According to SWT we have a 'selective memory'. This is in effect one of their less extreme ways of telling others that those who oppose their policy cannot be relied upon. It should not be inevitable that the messenger gets smeared when the message is so unpalatable. We have a fair amount of evidence that SWT has been at some pains to discredit those who disagreed with them.
We're all prone to misremember facts and events. But when people accuse others of selective memory they are usually hoping that the counter accusations that fly around will spread confusion amongst third parties who will then despair of getting at the truth. The use of this ploy has been just one of the reasons that the Blacka saga has caused bitterness. Another is the retrospective corruption of events.
This quote is from the recent letter from SWT's Chief Executive.
The cattle grazing and fencing issue has been discussed many, many times at great length and currently I do not believe that this is the right time to re-visit the issue.
We heard this being said almost word for word last year, and the year before. In fact the first time it was said was in 2003 three years before the cattle appeared. After trying to get the plan to be scrutinised at RAG meeting eventually an agenda item was programmed between other items deemed of crucial importance. Very soon the call was parroted - "We've already decided this. Move on to the next item." SWT have been prepared to give a presentation (in 2005) about the policy but decidedly reluctant to respond to points raised. In various papers they produced they stated or implied that a kind of agreement had been reached. They seemed incapable of being straightforward about it. It was almost as if there was something they were nervous about or a serious fraud they wanted to hide.
Before the Icarus consultation of 2006 SWT got together all the conservationists from the Council, from PDNPA and English Nature (as it was then) etc., and discussed with them how they could fix the meetings so they would not have to discuss fencing and grazing even though this had been the main idea for the consultation being proposed. They said that the 'independent' facilitator would be instructed only to follow SWT's agenda. Unfortunately for them they were foolish enough to put it in the minutes of their exclusive meeting and this was later revealed to Friends of BM when a Freedom of Information request was put in.
Even when we have managed to raise the issue with SWT staff they have been careful not to respond to questions. The decision had been taken and that was that. So much for consultation.
Stags on both sides of the barbed wire
2 comments:
Hello, again, Blacka Blogger.
For clarification, all the issues, comments, etc referred to in this post, implying secrecy and dubious practice on the part of the Trust are distorted in their presentation and disguise a considerable amount of honesty, openness and willingness both to listen and to act on what we're hearing, on the Trust's part. They really all boil down to one thing: Once taken, certain decisions (including the decision to graze a few highland cattle at Blacka Moor) must be left to run their course for any reasonable assessment to be made of the effectiveness of the approach in tackling the problem in question. We will change what we do and how we do it to take into account the views and needs of others and local advice on what would be welcome and what would not - but only within certain limits, as there are often conflicting views, competing demands for funds, technical and legal constraints that make it impossible to please everyone and/or to do everything.
Clearly, you don't like the decision, but the broad policy to have grazing as part of the mix of management approaches at Blacka Moor has been taken, based on wide consultation, extensive technical research and a considerable amount of professional knowledge, guidance and advice. Now that the decision has been made, it would be entirely inappropriate simply to scrap the whole plan and do something different, before any conclusions can reasonably be drawn about the effectiveness of the grazing - particularly when there is currently no viable alternative likely to bring anything like all the benefits of the cattle.
Obviously, there are issues about how the grazing is carried out, and what reasonable tweaks and adjustments can be made to make it less intrusive, more effective, etc.
Our ongoing monitoring, management of the grazing and discussion of these more operational issues with both the grazier and regular site users such as you are all helping to adjust the details of how the grazing works from day to day, week to week, month to month and year to year, but the questions of whether the cattle should be there at all, and whether the fencing should be removed (which you return to repeatedly) are not open for discussion until the grazing has had sufficient time to demonstrate its essential worth and its effectiveness in achieving the objectives set for it.
We have made it clear all along that this will take several years, and that to expend effort constantly re-visiting and arguing over the principal decision to graze cattle on the Moor simply distracts time, effort and money away from doing more productive and useful things that will improve Blacka Moor for both people and wildlife - including some things that you have highlighted as issues in your blog.
Good Morning Chief Executive.
I think you're quite safe here from being charged with anything of a criminal nature. And it would be very disturbing indeed and beyond our current belief if much of what is said was not entirely honest. (In fact many of the greatest villains in history were blameless in many of their dealings.) The worst, and that was bad enough, was the defamatory email of July 2006. Much of the issue has become the culture SWT is part of and represents. Perceptions come into it a word I know you're familiar with.
We are ordinary folk who joined in your consultation process in 2001 because we cared about the specific character of a favourite place. If we had known more at the time we might have anticipated and feared the changes that could come when a major national group took over its management. Let us be more clear. We know we live in a world where all sorts of things happen that we disapprove of but cannot influence. A world where every enterprise is marketed in the most sophisticated way in order to be shown to best advantage. We only have to mention modern politics and commercial and financial institutions, the public relations industry etc etc. We now realise these things go through the whole of life. Spin and misrepresentation, putting an overstated gloss on minor achievements, misrepresenting alternative views directly or implicitly, and many other strategies are commonplace in the world of competitive marketing.
What many people did not realise until recently is that charities are now also part of this culture. They employ staff who have trained in this way of doing things who have business qualifications. They have managers for publicity and public relations. When a smiling and fresh faced young person stands on the doorstep asking us to subscribe to a worthy cause, it seems wrong to ask the same sort of questions we would of a seller of replacement windows. The small print gets less scrutiny. We now know better.
This blog occasionally steps back from the celebration of Blacka and looks at what actually happens and what is actually said - the small print as it were.
Post a Comment