The RSPCA is "immensely honoured" that King Charles has become its new patron. Protect the Wild argues that this man, who abuses animals, should never have such a role in an animal welfare charity. This article explores Charles' bloodlust for killing mammals and birds, and details how his vast estates are shooting playgrounds.
I wish the useless, spoilt, hypocrit would piss off and spend the rest if his life skiing. 'Royal' estates should be taken under public ownership and nurtured as nature reserves.
JL , me too love your comment. I’m in Scotland . Does anyone know if this applies to the spca in Scotland . I hope not but will cancel my subscription if it does .
No surprises there, the royal family have always been a bloodthirsty bunch i remember yrs ago his old man being patron of the WWF, the same man that went hunting most big game animals in africa!! Fucking hypocrites the lot of em👎
I remember that and stopped my subscription immediately! Hypocrites! Just another means to control decision making in their favour! Yesterday, Camilla announced she would no longer be buying real fur items; but would continue wearing those she's already got!
Me too. I used to play the WWF lottery but stopped when I had concerns regarding trophy hunting. WWF sadly also have ties to so called "royalty". That comes as no surprise to me about that "Camilla".
I think they are trying to appeal more to us, true animal lovers! It certainly isn't a conversion of 'ethics'!! Insult to our intelligence! If they want to prove they have changed, it's easy; stop killing animals!
Yes I know and I am sick of them and their cancer problems having just read that we are a third world country compared to other european countries when it comes to getting ordinary people getting radiotherapy and the worst cancer cure rates. Hundreds will die from it if not seen in time but the Royals all have the best of the best. Its a shame they do not donate some if their billions to buying more machines for our sick people which includes children!
Is it April 1st?? This is pure mockery! Never did trust RSPCA so it must be true! Shocking! How come the British public get no say in this? Absolutely fuming about this! This gives bloodsports a Royal Platform! Which society is the 'go to' for Police decisions etc? Chris Packham should now resign from the RSPCA on principle!
Very true Rosemary and I completely agree with you! However, Chris Packham isn't that much better or fully innocent with animals either, especially deers.
Yes Cara. I did read your worrying information before. It would be good if he gave us answers instead of leaving us now with niggling worries. What is also scary is that if Labour get in and attempt to keep their promises, Starmer will be regularly meeting Charles for their 'cosy chat' sessions! Tony Blair gave assurances to the Royals hunting would not really stop. Charles will be in prime position to lobby Starmer! Is this another 'placement' by the crafty CA?
Agree Stephen. They have also promised to close the loopholes in the Hunting of Mammals Bill, so they will have to do something to prove they are keeping promises. However, we voted for Tony Blair to stop hunting too! Are we being fooled again? I will vote for them in unconvinced hope!
Why vote for the destroyers of this beautiful country? I am 80 now and have never been political but now I am ashamed to be English. A country that sends millions abroad to be used by corrupt governments instead if using it to build up the National health system, feed the poor and home the homeless, and protect animals from being murdered by Hunts men and women like the Royal family and friends!
Indeed Rosemary. I would love nothing more than if I could find a link where Chris Packham is denouncing and apologising what he said then as it would be good to hear what he thinks about it all now so we know exactly where he stands on this and what his stances are today but so far, I cannot find anything I am afraid. That is why I fear he still agrees with what he said then as I can find nothing to the contrary, then or now. I do have great concerns as well as yourself if labour gets in, as Tony Blair promised to end hunting to the public (whilst secretly having a hidden agenda) but if anything, he actually made it even harder to stop hunting as now, the hunts can openly lie to the public and say they are "trail hunting" when we know that they aren't and that is completely legal!! It gave them a legal smokescreen to hide behind! The best thing for all animals, would be if the so called "royal family" were all abolished!! (Although what I would like to see happen to them is far worse after all they have done to animals)!
Labour have at least pledged to stop the badger cull. I am not sure what else they will do, but what I am sure of is that the Tories would be a lot worse for our wildlife and environment: they voted against more restrictions on the dumping of sewage, not that long ago, they were going to try to repeal the current hunting act. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good
I do completely agree that any party will do a better job than the Tories. They can't stay in power for all our sakes! Perfect is often sadly the enemy of good. I just truly hope labour keep their promises this time.
Indeed, what an absolutely bizarre decision for the RSPCA to take and one which I think will put many people off the organisation. I was also shocked to see the animal abuse uncovered by animal welfare groups on farms that are RSPCA certified. Very troubling. Who can we trust at all?
I completely understand and agree with you Sharon Mcgregor but, although I don't personally agree with or support the RSPCA financially due to past experience, they did have a very good point about meat and ethics here: https://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/howwework/policies/ethics
(2nd paragraph of "Ethical dilemma's" and the "difficult decisions" article especially)
This is coming from someone who is strictly vegetarian and almost vegan.
the so called 'royal family' are a disgrace, their environmental engagement is pure sham, as the article points out, they are all keen wildlife killers. That Charles finds something 'natural' about chasing wild animals to exhaustion so that they can be ripped apart by dogs is utterly disgusting. Despite all the hand wringing, his estates are responsible for the killing of rare and endangered raptors as well as thousands of mammals. Andrew referred to a 'normal shooting weekend' in his car crash interview with Emily Maitlis. They are degenerates, do not be fooled by their staged environmental interventions.
As for the RSPCA, I no longer donate or contact them, I have contacted them in relation to several wild animals in the past, they were never interested.
Good for you. They rarily come to Hunts when called by the HSI SABS on site of an illegal hunt, hounds on the main road, hounds being killed, etc., and do not take these animal abusers to Court, leaving that to the SABS, to then be let off by their friendly Judge.
I have never trusted the RSPCA, theyll gladly take any donation and not treat sick abandoned animals as for old charlie boy and his concubine camilla the sooner these 2 petchalent hypocrites go the better all our wildlife will be DISGUSTED
Thanks Stephen, I will try and be polite when writing to the RSPCA to complain about this. The hypocrisy sickens me. Someone there must be after an honour !
I just wrote that it was an appalling decision and listed some of the reasons: Charles is an avid fox hunter, owns numerous shooting estates and has been responsible for the slaughter of thousands of mammals and birds. He opposed the introduction of the anti hunting act and ensured that there were sufficient loopholes to allow this abomination to continue
What an absolute joke. This decision by the RSPCA makes me sick. The number of times I’ve seen Royal documentaries of the royals, charles, camilla, fox hunting and hare coursing, sitting on their horses smiling away. It’s disgusting and so hypocritical. Why not have someone like Bryan May or Ricky Gervais who really love and care about animals. I’m getting so sick of the stupid shit that’s going on in this country. Can’t stand the royal family for this reason, they’re murderers of animals. When they’re rattling on about conservation of wildlife in places like Africa, but they’re out there killing our wildlife for fun and sport, absolutely disgusting.
I completely agree with everything you have said Marjorie Howley! The 2 celebrities I fully respect and believe are true animal lovers are Brian May and Ricky Gervais (Evanna Lynch seems like a true animal lover too) Bless you!
Is there an animal supporting list of celebrities? I have heard some speak in our favour such as Stephen Fry, Martin Shaw, Martin Freeman, Joanna Lumley and there must be loads in the younger generation of 'celebs'. I'm not a fan of anyone but high profile people do have an impact. If only they would make their feelings more public on this issue for example and they could influence 'The Newt' as well!
Yes me too I cannot bear the thought of it . So hypocritical could anyone tell me if this will apply to the spca in Scotland, as I will be cancelling my subscription as well , power to the people “ ❤️
I think any animal welfare group with a connection to the royal family is a paradox. The RSPB fully support wind turbines even though they know the wind currents suck birds of prey into the blades and kill them. It's a waste of tax payers money paying for a facade to make the fakes look like they care.
Indeed. I always liked wind turbines until I found out about the horrid danger they can pose to birds, bats etc. There are now however, I believe, wind turbines that can be bird friendly as they are fitted with different parts to make it safer. Although I personally think solar and lunar panels are the safest all round.
And that's habitat for birds and insects gone. And that's damaging the ecosystem. The shade from the panels will stop anything growing out the ground underneath because plants don't grow in the shade. No plants means no roots to hold the soil together. Slowly but eventually the soil going to crumble to dust and blow away. Then all we'll have is bare rock. Is that what you want? No plants? If the soil blows away, the atmosphere blows away and we live on a barren rock? That's the problem. The solution is to change society so that we live in harmony with nature. We don't drive out kids to school in a car, we walk them to school on grass with trees for shade. And entertainment is learning about nature and becoming at one with nature. If we didn't have TVs or video games or internet, what's the worst that could happen? Really.
You are completely correct Sarah Morgan. I completely agree with you on that as I don't don't agree with solar farms on land either. I personally would like to see solar panels installed on every single house/flat/building/business roof instead rather than on land (I should have made that clearer in my last comment). In your last comment, you made a lot of very true points as well, especially that everything we do has consequences somewhere down the line and that everything exploits something in one way or another (sadly, when you look at everything in the world, I think nature is built on one being living off (exploiting) another in order to stay alive though. It just depends on how much damage that exploitation is causing and if the other side gets any benefits from it) Ultimately though, you are more than welcome to disagree with me as everyone is entitled to their opinions, but I personally don't agree with fossil fuels, the current way of generating nuclear energy (although fusion is potentially safer, we can't yet create it in large enough doses or know of what dangerous impacts there might be later), wind turbines (unless they are made far safer for wildlife) or solar panel farms on land. I completely understand that you don't trust the BBC. I will try to find an article on wind turbines on a non profit and/or scientific website instead.
When you're at the bottom of the exploitation ladder, it doesn't seem like it's worth it. But no one could ever know exactly because those people and animals and plants don't talk. Sometimes we're buried so deeply, we don't even know we're suffering.
What benefits to the other side? Thousands of private jet journeys per year, how is that necessary, I don't know, please could someone tell me? Expensive clothes and products, made out of tortured animals, necessary? How? Yachts, so that classy people can have parties at sea so they can do illegal things legally? How is any of this beneficial to anyone? It's just the winning chromosome celebrating at cost to the planet.
If we went back to nature, and our priority was making nature grow in beautiful ways, we wouldn't have crime. Because we wouldn't have inequality. We wouldn't need pharma because we would be able to heal.
I don't agree with any source of energy. The only answer is to use less and make it so we need less.
I found out about this a few weeks ago (I receive emails from the RSPCA) and was both outraged and saddened to hear this really in many ways. I do not donate to them but I thought that their latest advert was so true and poignant that I thought it was deserving of a gold medal quite frankly as a result but then they let themselves down by doing this. Mind you, and I mean this in the kindest way Protect The Wild, but there is not much difference between lauding a "royal family" member as an "animal lover" compared to lauding Chris Packham as an "animal lover" whilst he advocates for and actively encourages shooting ('blasting') deer and elephants and despises cats (My mother heard him say this openly on TV and there is evidence (links) to confirm this for proof)! I also heard from another supporter on here that he (Chris Packham) actually visited someone who shot grey squirrels and ate them and that he joined in and ate some of the poor squirrel too (I don't have any evidence of this however but I do believe it) In another words, Chris Packham is a speciest hypocrite, no different than the "royal family" are. I sent an email to Animal Aid a short while ago to express my anger, when they were celebrating making him a patron of their charity, speaking out about it and showing all the evidence to them but they literally just dismissed everything I said and virtually said that just because those articles I provided were a number of years ago, it doesn't count now. If someone murdered someone years ago but never since showed any remorse or passionately denounced and apologised for doing it since, do they deserve to be pardoned and celebrated then? As far as I am aware, I can find no article of Chris Packham passionately denouncing what he said then and so, until someone can show me an article about him with him apologising and denouncing what he said then, then I will continue to show the other side of him that animal charities sadly don't want to mention. Sadly, just like I said before, the word "Brainwashed" comes immediately to mind. Either people are too blind to see for themselves or they want to be. I think "Cognitive dissonance" is a good term for this.
really ? I help at 2 squirrel rescues and Animal Aid came to film a couple of years ago, shortly afterwards they held an event in London at which Packham spoke, at that event he actually spoke against the killing of grey squirrels, but based on your information, I will certainly look more closely at what he says/ does in future
Bless you Stephen. When I contacted Animal Aid, they mentioned this but sadly, I personally fear Chris Packham is one of those hypocrites who is "say as I say, don't do as I do" people. Although again, all these links are years ago, this link here: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/05/red-grey-squirrels-cornwall
Where he says : "that the "perfect paradise is lost" and that non-native species are now an integral part of the UK's flora and fauna: "If the grey squirrels have to go then so do all the rabbits, hares, four of our six deer species and so on."
Sharply conflicts with him saying "We have to play a proactive role and that means killing things. People come to shoot near where I live and they ask me where the deer are and I tell them 'the deer are over there, go and blast!'
Chris said: “I believe the red should become the mascot. We must succeed. We have no choice.
“How can we just give up, do nothing and say it is all impossible while witnessing the disappearance of one of this country’s most endearing species? It is unthinkable.”
Reds were wiped out by human intervention 3 times before the grey was introduced, each time the red was 'reintroduced' from Scandanavia - from a very shallow gene pool, making them more susceptible to ailments. The red is thus no more native than the grey now. Below is a letter I have used in the past citing various scientific studies:
Sir
I was appalled by the misinformation in your report on grey squirrels today (11/07/2922)
1. The current red squirrel population in the UK is not ‘native’; red squirrels were extinct in the UK already in 18th century (greys were introduced to the UK in the middle of 19th century) due to habitat loss. It was similar in Ireland [Ritchie 1920, Gurnell 1987, Harris et al. 2006]. The current population (as confirmed also by DNA studies) are descendants of red squirrels introduced from the continent (mainly from Scandinavia) at the end of 18th century [Hale et al. 2004, Ballingall et al. 2016].
Complete extinction of red squirrels due to habitat loss also happened in Portugal (even though they were present in the nearby Spain all the time) already in 16th century [da Luz Mathias, M. & Gurnell, J. 1998]. In 20th century, habitats in Portugal were restored and the red squirrel population returned to Portugal naturally, migrating from Spain [Rocha et al. 2014].
2. Since the current population of reds in the UK and Eire are descendants of just a few squirrels introduced in 18th century from Scandanavia, that population has the weakest genetic pool in Europe [Ballingall et al. 2016] and because of that, even 48% of unnatural deaths are caused by "civilisation diseases" [Simpson et al. 2013]. (Road accidents account for 42% of unnatural deaths of red squirrels in the UK. Death as the result of attack by domestic pets are 9% of unnatural deaths). Squirrel pox accounts for only 2% of red squirrel deaths in the UK [Simpson et al., ‘Causes of mortality and pathological lesions observed post-mortem in res squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris) in Great Britain’, BMC Veterinary Research, 2013.]
The first hypothesis about the possibility of transmitting pox to red squirrels by grey squirrels was suggested by the same scientist who at the same time observed that in 10 of 14 counties where red squirrels had pox there were no grey squirrels present (Middleton, 1930).
3. The current population of red squirrels in the UK, before their introduction to the UK, evolved for thousands of years in favourable Scandinavian coniferous habitats made up mostly from Norway spruce. At the moment, not only does the UK have 3 times less forests than the European average, but also due to economic reasons the main trees planted for over 60 years are unsuitable to sustain the growth of red squirrel population (and according to Forestry Commission it won’t change for the next 25 years)[Harris et al. 2006]. It’s enough to say that "the most popular tree" planted in the UK for over 40 years is American Sitka spruce, incapable of sustaining a viable red squirrel population bigger than 1 squirrel per 5-7 hectares. Most trees planted after WWII are trees that resemble the natural habitat of grey squirrels in America (chestnut, oak) [Koprowski 1994].
4. After 46 years of red squirrel cull in the UK their situation was so tragic that they had to be re-introduced in many places in the UK (in 80% of these areas grey squirrels were not present yet). The reds' population in the UK was so weak that their re-introduction in those areas were based mostly on (a few) individuals brought from the continent [Shorten1954]. When no more profit could be made from killing reds in the UK, their place (also in the propaganda) was taken by grey squirrels that were successful in changing (broadleaved) habitats in the UK at the time [Bryant 2014]. The animal introduced by members of royalty in over 30 places in the UK and so far called "noble" (it was one of the most precious gifts among the UK nobility at the time), suddenly became "the pest", inheriting from red squirrels all the myths told about them so far [Signorile et al. 2016].
5. The scientific research shows minimal competition for food and habitat between European red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) and grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis). The same research shows that significant variability of reproduction – observed in different years – which occurs naturally within red squirrel populations living in areas with no grey squirrels (Wauters & Lens 1995, Wauters et al. 2000, Gurnell et al. 2004) can also occur among red squirrels inhabiting the same area with grey squirrels (data from Wauters & Lens 1995, Wauters et al. 2000, Gurnell et al. 2004). It is also well known that small and fragmented habitats are very unfavourable for sustaining a red squirrel population (Verboom & van Apeldoorn 1990, Gurnell & Pepper 1991, Rodriguez & Andren 1999, Flaherty et al. 2012). The same research shows that significant variability of reproduction – observed in different years – which occurs naturally within red squirrel populations living in areas with no grey squirrels (Wauters & Lens 1995, Wauters et al. 2000, Gurnell et al. 2004) can also occur among red squirrels inhabiting the same area with grey squirrels (data from Wauters & Lens 1995, Wauters et al. 2000, Gurnell et al. 2004). It is also well known that small and fragmented habitats are very unfavourable for sustaining a red squirrel population (Verboom & van Apeldoorn 1990, Gurnell & Pepper 1991, Rodriguez & Andren 1999, Flaherty et al. 2012). Please see the following article:
6. Grey squirrels are accused of "costing the economy" various vast sums of money, however much of these costs are incurred due to the pointless and cruel culls. The supposed losses of the timber industry (where material that has cosmetic damage is calculated as being lost to production altogether, whereas in actual fact it is not taken out of production - cosmetic damage is immaterial in cases of pulp or construction timber) are overstated. The effect of grey squirrels on trees is no different from that of reds – yet you claim that greys endanger the UK’s climate targets. With a population of 66M compared with 2 – 3 M squirrels, the proposal to open a new coal mine in Cumbria and the fact that more trees will be destroyed by the HS2 projects than all the squirrels in the UK would damage until the end of time, the assertion is absurd – you should be ashamed of broadcasting it
yes, they were considered a pest and were wiped out 3 times, before the greys ever came here. Each time reintroduced from Scandanavia (as the article states, now the weakest gene pool in Europe). Now people try to scapegoat the greys - but you will see one of the other points is that only 2% of red squirrel deaths are caused by the pox, 9% are caused by domestic animals - so keeping cats and dogs under control would be 4.5 times more effective than mindlessly killing greys
We absolutely agree (as present RSPCA supporters) that Charles is NOT the right man for the job and are appalled that he has been chosen. We still have the newspaper article from when the hunting ban came in - the front page stating that Charles says, despite the ban, he would never give up hunting. Just shameful and will be writing to the RSPCA expressing our views.
Two pointless groups of people together Charles likes to kill & bastardise Animals. RSPCA are not fit for purpose they only get involved if the story will hit the news. As every day help they are not interested they euthanize young healthy animals, make little or no effort to rehome. The most given reply when asked to help is we are sorry we don 't do that or we have no-one available. So two sets of ASSHOLES together Good fit as far as I can see
If these inbreds are going to keep killing our wildlife and breeding birds to shoot, ABOLISH THE MONARCHY!! It is child abuse to keep 'blooding' children and inuring them to the cruelty of hunting, shooting and killing wildlife. A sign of psychopathic behaviour is killing animals for 'fun'.
I would like assurances that the Prince & Princess of Wales have protected their children from this cruelty. If not, I'll support Republicanism and the abolition of the equally culpable aristocracy too. The Royal Family know they're hanging by a thread, so they'd be wise to respect the wishes of the majority.
As for the RSPCA, their sycophancy is sickening and there are many genuine animal protection charities to support.
I too would like to know if the Prince William and his wife are letting their children be blooded when of age. I am sure these children would be appalled if their own dog was torn to pieces by hounds, so what is the difference with a fox and its cubs. They are just dogs who live free, and it has been proven that they are just as loving and friendly to humans and other animals by the many photos of Fox "owners" on Facebook etc.
How can they be honoured to have an animal and bird murderer as their Patron. It is not a so called tradition that has any place in todays enlightened news about how these lovely Foxes who are just dogs after all, are chased tortured and torn apart by hounds, even the puppies! Beautiful birds shot and wounded! It is not only the so called aristocracy but supposedly normal people who partake in this vile so called sport. It is not sport when one little fox or fox cub is chased by a dozen hungry dogs and many horses ridden by devils intent on seeing blood, pain and terror. They must be sadists! I was once a Royalist but no more. I am absolutely disgusted and insensed that we pay for his Windsor estate and by them and their friends even more so to read that he indoctrinated his sons into this barbarity. As for their Kennel managers murdering the poor hounds that do not come up to scratch, they are as bad. Why do they not give them to rescue homes for people to adopt. They a re very trainable especially when receiving love, food and comfort from good owners!!! I shall not support the RSPCA again and will tell everyone not to. The PDSA and other dog charities are better! 😭😡
It saddens me to hear when someone happily announces they have left a legacy to the RSPCA in their will. Some RSPCA officers join for the right reasons and are compassionate but the RSPCA policies determine their actions. If they have the courage of their original convictions they would leave the RSPCA and gain work from other animal charities which have greater integrity.
I wish the useless, spoilt, hypocrit would piss off and spend the rest if his life skiing. 'Royal' estates should be taken under public ownership and nurtured as nature reserves.
JL , me too love your comment. I’m in Scotland . Does anyone know if this applies to the spca in Scotland . I hope not but will cancel my subscription if it does .
Agree with you.
No surprises there, the royal family have always been a bloodthirsty bunch i remember yrs ago his old man being patron of the WWF, the same man that went hunting most big game animals in africa!! Fucking hypocrites the lot of em👎
I remember that and stopped my subscription immediately! Hypocrites! Just another means to control decision making in their favour! Yesterday, Camilla announced she would no longer be buying real fur items; but would continue wearing those she's already got!
Me too. I used to play the WWF lottery but stopped when I had concerns regarding trophy hunting. WWF sadly also have ties to so called "royalty". That comes as no surprise to me about that "Camilla".
I think they are trying to appeal more to us, true animal lovers! It certainly isn't a conversion of 'ethics'!! Insult to our intelligence! If they want to prove they have changed, it's easy; stop killing animals!
Completely agree with you Rosemary!
I've cancelled my subscription too! If enough people follow suit it may make the RSPCA think again - but I doubt it.
Yes they are and are only "Royal" because their ancestors killed off any opposing Wealthy Land owners!
Only royal family because Edward abdicated.
Yes I know and I am sick of them and their cancer problems having just read that we are a third world country compared to other european countries when it comes to getting ordinary people getting radiotherapy and the worst cancer cure rates. Hundreds will die from it if not seen in time but the Royals all have the best of the best. Its a shame they do not donate some if their billions to buying more machines for our sick people which includes children!
Is it April 1st?? This is pure mockery! Never did trust RSPCA so it must be true! Shocking! How come the British public get no say in this? Absolutely fuming about this! This gives bloodsports a Royal Platform! Which society is the 'go to' for Police decisions etc? Chris Packham should now resign from the RSPCA on principle!
Very true Rosemary and I completely agree with you! However, Chris Packham isn't that much better or fully innocent with animals either, especially deers.
Yes Cara. I did read your worrying information before. It would be good if he gave us answers instead of leaving us now with niggling worries. What is also scary is that if Labour get in and attempt to keep their promises, Starmer will be regularly meeting Charles for their 'cosy chat' sessions! Tony Blair gave assurances to the Royals hunting would not really stop. Charles will be in prime position to lobby Starmer! Is this another 'placement' by the crafty CA?
well, Labour have pledged at least to stop the badger cull....and they cannot be worse for our wildlife than the Tories
Agree Stephen. They have also promised to close the loopholes in the Hunting of Mammals Bill, so they will have to do something to prove they are keeping promises. However, we voted for Tony Blair to stop hunting too! Are we being fooled again? I will vote for them in unconvinced hope!
Why vote for the destroyers of this beautiful country? I am 80 now and have never been political but now I am ashamed to be English. A country that sends millions abroad to be used by corrupt governments instead if using it to build up the National health system, feed the poor and home the homeless, and protect animals from being murdered by Hunts men and women like the Royal family and friends!
Me too with just hope something changes for the better.
yes, any combination of the 'progressive parties' would be better. Hopefully Reform and the tories will eat each other's lunch :-)
Indeed Rosemary. I would love nothing more than if I could find a link where Chris Packham is denouncing and apologising what he said then as it would be good to hear what he thinks about it all now so we know exactly where he stands on this and what his stances are today but so far, I cannot find anything I am afraid. That is why I fear he still agrees with what he said then as I can find nothing to the contrary, then or now. I do have great concerns as well as yourself if labour gets in, as Tony Blair promised to end hunting to the public (whilst secretly having a hidden agenda) but if anything, he actually made it even harder to stop hunting as now, the hunts can openly lie to the public and say they are "trail hunting" when we know that they aren't and that is completely legal!! It gave them a legal smokescreen to hide behind! The best thing for all animals, would be if the so called "royal family" were all abolished!! (Although what I would like to see happen to them is far worse after all they have done to animals)!
Labour have at least pledged to stop the badger cull. I am not sure what else they will do, but what I am sure of is that the Tories would be a lot worse for our wildlife and environment: they voted against more restrictions on the dumping of sewage, not that long ago, they were going to try to repeal the current hunting act. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good
I do completely agree that any party will do a better job than the Tories. They can't stay in power for all our sakes! Perfect is often sadly the enemy of good. I just truly hope labour keep their promises this time.
Unlikely! All parties ate liars hidden behind crocodile grins.!
No another hypocrit
Indeed, what an absolutely bizarre decision for the RSPCA to take and one which I think will put many people off the organisation. I was also shocked to see the animal abuse uncovered by animal welfare groups on farms that are RSPCA certified. Very troubling. Who can we trust at all?
Can we therfore hopefully look forward to our King spending the rest of his reign ski-ing
On our money! Why doesnt he give some of his billions to help the poor, the NHS and hungry children in Britain!?
Well the RSPCA also endorse farmed animal products. So it’s never tea had any integrity.
I completely understand and agree with you Sharon Mcgregor but, although I don't personally agree with or support the RSPCA financially due to past experience, they did have a very good point about meat and ethics here: https://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/howwework/policies/ethics
(2nd paragraph of "Ethical dilemma's" and the "difficult decisions" article especially)
This is coming from someone who is strictly vegetarian and almost vegan.
This is a joke !
They see all animals has fair game , how could this happen, the RAPCA is a joke.
And a big disappointment.
the so called 'royal family' are a disgrace, their environmental engagement is pure sham, as the article points out, they are all keen wildlife killers. That Charles finds something 'natural' about chasing wild animals to exhaustion so that they can be ripped apart by dogs is utterly disgusting. Despite all the hand wringing, his estates are responsible for the killing of rare and endangered raptors as well as thousands of mammals. Andrew referred to a 'normal shooting weekend' in his car crash interview with Emily Maitlis. They are degenerates, do not be fooled by their staged environmental interventions.
As for the RSPCA, I no longer donate or contact them, I have contacted them in relation to several wild animals in the past, they were never interested.
I have written to the RSPCA to complain.
Good for you. They rarily come to Hunts when called by the HSI SABS on site of an illegal hunt, hounds on the main road, hounds being killed, etc., and do not take these animal abusers to Court, leaving that to the SABS, to then be let off by their friendly Judge.
I have never trusted the RSPCA, theyll gladly take any donation and not treat sick abandoned animals as for old charlie boy and his concubine camilla the sooner these 2 petchalent hypocrites go the better all our wildlife will be DISGUSTED
The RSPCA can be contacted to express your horror and disgust at this appointment:
supportercare@rspca.org.uk
DONE.
thanks, wrote to them
Me too 😉
Thanks Stephen, I will try and be polite when writing to the RSPCA to complain about this. The hypocrisy sickens me. Someone there must be after an honour !
I just wrote that it was an appalling decision and listed some of the reasons: Charles is an avid fox hunter, owns numerous shooting estates and has been responsible for the slaughter of thousands of mammals and birds. He opposed the introduction of the anti hunting act and ensured that there were sufficient loopholes to allow this abomination to continue
short, but says it I think
Thanks for the link. Emailed the RSPCA to express my disgust at Charles being appointed as patron.
Done!
🙂
What an absolute joke. This decision by the RSPCA makes me sick. The number of times I’ve seen Royal documentaries of the royals, charles, camilla, fox hunting and hare coursing, sitting on their horses smiling away. It’s disgusting and so hypocritical. Why not have someone like Bryan May or Ricky Gervais who really love and care about animals. I’m getting so sick of the stupid shit that’s going on in this country. Can’t stand the royal family for this reason, they’re murderers of animals. When they’re rattling on about conservation of wildlife in places like Africa, but they’re out there killing our wildlife for fun and sport, absolutely disgusting.
I completely agree with everything you have said Marjorie Howley! The 2 celebrities I fully respect and believe are true animal lovers are Brian May and Ricky Gervais (Evanna Lynch seems like a true animal lover too) Bless you!
Is there an animal supporting list of celebrities? I have heard some speak in our favour such as Stephen Fry, Martin Shaw, Martin Freeman, Joanna Lumley and there must be loads in the younger generation of 'celebs'. I'm not a fan of anyone but high profile people do have an impact. If only they would make their feelings more public on this issue for example and they could influence 'The Newt' as well!
Yes me too I cannot bear the thought of it . So hypocritical could anyone tell me if this will apply to the spca in Scotland, as I will be cancelling my subscription as well , power to the people “ ❤️
I think any animal welfare group with a connection to the royal family is a paradox. The RSPB fully support wind turbines even though they know the wind currents suck birds of prey into the blades and kill them. It's a waste of tax payers money paying for a facade to make the fakes look like they care.
Indeed. I always liked wind turbines until I found out about the horrid danger they can pose to birds, bats etc. There are now however, I believe, wind turbines that can be bird friendly as they are fitted with different parts to make it safer. Although I personally think solar and lunar panels are the safest all round.
Could you send me a link to where it says wind turbines are safe for birds please x
Of course, they are 2 links here but if you Google "bird friendly wind turbines" you should be able to find more: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57176807
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240425-these-tricks-made-wind-farms-more-bird-friendly
And as for solar panels, you have to cut down trees to make land available. This is what happens: https://www.energytrend.com/news/20210810-22918.html
And that's habitat for birds and insects gone. And that's damaging the ecosystem. The shade from the panels will stop anything growing out the ground underneath because plants don't grow in the shade. No plants means no roots to hold the soil together. Slowly but eventually the soil going to crumble to dust and blow away. Then all we'll have is bare rock. Is that what you want? No plants? If the soil blows away, the atmosphere blows away and we live on a barren rock? That's the problem. The solution is to change society so that we live in harmony with nature. We don't drive out kids to school in a car, we walk them to school on grass with trees for shade. And entertainment is learning about nature and becoming at one with nature. If we didn't have TVs or video games or internet, what's the worst that could happen? Really.
You are completely correct Sarah Morgan. I completely agree with you on that as I don't don't agree with solar farms on land either. I personally would like to see solar panels installed on every single house/flat/building/business roof instead rather than on land (I should have made that clearer in my last comment). In your last comment, you made a lot of very true points as well, especially that everything we do has consequences somewhere down the line and that everything exploits something in one way or another (sadly, when you look at everything in the world, I think nature is built on one being living off (exploiting) another in order to stay alive though. It just depends on how much damage that exploitation is causing and if the other side gets any benefits from it) Ultimately though, you are more than welcome to disagree with me as everyone is entitled to their opinions, but I personally don't agree with fossil fuels, the current way of generating nuclear energy (although fusion is potentially safer, we can't yet create it in large enough doses or know of what dangerous impacts there might be later), wind turbines (unless they are made far safer for wildlife) or solar panel farms on land. I completely understand that you don't trust the BBC. I will try to find an article on wind turbines on a non profit and/or scientific website instead.
When you're at the bottom of the exploitation ladder, it doesn't seem like it's worth it. But no one could ever know exactly because those people and animals and plants don't talk. Sometimes we're buried so deeply, we don't even know we're suffering.
What benefits to the other side? Thousands of private jet journeys per year, how is that necessary, I don't know, please could someone tell me? Expensive clothes and products, made out of tortured animals, necessary? How? Yachts, so that classy people can have parties at sea so they can do illegal things legally? How is any of this beneficial to anyone? It's just the winning chromosome celebrating at cost to the planet.
If we went back to nature, and our priority was making nature grow in beautiful ways, we wouldn't have crime. Because we wouldn't have inequality. We wouldn't need pharma because we would be able to heal.
I don't agree with any source of energy. The only answer is to use less and make it so we need less.
I found out about this a few weeks ago (I receive emails from the RSPCA) and was both outraged and saddened to hear this really in many ways. I do not donate to them but I thought that their latest advert was so true and poignant that I thought it was deserving of a gold medal quite frankly as a result but then they let themselves down by doing this. Mind you, and I mean this in the kindest way Protect The Wild, but there is not much difference between lauding a "royal family" member as an "animal lover" compared to lauding Chris Packham as an "animal lover" whilst he advocates for and actively encourages shooting ('blasting') deer and elephants and despises cats (My mother heard him say this openly on TV and there is evidence (links) to confirm this for proof)! I also heard from another supporter on here that he (Chris Packham) actually visited someone who shot grey squirrels and ate them and that he joined in and ate some of the poor squirrel too (I don't have any evidence of this however but I do believe it) In another words, Chris Packham is a speciest hypocrite, no different than the "royal family" are. I sent an email to Animal Aid a short while ago to express my anger, when they were celebrating making him a patron of their charity, speaking out about it and showing all the evidence to them but they literally just dismissed everything I said and virtually said that just because those articles I provided were a number of years ago, it doesn't count now. If someone murdered someone years ago but never since showed any remorse or passionately denounced and apologised for doing it since, do they deserve to be pardoned and celebrated then? As far as I am aware, I can find no article of Chris Packham passionately denouncing what he said then and so, until someone can show me an article about him with him apologising and denouncing what he said then, then I will continue to show the other side of him that animal charities sadly don't want to mention. Sadly, just like I said before, the word "Brainwashed" comes immediately to mind. Either people are too blind to see for themselves or they want to be. I think "Cognitive dissonance" is a good term for this.
really ? I help at 2 squirrel rescues and Animal Aid came to film a couple of years ago, shortly afterwards they held an event in London at which Packham spoke, at that event he actually spoke against the killing of grey squirrels, but based on your information, I will certainly look more closely at what he says/ does in future
Bless you Stephen. When I contacted Animal Aid, they mentioned this but sadly, I personally fear Chris Packham is one of those hypocrites who is "say as I say, don't do as I do" people. Although again, all these links are years ago, this link here: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/05/red-grey-squirrels-cornwall
Where he says : "that the "perfect paradise is lost" and that non-native species are now an integral part of the UK's flora and fauna: "If the grey squirrels have to go then so do all the rabbits, hares, four of our six deer species and so on."
Sharply conflicts with him saying "We have to play a proactive role and that means killing things. People come to shoot near where I live and they ask me where the deer are and I tell them 'the deer are over there, go and blast!'
Because, frankly, I'm able to see the benefits of maintaining that population." here: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/chris-packham-gets-controversial-again-273482
Either he agrees with killing on conservation grounds or he doesn't.
This link here: https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/8956881.chris-packham-fewer-children-more-red-squirrels-please/ also states: "Just like his mate and fellow wildlife champion HRH the Prince of Wales (who also advocates/advocated for mass killing of the grey squirrels too here: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/09/prince-charles-attack-grey-squirrels-nostalgia-environmentalism-red-squirrels) he named the red squirrel as his choice of mascot for the nation but has also damned the grey squirrel, describing it as “one of the most disastrous introductions of foreign species there’s ever been”.
Chris said: “I believe the red should become the mascot. We must succeed. We have no choice.
“How can we just give up, do nothing and say it is all impossible while witnessing the disappearance of one of this country’s most endearing species? It is unthinkable.”
I let you decide what you think about about him.
Reds were wiped out by human intervention 3 times before the grey was introduced, each time the red was 'reintroduced' from Scandanavia - from a very shallow gene pool, making them more susceptible to ailments. The red is thus no more native than the grey now. Below is a letter I have used in the past citing various scientific studies:
Sir
I was appalled by the misinformation in your report on grey squirrels today (11/07/2922)
1. The current red squirrel population in the UK is not ‘native’; red squirrels were extinct in the UK already in 18th century (greys were introduced to the UK in the middle of 19th century) due to habitat loss. It was similar in Ireland [Ritchie 1920, Gurnell 1987, Harris et al. 2006]. The current population (as confirmed also by DNA studies) are descendants of red squirrels introduced from the continent (mainly from Scandinavia) at the end of 18th century [Hale et al. 2004, Ballingall et al. 2016].
Complete extinction of red squirrels due to habitat loss also happened in Portugal (even though they were present in the nearby Spain all the time) already in 16th century [da Luz Mathias, M. & Gurnell, J. 1998]. In 20th century, habitats in Portugal were restored and the red squirrel population returned to Portugal naturally, migrating from Spain [Rocha et al. 2014].
2. Since the current population of reds in the UK and Eire are descendants of just a few squirrels introduced in 18th century from Scandanavia, that population has the weakest genetic pool in Europe [Ballingall et al. 2016] and because of that, even 48% of unnatural deaths are caused by "civilisation diseases" [Simpson et al. 2013]. (Road accidents account for 42% of unnatural deaths of red squirrels in the UK. Death as the result of attack by domestic pets are 9% of unnatural deaths). Squirrel pox accounts for only 2% of red squirrel deaths in the UK [Simpson et al., ‘Causes of mortality and pathological lesions observed post-mortem in res squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris) in Great Britain’, BMC Veterinary Research, 2013.]
The first hypothesis about the possibility of transmitting pox to red squirrels by grey squirrels was suggested by the same scientist who at the same time observed that in 10 of 14 counties where red squirrels had pox there were no grey squirrels present (Middleton, 1930).
3. The current population of red squirrels in the UK, before their introduction to the UK, evolved for thousands of years in favourable Scandinavian coniferous habitats made up mostly from Norway spruce. At the moment, not only does the UK have 3 times less forests than the European average, but also due to economic reasons the main trees planted for over 60 years are unsuitable to sustain the growth of red squirrel population (and according to Forestry Commission it won’t change for the next 25 years)[Harris et al. 2006]. It’s enough to say that "the most popular tree" planted in the UK for over 40 years is American Sitka spruce, incapable of sustaining a viable red squirrel population bigger than 1 squirrel per 5-7 hectares. Most trees planted after WWII are trees that resemble the natural habitat of grey squirrels in America (chestnut, oak) [Koprowski 1994].
4. After 46 years of red squirrel cull in the UK their situation was so tragic that they had to be re-introduced in many places in the UK (in 80% of these areas grey squirrels were not present yet). The reds' population in the UK was so weak that their re-introduction in those areas were based mostly on (a few) individuals brought from the continent [Shorten1954]. When no more profit could be made from killing reds in the UK, their place (also in the propaganda) was taken by grey squirrels that were successful in changing (broadleaved) habitats in the UK at the time [Bryant 2014]. The animal introduced by members of royalty in over 30 places in the UK and so far called "noble" (it was one of the most precious gifts among the UK nobility at the time), suddenly became "the pest", inheriting from red squirrels all the myths told about them so far [Signorile et al. 2016].
5. The scientific research shows minimal competition for food and habitat between European red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) and grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis). The same research shows that significant variability of reproduction – observed in different years – which occurs naturally within red squirrel populations living in areas with no grey squirrels (Wauters & Lens 1995, Wauters et al. 2000, Gurnell et al. 2004) can also occur among red squirrels inhabiting the same area with grey squirrels (data from Wauters & Lens 1995, Wauters et al. 2000, Gurnell et al. 2004). It is also well known that small and fragmented habitats are very unfavourable for sustaining a red squirrel population (Verboom & van Apeldoorn 1990, Gurnell & Pepper 1991, Rodriguez & Andren 1999, Flaherty et al. 2012). The same research shows that significant variability of reproduction – observed in different years – which occurs naturally within red squirrel populations living in areas with no grey squirrels (Wauters & Lens 1995, Wauters et al. 2000, Gurnell et al. 2004) can also occur among red squirrels inhabiting the same area with grey squirrels (data from Wauters & Lens 1995, Wauters et al. 2000, Gurnell et al. 2004). It is also well known that small and fragmented habitats are very unfavourable for sustaining a red squirrel population (Verboom & van Apeldoorn 1990, Gurnell & Pepper 1991, Rodriguez & Andren 1999, Flaherty et al. 2012). Please see the following article:
Competition | ICSRS (i-csrs.com)
6. Grey squirrels are accused of "costing the economy" various vast sums of money, however much of these costs are incurred due to the pointless and cruel culls. The supposed losses of the timber industry (where material that has cosmetic damage is calculated as being lost to production altogether, whereas in actual fact it is not taken out of production - cosmetic damage is immaterial in cases of pulp or construction timber) are overstated. The effect of grey squirrels on trees is no different from that of reds – yet you claim that greys endanger the UK’s climate targets. With a population of 66M compared with 2 – 3 M squirrels, the proposal to open a new coal mine in Cumbria and the fact that more trees will be destroyed by the HS2 projects than all the squirrels in the UK would damage until the end of time, the assertion is absurd – you should be ashamed of broadcasting it
Furthermore the ICSRS have established that squirrels actually help forest regeneration: http://i-csrs.com/squirrels-and-forest-regeneration?fbclid=IwAR224YGBws2VReAZvZaATsvpwDMwwOZbm5zVhdEXehtMe7Rb_kHzNNhTe_g
The BBC is complicit in the scapegoating of the grey squirrels for problems caused by humans
Wow, I had no idea the red squirrels came from another country too just like the greys did!! Thank you so much for that information Stephen!
yes, they were considered a pest and were wiped out 3 times, before the greys ever came here. Each time reintroduced from Scandanavia (as the article states, now the weakest gene pool in Europe). Now people try to scapegoat the greys - but you will see one of the other points is that only 2% of red squirrel deaths are caused by the pox, 9% are caused by domestic animals - so keeping cats and dogs under control would be 4.5 times more effective than mindlessly killing greys
Well said 👏👏👏
We absolutely agree (as present RSPCA supporters) that Charles is NOT the right man for the job and are appalled that he has been chosen. We still have the newspaper article from when the hunting ban came in - the front page stating that Charles says, despite the ban, he would never give up hunting. Just shameful and will be writing to the RSPCA expressing our views.
Two pointless groups of people together Charles likes to kill & bastardise Animals. RSPCA are not fit for purpose they only get involved if the story will hit the news. As every day help they are not interested they euthanize young healthy animals, make little or no effort to rehome. The most given reply when asked to help is we are sorry we don 't do that or we have no-one available. So two sets of ASSHOLES together Good fit as far as I can see
If these inbreds are going to keep killing our wildlife and breeding birds to shoot, ABOLISH THE MONARCHY!! It is child abuse to keep 'blooding' children and inuring them to the cruelty of hunting, shooting and killing wildlife. A sign of psychopathic behaviour is killing animals for 'fun'.
I would like assurances that the Prince & Princess of Wales have protected their children from this cruelty. If not, I'll support Republicanism and the abolition of the equally culpable aristocracy too. The Royal Family know they're hanging by a thread, so they'd be wise to respect the wishes of the majority.
As for the RSPCA, their sycophancy is sickening and there are many genuine animal protection charities to support.
well, abolish the monarchy anyway, it is an anachronism and inconsistent with a democratic society
I too would like to know if the Prince William and his wife are letting their children be blooded when of age. I am sure these children would be appalled if their own dog was torn to pieces by hounds, so what is the difference with a fox and its cubs. They are just dogs who live free, and it has been proven that they are just as loving and friendly to humans and other animals by the many photos of Fox "owners" on Facebook etc.
Ive read that Kate and William are keen shooters .
How can they be honoured to have an animal and bird murderer as their Patron. It is not a so called tradition that has any place in todays enlightened news about how these lovely Foxes who are just dogs after all, are chased tortured and torn apart by hounds, even the puppies! Beautiful birds shot and wounded! It is not only the so called aristocracy but supposedly normal people who partake in this vile so called sport. It is not sport when one little fox or fox cub is chased by a dozen hungry dogs and many horses ridden by devils intent on seeing blood, pain and terror. They must be sadists! I was once a Royalist but no more. I am absolutely disgusted and insensed that we pay for his Windsor estate and by them and their friends even more so to read that he indoctrinated his sons into this barbarity. As for their Kennel managers murdering the poor hounds that do not come up to scratch, they are as bad. Why do they not give them to rescue homes for people to adopt. They a re very trainable especially when receiving love, food and comfort from good owners!!! I shall not support the RSPCA again and will tell everyone not to. The PDSA and other dog charities are better! 😭😡
It saddens me to hear when someone happily announces they have left a legacy to the RSPCA in their will. Some RSPCA officers join for the right reasons and are compassionate but the RSPCA policies determine their actions. If they have the courage of their original convictions they would leave the RSPCA and gain work from other animal charities which have greater integrity.