It means evidence goes unnoticed for long enough for nature to conceal most of it.
Police forces, in my experience, are not just ill equipped to operate in the countryside but also they seem less willing to want to come out here. It’s fair to say most crimes are concentrated in urban areas and the density of evidence is greater (more witnesses, CCTV, ANPR etc.), which makes successful prosecutions more likely. The documentary showed how much the police were unused to the kind of landscape and community they ended up having to operate in. I’ve seen it in other forces; a kind of bewilderment at being in wide open spaces, no maps, no proper foot-ware, no idea where they are or how to get to where they need to be – or home again.
What was far more clear to me is that the main culprit clearly had no respect for either the law or the basic morality of transgressing it. A string of previous drink-driving convictions was read out at sentencing and he clearly gave no heed to these whatsoever. He was also arrogant and obstructive under police questioning, and seemed to think he could brazen it out (perhaps under legal advice). All that made the tears and statements of remorse following sentencing seem to ring hollow.
And then, of course, there’s the all the suspected wildlife crime on the estate. So it is – as ever – down to that culture of immunity. Of ‘getting away with things’ because – presumably – that’s always been the case for them. Not this time, though.
I watched both episodes last night and I can’t imagine what the family went through for those 3 years and during the trial. It begs the question, if the chap could’ve survived his injuries would the outcome have been the same? It seems the culprits have no concerns for human or any form of life, they deserve to be behind bars for life. I find it utterly incomprehensible that the Faragidiots have turned this case into discussions about immigration when there is no link whatsoever. Again, what would the family be going through if they read this blog? Show some compassion people.