Police, Camera, (No) Action

We’ve recently learned about the suspected shooting and decapitation of a white-tailed eagle on the Isle of Skye. Incredibly, this incident, concerning one of Scotland’s most iconic conservation species, has been a well-kept secret for almost a year!

The freshly-dead sea eagle was discovered on a Skye beach by a member of the public in late April 2011. This person is a member of the medical profession and in his opinion, the eagle had been shot by a rifle and its head had been removed with a sharp implement, probably a knife. It was also his opinion that the bird had been thrown from a cliff-top onto the beach; the rocks on the cliff-top above where the body was found are well-known sea eagle perching spots. Photographs of the shot, head-less eagle were taken and the incident was reported to the regional RSPB office and to the police (Northern Constabulary).

For a variety of reasons (and none of them sinister), the carcass was not retrieved from the beach for another two weeks. This unfortunate delay meant that the carcass was in an advanced state of decomposition. It was sent for post-mortem but this apparently proved inconclusive. We don’t know who conducted the post-mortem (the bird does not appear in the SASA reports so we assume it wasn’t tested for poisoning).

According to our sources, the police investigation was limited, at best. The dead eagle was discovered on the Easter weekend; many visitors would have been in the vicinity as this location is a popular tourist destination. A press release might have drawn potential witnesses from amongst the visitors, and also would have alerted local people to the incident. We understand that many locals were not informed, let alone asked for any potential intelligence leads.

The only public comment about this incident is a one-liner on the Skye Birds website (see here) dated 27 March 2012. Why all the secrecy? Was it deliberate, or another poorly-resourced investigation, or just incompetence? Not for the first time, questions should be asked of Northern Constabulary. It’s also surprising that the RSPB were not more vocal about this case. Sure, the RSPB doesn’t have a statutory duty to investigate wildlife crime (unlike the police), but it does have the ability and resources to publicise suspected wildlife crimes and you might have expected more from them when the suspected crime involved one of their own flagship reintroduction species.

Giant eagle in dining etiquette atrocities

Police in the Highlands are warning sheep farmers to be on high alert after a spate of incidents involving a giant eagle and a jar of mint sauce.

They believe the enormous bird is responsible for dining etiquette atrocities in the lambing fields of Perthshire. One farmer, who wished to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals by gangs of ill-mannered eagles, said he had seen this ginormous eagle staggering around his field, dressed in a hoodie and swigging from a bottle of Lambrini while stuffing lamb cutlets into its beak. “That lamb was wasted on that brute. Doesn’t it know that lamb should be smothered in chopped rosemary and garlic and cooked at 200 degrees centigrade for 125 minutes? To eat it raw like that, after spooning mint sauce over its intestines, just goes to show what an uncultured savage it is. The Scottish government has got a lot to answer for, bringing back these uncouth barbarians.”

Albert Hogburn of the Modern Poisoners Society said: “We’ve said all along that these eagles are a danger to society, and now we’ve been proved right. Nobody listened to us but I bet they will now. You can’t teach an eagle new tricks, or table manners, which is why we like to teach them another kind of lesson. Let them eat our poisoned bait, that’ll learn ‘em”.

Donald Spewing-Moore of the Royal Bird Protection Society said: “For fuck’s sake, can’t a man eat his easter eggs in peace? Call me back on Tuesday when I’m in the office“. He later phoned back and apologised for his bad language, blaming it on the stress of being beaten on the Wii by his mother-in-law.

The Courier reports another attack that may have been carried out by the same eagle, here.

Why convicted gamekeeper Robert Christie only got a telling off

Two days ago we blogged about Scottish gamekeeper Robert Christie (Lindertis Estate) who was convicted at Forfar Sheriff Court after pleading guilty to wildlife crimes (see here).

Since then there has been a fair bit of press coverage but the media hasn’t really picked up on the fact that Christie’s ‘punishment’ was just an admonishment (effectively a telling off), even though the available penalties included a fine of up to £5,000 and/or a six month prison sentence.

However, an article published in yesterday’s Courier did include commentary about the penalty:

“…Sheriff Kevin Veal at Forfar decided not to impose a penalty on gamekeeper Robert Christie after hearing the ‘immediate and draconian consequences’ connected with breaching a trapping licence could render the 57-year-old unemployable for the rest of his working life”.

Christie’s solicitor, David McKie (who also happens to be the SGA’s solicitor – see here), reportedly commented:

There are implications under the general licence – if the court imposes anything more than an admonition the licence is automatically withdrawn for five years“.

Was what Christie did the crime of the century? No of course it wasn’t, but what it was, without a doubt, was a criminal offence under the wildlife legislation. It seems astonishing that the Sheriff would decide not to impose any penalty, especially given the current high priority that the Scottish Government has placed on tackling wildlife crime.

What we are seeing yet again is an inconsistency in sentencing (compare Christie’s penalty with that of Aswanley Estate gamekeeper Craig Barrie who was recently fined £520 for illegal use of a trap, see here) and the sense that wildlife crime is still not being taken seriously by some Scottish courts. Do you think this defence would be acceptable for other offences, such as a drink driving taxi driver? ‘Oh, sorry m’Lord, yes I was drunk when I drove my car and I really should have known the consequences of doing this as driving is my profession but the immediate and draconian measure of losing my licence will also mean I lose my job’.

Talking of taking wildlife crime seriously, the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association has not yet issued any public statement of condemnation for Christie’s actions, nor have they said whether he is/was an SGA member. To find out about Christie’s SGA membership status, send an email to: info@scottishgamekeepers.co.uk

Article in the Courier here

Scottish gamekeeper ‘admonished’ for wildlife crimes

Scottish gamekeeper Robert Alexander Christie (58) was convicted today at Forfar Sheriff Court for wildlife crimes relating to the illegal use of a crow cage trap. He was ‘punished’ by receiving an admonishment.

Christie pled guilty to taking a wild bird, possessing a wild bird, and using an illegal trap by failing to adhere to the terms of the general licence (this general licence governs the use of crow cage traps in Scotland).

The offences took place on the Lindertis Estate near Kirriemuir, Angus on 8 August 2010. Lindertis Estate is listed as a sporting estate providing pheasant and partridge shooting (see here). A tawny owl was rescued from inside a crow cage trap in a wood on the estate by a member of the public. The owl was reportedly in poor condition (severely malnourished and unable to hold its own bodyweight on its legs) when it was found and it was sent to a vet for treatment. The owl was released back into the wild on 13 August.

The crow cage trap reportedly did not contain food or shelter, and a tray of water contained green algae, and the trap did not have an identification tag, all contrary to the terms of the general licence.

Christie has 24 years of gamekeeping experience and has been employed as a full-time gamekeeper on this estate for approximately 18 years.

Also due to appear in court was Christie’s employer, who according to Burke’s Peerage is a hereditary peer: The Rt Hon The Lord Colyton, although in the court listing his name was given as Alisdair John Munro Hopkinson. Charges against Hopkinson related to allegedly causing/permitting the gamekeeper to use an illegal trap (Wildlife & Countryside Act). However, charges against Hopkinson were not proceeded, perhaps because Christie pled guilty.

This case was prosecuted by one of the new specialist wildlife fiscals, Shona McJannett. She is quoted as saying:

Today’s conviction highlights the importance of ensuring that crow cage traps are operated legally in terms of the general licence. The protection of our wildlife is a priority and a robust view will be taken by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in relation to any reports alleging breach of these general licence conditions.”

Now, it’s refreshing news to hear that COPFS will take a ‘robust view’ of this type of wildlife crime and hopefully they will continue to prosecute these cases, but the penalty handed out by the court doesn’t quite match the Fiscal’s view of the seriousness of the offence. Christie’s ‘punishment’ (the admonishment) is effectively no punishment at all. It’s basically a ‘telling off’ (see here for a definition) and because he wasn’t given a more serious penalty (e.g. a fine) it means he is NOT banned from continuing to operate crow cage traps under the general licence. What sort of deterrent is a telling off? What message does this send to other wildlife criminals? Does anyone think Christie will lose his job now he’s got a conviction for wildlife crime?

It is not known whether Christie is a member of the Scottish Gamekeeper’s Association. Anyone interested in finding out can ask the SGA by emailing: info@scottishgamekeepers.co.uk. We would be very interested to learn whether he is a member, and if so, does his wildlife crime conviction mean that he is now barred from the club professional body?

Despite the pathetic ‘penalty’ (can you even call it that?), big kudos to the SSPCA for leading on this investigation, and well done also to COPFS for prosecuting; it’s not often we have cause to congratulate COPFS but on this occasion its deserved.

If you are out and about in the Scottish hills and glens and  come across a trapped raptor caught inside a crow cage trap (or any other trap for that matter), then you should call the SSPCA hotline immediately: 03000-999-999

SSPCA press release here

News article on Deadline News website here

COPFS press release here

See here for another blog on why Christie only got a telling off

STOP PRESS: One of our readers (thank you!) has contacted us to say he thinks this is the same estate that we blogged about last June (see here). Obviously we’re unable to confirm or refute this as the name of the estate in the June blog was kept a big secret, although the location is very similar!

Head, sand, buried

Yesterday we blogged about the availability of the written evidence submitted to the UK parliament’s audit on wildlife crime (see here).

Today we’ve read all the written evidence and our expectations of who might have said what were fully met. Although there’s no substitute for reading things for yourself and drawing your own conclusions, there were a few things that stood out…

One common theme was the use of RSPB vs NWCU (National Wildlife Crime Unit) raptor persecution statistics, with groups such as the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation and the Moorland Association claiming that only the NWCU figures should be used to determine the ‘true scale’ of the problem. The Countryside Alliance goes one step further and says that it objects to what it calls ‘scene-of-the-crime involvement of third party campaigning organisations and charities such as the RSPB’ and calls for urgent guidance to clarify ‘that all crimes and suspected crimes should be reported to the police’. No great surprises there – it’s the usual knee-jerk reaction to the RSPB, but what is interesting is that they forgot to mention just how unrepresentative the NWCU figures actually are! Why are they unrepresentative? Well according to the written evidence of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPOS), not all police forces submit their wildlife crime data to the NWCU, and even if data have been submitted, it’s not always possible to identify which incidents were wildlife crimes as they are not allocated to a specific code! So yes, it is easy to see why these groups want to get rid of the RSPB stats and replace them with the NWCU figures!

Another point of interest was a statement from the Moorland Association on hen harriers. We thought the second paragraph contained particularly sinister undertones:

The scale of crime against the hen harrier and its impact on the hen harrier population has been overstated and is misleading. A lack of breeding success on grouse moors does not automatically mean that laws have been broken. There are many, many more birds in England than four successfully nesting pairs, which can be seen over grouse moor during migration and at winter roost sites.

Until a full set of special rules allowing the positive management of hen harriers breeding on grouse moors is forthcoming from the Environment Council’s Hen Harrier Dialogue, moorland owners are within their rights and the law to deter the birds from settling on their moors to breed.”

We assume that ‘positive management’ in this context refers to either killing or otherwise removing (translocating) any harriers that are considered ‘surplus’ to an agreed acceptable number (known as a ‘ceiling’). We understand that the Environment Council is seriously considering a ‘ceiling’ on hen harrier numbers for grouse moors; a controversial and long-running argument that we’ll write about another time. But what does the Moorland Association mean when it says ‘moorland owners are within their rights and the law to deter birds from settling on their moors to breed’?

The other comment we found particularly interesting was one made by the Countryside Alliance:

The recent publication of out of date research into the breeding success of peregrine falcons on grouse moors is a further example of counterproductive allegations against shooting which resulted in misleading coverage in the media. As a result of this, the National Wildlife Crime Unit circulated a clarification to all Police Wildlife Crime Officers in the UK, and to all Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime members, in which it was drawn to the attention of those studying the research paper that the data used was out of date, and that in using such information there was a clear danger that the research paper might be misunderstood as representing the current situation, which it did not.”

The publication being referred to is the recent paper by Amar et al (2011) which showed that the breeding productivity of peregrines nesting on grouse moors in Northern England was 50% lower than the productivity of peregrines breeding on non-grouse moors (see here for earlier blog on this). Now, why would the NWCU feel it necessary to send an email to wildlife crime police officers and other PAW partners about how to interpret this paper? Did they think that these people were so stupid that they couldn’t read and understand the paper for themselves? Why did the NWCU think that the data used in the paper (collected between 1980-2006 from 141 nesting ranges) were unrepresentative of the current situation? Has the NWCU collected and analysed more recent data to demonstrate that the current situation is different? How does sending this email fit in with the NWCU’s stated primary role of ‘assisting in the prevention and detection of wildlife crime’? What sort of message does this email give to those involved with the fight against raptor persecution? Here is a peer-reviewed scientific publication in a prestigious journal that points directly to the significant relationship between grouse moors and raptor persecution. Isn’t this exactly the sort of publication that the NWCU’s Charlie Everitt was referring to in his speech at the recent wildlife crime conference when he said: “We’ve also been looking to the use of science to try and benefit from what science can deliver to us”?

The thing is that the data used in the paper were part of a long-term data set that clearly showed a trend in poor productivity (i.e. not a snap shot but a long-term picture over 26 years), and this trend also mirrored that of other studies that have shown a clear relationship between low raptor survival and grouse moors (go and read some of the golden eagle papers that have been produced over the last ten years). The NWCU appear to have missed this point in their scrabble to appease the grouse-shooting lobby; so much for their intelligence-led approach to combating raptor persecution, eh?

All the written evidence submitted to the audit committee so far can be read here.

Covert camera at peregrine nest catches offenders within 48 hours

A proactive police and RSPB crackdown on wildlife crime in Devon & Cornwall, called Operation Wilderness, has had its first success after two men were filmed visiting an active peregrine nest site without the appropriate licences.

The men were caught on film just 48 hours after a covert camera had been installed at the site. Police were able to identify them from the camera images and the two men, aged 44 and 43, were found to be in possession of a camera containing images of the peregrine nest site. Both men have been released pending further enquiries.

Full details available on Devon Police Wildlife Crime Officer Josh Marshall’s blog here

Well done Josh and all involved – excellent work! For more information about why Operation Wilderness was launched, see earlier blog post here.

UK parliamentary audit on wildlife crime: evidence available for viewing

In February we blogged about the forthcoming UK parliamentary audit on wildlife crime (see here). Some of the (uncorrected) oral evidence that was presented to the audit committee (including that from RSPB, RSPCA and National Gamekeepers Organisation) is now available to view on the audit committee’s website, as well as a lot of written evidence from these and many other interested parties.

Although some of the oral evidence provides some cause for optimism (i.e. the RSPCA’s success rate for animal welfare prosecutions), other parts of the oral evidence are deeply depressing. Particularly the evidence concerning hen harrier persecution, which focused on the lack of prosecutions for hen harrier persecution since 2006, which was then used as an indication that persecution is not an issue for this species!!

There was a lot of discussion during the oral evidence about how difficult it is to detect the perpetrators of certain wildlife crimes, which is why it’s so bloody frustrating that when investigators do find evidence of hen harrier persecution (e.g. the harrier that was found caught in an illegally-set spring trap on Moy Estate in 2010), no charges were forthcoming.

Uncorrected oral evidence to the UK parliamentary environmental audit committee on wildlife crime available to view here

Written evidence from many individuals and organisations available to read here

The government’s 2011 report that identifies illegal persecution as one of the main problems for hen harriers here

Lochindorb Estate hare-snare trial begins

The trial began today against Lochindorb Estate gamekeepers, David Taylor (64) and Kevin Begg (45), who are alleged to have set illegal snares to trap mountain hares in April last year (see here for previous blog on this case).

Inverness Sheriff Court heard today from a police officer who got caught in one of the snares (see here for STV report).

This case is extremely interesting on a number of levels. One point of interest can’t be discussed until after the trial has concluded. The other main point will depend on whether the court rules that snaring mountain hares is lawful or unlawful; either way there will be wider implications for the methods available for predator ‘control’ in the uplands.

The four-day trial will resume later in July.

2012 wildlife crime conference: Ruaraidh Nicolson (ACPOS)

This is blog number three in our series looking at the presentations made at the recent 2012 police wildlife crime conference. This time we’ll hear from Assistant Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police, Ruaraidh Nicolson, who is also the new lead on wildlife crime at ACPOS [Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland]. For more info on Ruaraidh, see here.

Ruaraidh Nicolson (ACPOS)

Minister, Chief Constable, ladies and gentleman, I’m delighted to welcome you to the 19th Scottish police wildlife crime conference. I suppose I should firstly mention, er, the fantastic setting here and we all come back here on a very, very regular basis and all police officers actually get trained here, its of particular relevance with its beautiful surroundings and ready access to so many diverse habitats which benefit our wildlife. What better place then for a conference such as this. An environment which, as of 2008, Scottish Natural Heritage commissioned report has shown has a value of over £17 billion to the Scottish economy, and which employs one in seven of all full-time workers in Scotland. My previous chief officer colleagues who have opened these conferences have done so from their position of representing ACPOS from the operational policing business area. However, recognition that wildlife crime impacts seriously on Scotland’s valuable natural heritage and that it is probably linkaged to serious organised crime groups has influenced to move to where it now rightly sits, and that’s within crime business area, and that’s actually where I come in to all this; I’m the secretary for crime business area and as the ACPOS lead now, volunteered as Nevin said, on wildlife crime, er, I am delighted to open this important conference today.

ACPOS crime business area is committed to impacting on crime affecting the environment and has incorporated criminal investigation and environmental crime in to one specific portfolio area, and of course this is underpinned by all six of our ACPOS guiding principles: leadership, partnerships, customer focus, excellence, learning, and diversity. These principles are what our business in tackling wildlife crime are built upon, and indeed each are equally relevant to achieving the successful outcomes which our country expects. The clear benefits to an intelligence-led approach to addressing criminality are well established. This involves linking the sourcing and development of intelligence to tried and tested policing and partnership methods, to impact on operational activity, to disrupting criminality and ultimately to changing behaviour, which will be the important part of the work that we’re doing.

The investigation and disruption of all aspects of wildlife crime fits very well within this successful model. However, to ensure further success in such activity we must continue to stimulate and maintain the submission of high quality information. Without information on the people responsible, criminal methods, locations of interest, and activities known to criminals involved in damaging our natural environment, they are on the front foot and we are not. That’s something that I’m not prepared to accept.

We must explore and develop new sources of intelligence. The role of the Partnership Against Wildlife Crime, in providing such intelligence, cannot be overstated. Every piece of information is crucial, no matter how small that might be. Our experience tells us that the development of intelligence is like building a jigsaw: start at the corners and work your way into the middle, but every piece is very, very important to the overall picture of what we’re doing.

We must progress the development of the national intelligence model and the Scottish intelligence database. We live and work in times of austerity and the public expects police and partners to operate efficiently. But they also rightly expect that we also operate effectively. By use of the national intelligence model and the Scottish intelligence database we are well placed to have the right people doing the right things at the right time in the right way. This is no more than good business sense and it is what the public expect, but it’s also importantly what our environment deserves.

We must encourage the increased use of tasking and coordinating to focus on intelligence-driven work, linking partners effectively results in the best use of resources, together with the right skills and the right powers. This is not just about police; it’s about every person in this room today and beyond, so you all have a part to play in what we’re actually trying to achieve here.

We must further develop memoranda of understanding with Partnership Against Wildlife Crime partners and with pertinent agencies to assist in the sharing of appropriate information and intelligence. We need to continue to formalise our information sharing, help share our assets and continue to build our relationships and trust. A critical aspect of this intelligence-led approach is that success is best achieved when close and effective partnerships are forged and developed across the spectrum of those individuals and bodies that have an interest in the crimes being perpetrated. The Partnership Against Wildlife Crime provides an excellent example of this being applied and I am confident that we have made significant steps to address wildlife and environmental crime, and I know that the benefits are there for all to see, and there was reporting on Radio Scotland this morning in terms of some of the work that’s already been done. However, and this is what today’s about, there is much, much, much more to be done.

Of course I can’t speak today without mentioning police reform. While this is undoubtedly the single biggest organisational challenge undertaken in the history of Scottish policing, it brings with it great opportunities to exploit the collective expertise, resources and passion that currently exists across eight territorial force areas. Real law enforcement impact towards wildlife crime will only be achieved if we fully harness the full extent of the problem. We need to demonstrate to those involved in damaging our wildlife and our environment that we know who they are, and that we will make use of the same policing assets that we are applying to other investigations, detection and disruption of all forms of criminality. The message to people involved in such crime is simple: Scotland relishes its wildlife and environment and damage to these will not be tolerated.

Modern criminal investigation thrives on the benefits that intelligence brings. 2011 saw re-focus of the Scottish wildlife crime tactical tasking and coordinating forum. Identification of those responsible for damaging our wildlife and environment is at the heart of this. But there’s a need to drive activity at most local policing levels to make sure that enforcement and prevention activities are locally relevant and impacting. But also in order that local police officers grow their own knowledge of those people within their communities who are intent on harming their environment. And of course vice versa. We want local criminals to grow their knowledge that local police officers have them in their sights.

If we can continue to grow our approach to addressing local issues relating to wildlife and environmental crime, this will help us develop much broader knowledge of those individuals that operate within the wider national and international arena. We will target criminals involved in wildlife and environmental crime from every angle possible, locally, nationally and internationally. But the truly effective approach for Scotland must start with locally relevant and effective police and partnership activity. There should be no gaps in commitment, whether this is from policing, partner agencies or the public, and I entrust you to broaden their complete contempt of wildlife and environmental crime within your community and to take personal responsibility to drive forward exposure of those committing such crime in order that enforcement organisations can most effectively disrupt those behaviours.

So my message for the forthcoming year is clear. Scottish policing will continue to actively pursue those involved in damaging our wildlife and the environment. We will work closer with partners to be more effective in painting the intelligence picture. We will develop and broaden awareness among our staff about crime that affects our wildlife and the environment. We will make sure that the policing mechanisms in place to target other forms of criminality are equally applied to those issues affecting our natural environment. And finally we will use our intelligence regarding other forms of criminality as a vehicle to help us disrupt and detect those harming our wildlife, environment, and we will use our intelligence regarding those involved in wildlife and environmental crime to disrupt and detect those involved in other forms of crime”.

[Well done Ruaraidh for managing to deliver an understandable presentation. Yes, it was still littered with bureaucratic jargon but at least it was put together coherently, and in amongst all that business-speak was a message of clear intent. Can that good intent be turned into tangible results? That remains to be seen but he should be given the chance to have a go; at least he wasn’t suggesting national police operations with gamekeepers!]

2012 wildlife crime conference: Nevin Hunter (NWCU)

This is the second blog in the series focusing on presentations made at the recent police wildlife crime conference in Scotland. This time we look at what the new head of the National Wildlife Crime Unit, Nevin Hunter, had to say. (For background info on Nevin, see here).

Nevin Hunter, NWCU

“Ok, you know we’ve got UK priorities, erm, you’ve heard mention already of the national intelligence model and the way in which we try and work and deal with wildlife crime and I’m not going to focus on that too much, I’m going to focus on some other aspects. Erm, you know, everything we’re about now is about harm reduction really in terms of, of, wildlife crime, erm, you know, we’re looking at national crime threats and four distinct areas of work because many of you will be aware of this in terms of its enforcement but as I’ve gone around speaking to a number of people from, erm, a number of different partner organisations over the last few weeks I’ve been trying to stress something really and that, that actually a lot of the prevention, intelligence and enforcement has been having a fourth element to it that, and that’s all around reassurance because if we want to get people to engage with us and support us in the fight against wildlife crime we’ve got to think about that as a virtuous circle if we can, if we can, er, have effective prevention, we get good intelligence, we get effective enforcement, that is going to build reassurance amongst those people who are supporting us, erm, that will then lead in itself to more preventative actions, intelligence, enforcement and that’s what I talk about in terms of virtuous circle, so it’s really important that we continue to build upon that.

Erm, I put this slide up just for one reason alone. We are the UK National Wildlife Crime Unit and, er, it’s really important that everybody understands we’ve got the UK perspective, you know, we’ve shown over the last few years, erm, things like Operation RAMP that we really can deliver at an international level, erm, some of you know me well, in the last three and a half years I’ve spent seconded to, to Animal Health, erm, dealing with CITES endangered species issues, erm, and bird registration issues and have been, you know, I wrote the UK operation order for Operation RAMP that a number of you in the audience will have been involved with, er, albeit that I was working then with the civil service, erm, dealing with, with those types of issues. Erm, but we can do this work, what we’ve got to remember though, erm, you know, we’ve shown we can operate at an international level, er, we can provide operational support, erm, and I’ve got mutual administrative systems and regional mutual assistance treaty, right, we can, we can do that type of work, we’ve shown we can do that and we’ve really built on that and we’ll continue to do so but I look at it a lot of the work we do that at an international level is core business to us now and we know how to deal with that, we, you know, CITES is a priority we can deal with that sort of work but I’m very conscious coming in to this role with the UK National Wildlife Crime Unit it’s really important to me that we start delivering and really thinking about the priorities that we’ve got in the UK.

Erm, now you can’t, you can’t actually get a picture of a black hole but one of the issues that people regularly, sort of regularly flag to me up that, er, the last several weeks the feeling at times that, that the National Wildlife Crime Unit can be seen as a bit of a black hole in that lots of things come in to us but you guys and girls out there are dealing with things operationally on the ground what you see come out from us. Now that doesn’t mean that we’re not working hard, you know, I, I know how hard the people in the unit worked, I worked really closely with Brian and the team over the last few years, erm, they all work incredibly hard, erm, dealing with a number of priority areas but I’m very conscious that your perception of us out there may not be as good as it could be in terms of where we’re delivering at a UK level. We really do deliver at an international level, that’s quite clear. Erm, and I want to look at, focus about, erm, perhaps things that we ought to be looking at, now these are my perceptions and some of them are my views so please, erm, I hope I’m not going to insult anybody but I think you need to think about these things.

Erm, I think there needs to be a re-focus on the UK wildlife crime priorities, are all of these relevant, erm, are they things that we can deliver on? Erm, we need to perhaps consider and review how we deliver the processes, can we define these better for wildlife crime, erm, those of you who see it and most of you certainly from a policing point of view will get copied in to the strategic and tactical assessments that we make, they are, they’re very long documents and when I’ve gone around speaking to people the vast majority of people have said we don’t read all of them, we read the little bits that are of interest to us, but there’s a huge amount of time spent in the unit putting those documents together. Now, concerns are raised about how relevant they are in terms of how timely they are, er, because we’re trying to process a mass of information, get that into those types of documents, erm, and we are doing it, that, in the best way we can, is it the fact that we’ve got a large number of priorities, the fact we’re being asked to produce very large documents actually as effective are we being as effective as we can be with that?

Erm, I see that role for the head of the unit going ahead now is going to be to drive action by the priority delivery groups, er, and when I talk about that I’m talking about outcomes, erm, I went to a meeting recently with Mr Crompton and Brian Stuart, erm, and Mr Benyon the UK Minister and I know that ministers, you know, across the UK are looking at the whole issues, it’s about outcomes now, we’ve got to be outcome-driven so we’ve got to be looking at how we deliver, we’ve got wildlife crime priorities in the UK and I’ll be making sure we deliver those, er, and I see it as a role for me in the future with my team to help drive through those UK priorities.

Erm, in terms of operation ways, erm, way ahead, erm, I think we need to make sure that we make the priorities relevant to you. We’ve got to be looking at effective disruption of criminality, yeah? If we’re going to use the national intelligence model to its best effect we need to get it in there and disrupting criminality, yeah? It needs to be and there’s a role for me and my team in that. We need to make it relevant to you, erm, so I see now that there should be a role of operational support from the head of unit, erm, you know, when we get large complex investigations, erm, from a policing point of view we’re going to look at silver command type structure, bronze, silver, gold command as you’ll be aware of from a policing point of view, you know, we’ve got to be thinking then about what roles, erm, what roles somebody like a silver commander, a lot of silver commanders are going to be involved, erm, perhaps we’re looking at inspectors, chief inspectors, superintendents probably going to be involved with some of these complex cases with no understanding of wildlife crime. You may have gone and made a business case to them to get the job and to run it, erm, but is there a role for somebody like me to come and provide the tactical advisor bit for an operational silver commander to make sure they’re able to make the best decisions and I don’t think we’ve played that role in the past, erm, but with my sort of background now I bring that into the, into the equation to be able to support and when we may get complex operations, erm, and I think that that’s a way in which we can connect with you.

I think we need to be looking as well at, erm, if we look, if there’s a perception that we might be a bit of a black hole, yeah? You want to see stuff, and this is what people are telling me, you want to see stuff coming out of the unit, er, I know Colin and others within the unit have discussed over the last year or two about whether we could look at something like a weekly dissemination to yourselves. Erm, the national domestic extremism unit produces a weekly update of all extremism issues around the UK, erm, going out to all forces across the UK giving updates of the major issues. Perhaps we need to be looking at that, erm, if you’ve got ideas on that or things you’d like to see us bring in to that type of document please let us know. Now we may have to look at it in terms of integrity within the unit in terms of our staffing because we are challenged at the moment but we want to move towards something where not only are you putting information and intelligence into us, you know we welcome intelligence all the time, but we want to be putting stuff out to you because we need, we need that virtuous circle again, we need you to be linked in to what we’re doing and to see you actually getting stuff coming out of us.

Erm, I think we can look as well at, to consider platforms, erm, such as the police on-line knowledge area, now that’s hosted at the moment by the national police improvement agency, erm, and under something called POKA, that’s as I say the police on-line knowledge area, er, it’s effectively a secure messaging, er, system, message boarding system. Now I’ve been talking about this via email and discussion the last few weeks and that’s an opportunity perhaps if we could put, develop wildlife communities, er, coordinate that according to in terms of the police communities where we can then start to share, er, information, knowledge, understanding, er, will we get any of the sort of developments that the, er, sheriff was talking about earlier on, can we feed things into there, feed peoples experiences so that you’ve got an opportunity to look at things that may be going on across the, er, Scotland and the wider UK, er, where we can learn from because we need to take these opportunities.

Ok, just to finish off, enforcement challenges, erm, I think key for what we do in the future has got to be about support the majority of people to undertake lawful activities, that’s key about what we do. Erm, targeting the minority of those who undermine, er, and, and who operate at local, national and serious and organised levels, you know, we’ve got, we’ve got to look at that and, and I flagged that up and I’ll give you two examples of why I think it’s, ok, we’ve got to mean business and I’m flagging two issues here, poaching, ok? It’s really important that we harness the energy of people like gamekeepers, factors, landowners and others to tackle across Scotland, er, and the rest of the UK with a, with something like potentially a national operation. That’s one of the things that, er, in the last few weeks I’ve been speaking to, er, Scottish Land Estates and, er, National Gamekeepers down in, down in the south of the border now, you know, is there potential for things like operations, national operations and we need to harness those energies. Whilst we want people like gamekeepers on side, erm, and there’s also the potential that when looking at raptor persecution that we, you know, anybody who’s allowed to use, uses or allows to be used things like carbofuran and that sort, that’s a photograph on there from a poisoning incident, erm, erm, that I dealt with several years ago down in Devon, similar types of things, somebody’s been squirting carbofuran granular form on to a pheasant poult, putting it out to try and kill buzzards, erm, people have got to understand that there’s potential that if they’re, if they’re doing that then now, you know, there’s a likelihood they’ll go to jail, now the finger gets pointed all the time at gamekeepers so I’m saying on the one hand well let’s work with gamekeepers to potentially push forward things like anti-poaching initiatives, work with them at the same time saying we need help to deal with the persecution of raptors, erm, so we’ve got to, got to get people on our side, erm, and that I see as something that I’ve got a big part to play in trying to drive things forward and show that we’re tackling the UK priorities.”

[Jesus Christ. Somebody needs to get these NWCU people on to a public speaking training course. Although in all fairness to Nevin, it looks as though he wasn’t properly briefed about his audience. Even so, get rid of the jargon, get rid of the bureaucracy and simplify your message. E.g. “Hello everyone, I think NWCU has a good track record at an international level but I recognise that we’ve been a bit shit at a national level and I intend to address that issue. We need your help to accomplish that”. Who cares about which model is used, or whether the commander has a bronze, silver or gold certificate for cycling proficiency? WE DON’T CARE, NEVIN! What we care about is whether you and your team can get results and bring more of those who continue to persecute raptors and other wildlife, to justice. That’s it. A helpful hint: launching a national operation in partnership with gamekeepers is unlikely to improve your unit’s credibility with the raptor workers. Just saying…]