I believe this submission by Nigel Bean is brilliantly portrayed – Ron Thomson
“Politicians are only interested in our research when it supports what they have already made up their minds to do”…… Professor Ted Friend
When a government requests a consultation involving animal rights then we know they have already made up their minds and are trying to facilitate their agendas to pay back the donations made by animal rights groups and their supporters. I.e. Zac Goldsmith a keen supporter of IFAW and Animal Defenders international donated over £300,000 pounds to the Conservatives. IFAW through the Political Animal Lobby donated a one million pound ‘bung’ to Labour for a fox hunting ban and PAL donated a further £250,000 to Labour for animal rights legislation leading up to the 2015 general election. The UK two main political parties play the same game.
Donations made to the Conservative party by Zac Goldsmith from 2017 to early 2019. Donations started around 2005.
We have learnt from previous experiences of making various submissions to UK government reviews and consultations – In Oct 2018 information emerged on how the circuses had been viciously maligned by animal rights groups using faked videos. DEFRA were provided with the names of the individuals and the animal rights groups involved. This information was further supported by two of the three academics to have ever conducted empirical research on just circus animals. They were filmed in the Italian senate explaining how their research had been deliberately misinterpreted and twisted to fit the animal rights agendas against circuses.
Information pertaining to the maligning of the circuses and film of the academics was sent onto DEFRA with a request to pass on to the ministers at the time Michael Gove and David Rutley. The timing critical was as it was thought it would prevent hard earned public money being wasted on a proposed ban that has its origins in spite, deceit and menaces.
The information was ignored and the government pressed on with a ban.
So a last ditch attempt was made by sending this information into the public bills committee as it went through parliament – Once again it was ignored and not even placed on the submitted evidence section for public viewing on the government website. Without a hint of irony we were informed they felt some individuals had been maligned by the content of our information. A bit like a newspaper not reporting the conviction of a burglar in case they smear his name. So we put up the information here for public viewing:
So why a consultation?
In days gone by ‘reviews’ or ‘inquiries’ were held to test the quality of evidence, however this approach consistently showed the information supplied to the government by animal rights groups had been shoe horned, twisted, scientifically flawed or fabricated.
Example a: Labour hunting Inquiry 2000:
“This has been a continuing problem with misinterpretation of my data that apparently began with an anti-hunting group in the U.S. That group’s web page attributed changes recorded in trapped foxes to changes in foxes chased by dogs. This is blatantly incorrect and, I suspect, wilfully done.”…Terry Kreeger
Example b, Welsh Circus review 2016:
“I am concerned that very few people have actually read my scientific publications and discovered that Harris’s spin is 180 degrees from what we found.”… Professor Ted Friend
So UK governments adopted solely the ‘consultation’ for animal rights related concerns. These concerns have been contrived to attract donations and are reliant on supportive newspaper groups putting out a tsunami of fake news. In the case of big game hunting the newspaper will have articles containing pictures of hunters grinning or gurning behind a dead animals. This is not real news but clever marketing designed with the specific intent of triggering ‘outrage’ and ‘hatred’ in certain sections of society.
A more in-depth analysis can be found here:
A consultation gives the Government the penultimate get out of jail free card – The same experts that would submit evidence to a review or inquiry will submit to a consultation. However they can now be ignored for animal rights rallying their activists to answer the multiple choice questions in greater number than the experienced professionals. A consultation has the useful function of being turned into an opinion poll.
First class evidence from experienced professionals can be ignored for keyboard warriors triggering themselves in their bedroom over faked newspaper reports, photographs and videos provided by the animal rights groups.
Now we come to the very succinct point of this submission – As we know that is the most likely outcome then it’s pointless us spending any time formulating a well-researched scientific response as it will be cancelled out by some activists triggering themselves over images supplied by animal rights groups and being told how to answer the consultation.
By Nigel Bean
Credit: Paul Read