Save Our Sandwell Canada Geese

The chances are people do not vote strongly in large numbers on animal welfare matters to change the outcome of the eventual result, which is why these policies are usually towards the back of party political manifestos. Politicians being politicians however,  calculations are done in whether people in their areas are either for or against issues, and then they do the sums, making brief but often open ended statements before the polls.

Two issues appear to dominate “animal welfare” issues in recent times- namely fox hunting, and more recently the badger cull. MP’s who have their constituencies in predominantly city and town areas largely oppose these two issues, because there are no positive votes likely to be found by supporting them in areas where neither occur. In the West Midlands county for example- The Black country boroughs of Sandwell, Dudley, Wolverhampton and Walsall, Birmingham, and a small part of Coventry- no fox hunting with packs of dogs and people chasing on horseback occurs. There are also no current badger cull zones in any part of this area.

These issues are raised frequently because they are human interest stories which are highly politically motivated by divisions of class issue and by divisions of “town” and “Country”. They make good clickbait.

I’m not going to talk any further on these two issues- because quite frankly I’m absolutely sick and tired of them dominating the “animal welfare” agenda, to the point where no other issue is ever raised about animal suffering or “rights.”

Other animals and bird species are “torn to pieces”, other animal and bird species are “cruelly hunted to death”, and other animal and bird species  are “pursued by the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible.”

Hypocrisy is rife in all this, not just by politicians, but also by many  who claim to support animal welfare/rights. I’m not sure why it matters more if a fox in the countryside is killed by someone rich with a pack of dogs on horseback during daylight hours, any more than being killed by poorer people on foot with dogs during night time hours in an urban setting. My point is the former will be newsworthy, attract large social media attention and comment and all the class based vitriol that is human emotion rather than any care about the animal dying itself. THEY ARE BOTH IMMMORAL, THEY ARE BOTH EQUALLY WRONG!

But in all of this what of the plight of the urban fox, or other creatures cruelly killed by council estate chavs with lurchers and lamps? Why do so few people in urban areas want to protest against his, report this to the authorities, or even lift a finger to stop and sabotage this- on their own doorsteps?

My concerns over the last 20 years and campaigning has been almost exclusively in the urban environment, also including rescue of birds where little media attention of the issues being faced in this urban setting is being addressed by the political class.

I have looked at all of the main party manifestos and their animal policies in the run up to this hastily called general election, and as an urban animal welfare advocate I find little of interest or inspiration that would make me want to vote for any of them based on this. The two species in the same countryside setting appear once again at the fore front, with little else- but why? Why do politicians from urban areas believe that coming out of their constituency holding up a freshly printed sign saying that they are against fox hunting is important to them? What have any of them really done for the welfare of wildlife on their doorstep?

As an alterative manifesto, I offer some crumbs for urban wildlife. Perhaps anyone reading with political clout  may take some of these on board, or dismiss them completely and then down the line regurgitate them as their own ideas. I wouldn’t really mind that if it achieved the objective of getting the urban animal welfare issues discussed- issues that currently receive none.

#1 The return of the angling close season.

The removal of the statutory coarse fish close season on most stillwaters since 1995 and on canals in 2000 has had a negative effect on injuring wildfowl with all year round fishing occurring, where previously a lull between March 16th-June 16th gave nesting birds time to nest and raise young safely.

This gave an opportunity also for vegetation and other bankside wildlife to grow without being trampled. Most local authorities gave up management of fishing at their sites- or doled them out to outfits who were ill equipped to manage problem areas, with free fishing meaning anti social behaviour, angling litter, wildlife problems and poor fish handling. There must be a return to paying to fish on local authority waters and also canals.

A 2002 study Environment Agency study entitled “The impact of lost and discarded fishing line and tackle on mute swans  Research and development technical record W1-051/TR,  Perrins, Martin, Broughton,

“highlighted the magnitude of the danger which angling poses for mute swans. Rescue groups and the RSPCA attend over 8,000 swans in trouble each year and it is estimated that approximately 3,000 are due to angling -related incidents, either directly hooked or entangled with fishing tackle.”

 Over 1,000 wild birds were admitted to RSPCA wildlife  centres between 2005 and 2013 as a result of entanglement in  fishing litter. 57 percent (601) of these were swans.

As an active wildfowl rescuer for 20 years I am fully aware at the sharp end of how urban wildlife is continuing to suffer on a daily basis , being needlessly and cruelly killed by this unregulated human recreation activity. So why do MP’s continue to ignore such matters- could it be that criticism is not a vote winner but ignorance is bliss?

#2 A ban on all forms of lead shot used in angling and shooting

Allied to the point above, lead shot both old and still used continues to poison water birds. It is a myth that all lead shot was banned in 1987. The same study mentioned above found that lead poisoning in the UK accounted for 3.6% of swan rescues over the period 1996-99, though in some “black spot” localised mainly urban  areas, the situation was much higher. The black country is one of these areas. I speak from personal experience on this also.

There have been numerous studies, debates etc, but the general consensus among those in power favours the angling trades association’s protectionism. It is an economic protection issue that neither Labour nor Conservative Governments wanted to tackle- despite clearly being a toxic material being allowed to come into direct contact with the water, and be lost.

The angling associations , previously had a prominent friend in Westminster with Labour’s Martin Salter eventually going on to work for The angling Trust.

The issue with shooting and lead ammunition has also been consistently kicked into touch.

There is no rocket science about allowing a highly known toxic material to enter watercourses. ALL LEAD IN ALL ITS FORMS SHOULD BE BANNED!

#3 Tackling illegal fishing and poaching in urban areas with automatic jail sentences.

Illegal fishing costs both the economy through rod licence evasion and also poses significant risks to urban wildlife and fish. Since 2004 and free movement of people from Eastern Europe the issue has soared, with theft of fish on an industrial scale from still waters and also rivers. I have first hand experience of finding many hand made dangerous fish traps. The one below on a nature reserve was seven foot long and had been put out off an island with rope attached.

I am not naïve enough to believe that this is all the fault of foreigners, and also that they are unaware of British traditions of returning fish and need educating. The scale of the theft is organised and it is a crime. It needs to be tackled in this way as that issue with automatic sentences. If people continue to engage in these activities, they should be deported.

More local Environment agency backed bailiffs need to be created and directed at urban hot spot areas where it is known to occur.

Local authorities need to enforce local bye laws such as a ban on night fishing and the use of inappropriate tackle.

Poaching also takes the form of killing wildfowl and also some urban dwelling deer. Do not give me any hard luck stories of fake poverty being responsible for this- it is wildlife crime in an urban setting, and as disgusting as some Conservative supporter on horseback hunting down a fox in cold blood. “Little John’s” are not romantic heroes, they are wildlife criminals and they should be jailed when caught poaching.

#4 Dog control orders in designated sites of importance for nature conservation and nature reserves

Dogs not kept under control are killing wildlife in urban areas- but it doesn’t make headlines. Worse still many dog owners refuse to accept that chasing birds into water or even foxes into woodland is a problem. They need to be educated on this but some won’t, which is where dogs on lead by direction orders come in. If they still refuse to control their dogs, they should be fined or even banned from a site.

I believe there could be a requirement to either muzzle or keep dogs on a lead around water courses . This may be controversial but there are no chance of “accidents” occurring that way- and what really is the problem with that in ensuring your dog is protected from others that may attack and bite it?

Dogs should not be allowed to swim in watercourses.

There are some people who are using dogs in urban areas for hunting purposes. I regularly follow them and gather intelligence which is passed on. If vets repeatedly see people turning up to their surgeries with injuries to these animals, they should be legally bound to report suspicions to the RSPCA and police, instead of patching up for profit and ignoring urban wildlife hunting.

#5 The licensing of air weapons and tougher sentences for misuse

This has been a long standing personal issue to me and one which I will continue to remorselessly hunt down and stalk people back to their homes  who use air weapons in public places, because they are scum.

 

Many forms of wildlife are suffering, as well as domestic cats and dogs and there is no such term in English law as “vermin”.

Successive Governments have failed to take control of this issue and even when caught red handed, police fail to take appropriate action other than “advise”. Anyone caught shooting in a public place should loose their weapon and be charged where they clearly commit wildlife crime offences.

In an example below, a coot was shot by the youth with a woman he was with tossing the dead bird like a toy for her Labrador to play with. He was identified by the police, the bird was taken as evidence by the RSPCA, and between them after 6 months they failed to communicate with one another, both blaming one another in the process. He escaped justice. WHY?- I subsequently learnt that this youth had volunteered significant information about a person of interest- (he had snitched on his mate), who subsequently had his house raided for drugs and weapons and received a prison sentence.

 

#6 Stronger bye laws for Local nature reserves and sites of importance for nature conservation.

I have dealt with some of the issues prior to this but would like bye laws implemented at all sites to protect urban wildlife. This would include

#a ban on the flying of drones/model aircraft in these areas

#a ban on the “exercising” of birds of prey (where in reality we all know what is going on there.)

#no barbeques which creates a fire risk to habitat

#no model boats

#no swimming or use of inflatables

#no removal of trees/plants etc

#7 Safer access solutions for urban wildlife

Roads are dangerous places for urban creatures to find themselves on. We all look away when there is a dead animal on the road with sorrow, but roads are being expanded all the time and traffic is becoming impossible to avoid. When these schemes are dreampt up there appear little planning carried out for urban wildlife in how they will adapt to this.

Solutions such as creating tunnels under watercourses separated by roads where road kill is high can be achieved or green bridges such as in The Netherlands.

#8 Stopping developments on so called “brownfield” sites that have become important urban wildlife habitat.

Urban wildlife does not have the same statutory protections that so called “green belt” areas enjoy. It is being systematically weakened by planning laws being relaxed in order to build more houses on so called “brownfield” land. Not only is this dangerous for future human use due to the legacy of pollution on this land, but also the secluded nature of these sites have become havens for urban wildlife and corridors for them to exist. When these go they loose their homes and likely their lives when they are forced onto roads or deemed “pests” to people usurping their habitat.

This needs to change, and the greed of the house building industry and the lies of their so called “environmental consultants, who are nothing more than PR spinners, needs to be put in check. Urban areas can naturally become green and support a variety of urban wildlife. Theses places do not need pretentious names such as “Garden cities” which are merely a window dressed extension of urban sprawl. They just need some basic recognition that they are important and worthy of turning into nature reserves. We need more of these in urban areas.

#9 The repeal of the EU birds and habitats directive article nine which legitimises culls of urban wildlife

 

The Habitats Directive (more formally known as Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora) is a European Union directive adopted in 1992 as an EU response to the Berne Convention. It is one of the EU’s two directives in relation to wildlife and nature conservation, the other being the Birds Directive.

The Green party in particular, who undoubtedly lead on animal welfare issues have called on these EU directives to be secured on Brexit. But here’s what they miss, and why they are wrong about this, and I’m not sure why they want to protect a mechanism that has brought nothing but senseless slaughter to birds not belonging in the new border of Europe- something which birds have been crossing for millennia.

Let’s look at how this ghastly EU legislation, backed up by the likes of Birdlife International (should be Birddeath International) and the RSPB treated the ruddy duck. These avian eugenicists preach about biodiversity, yet do nothing about hunting, which is what the current bird directive protects and facilitates.

“Ruddy Duck Control EU Directive (79/409/EEC) on the Conservation of Wild Birds (Birds Directive) With regards to Ruddy Duck control, Article 11 of the EU Directive (79/409/EEC) on the Conservation of Wild Birds (Birds Directive) states that “Member States shall see that any introduction of species of bird which do not occur naturally in the wild state in the European territory of the Member States does not prejudice the local flora and fauna.”

EU Directive (92/43/EEC) on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (Habitats Directive) Article 22 (b) of the EU Directive (92/43/EEC) on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (Habitats Directive) states that “Member States shall ensure that the deliberate introduction into the wild of any species which is not native to their territory is regulated so as not to prejudice natural habitats within their natural range or the wild native flora and fauna and, if they consider it necessary, prohibit such introduction. The results of the assessment undertaken shall be forwarded to the committee for information.”
“Convention on Biological Diversity (Biodiversity Convention) Article 8 (h) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (Biodiversity Convention) states that “each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and appropriate, prevent the introduction of, control or eradicate those alien species which threaten ecosystems, habitats or species.”

“Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) Article 11 (2) (b) of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) states that “each Contracting Party undertakes to strictly control the introduction of non-native species.”

“Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) Article III (4c) of the Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) which relates to endangered migratory species states that “parties that are Range States of a migratory species listed in Appendix I shall endeavour to the extent feasible and appropriate, to prevent, reduce or control factors that are endangering or are likely to further endanger the species, including strictly controlling the introduction of, or controlling or eliminating, already introduced exotic species.” “

 

You see where I am coming from with this, and it is EU legislation that has proposed culls of grey squirrels amongst others.

Those who support Britain’s membership of the EU, do so in total ignorance as to what it’s directives have done for urban wildlife. I like ruddy ducks, and with over 5000 of them killed in the UK to “protect” a Spanish bird is a sick idea. Ban the hunting and stand up to those greasy Mediterranean murderers.

#10 An end to urban wildlife culls and the introduction of non lethal methods of site management.

Obviously something at the very heart of our campaign. There are alternatives to culling which are widely available. Animal Aid have produced a report into this.

alternativestoculling

We also looked into this regards geese in Sandwell.

The prejudiced lie

Finally I would like to say that if we forget the common in the towns only favouring that which a very few humans decree should be “conserved” in their interpretation of areas that should be “protected” in the countryside, the next time you go down to an urban oasis for wildlife it may not be there anymore for the many to see. Urban wildlife matters!

 

Back in December I delivered a cheque back to Sandwell council house, the one that the chief executive of Sandwell council Jan Britton had sent me, despite The upheld Ombudsman complaint stating that I did not want it.

It appears clear that Britton had not read the Ombudsman report, which is now available on the Ombudsman website.  The key agreed action from this states the following at points

“The Council will review how it records its decisions so its reasons are clear.”

As far as I am concerned this refers to how the council records decisions period and not just related to this case, yet it is quite clear to see that no officer in the council along with any councillor has respected the Ombudsman’s agreed action. There has been no review at all, and this is clear to see from looking at the council’s CMIS system. Accordingly I have written to the Ombudsman to report this.

But not only has the chief executive officer of Sandwell council not bothered to investigate how the ludicrous Darren Cooper deceased and his crooked cabinet was running the council without recording any decisions, he has ignorantly failed to even respond to my letter which accompanied his unwanted cheque. This also highlighted how someone from within the corrupt parks department had lied about culling in a freedom of information request.

To recap the letter I pointed out

• how four officers of the council had lied
• I was sent email of staged pictures which have never been explained as to why geese were being “released”
• The contractors of the council lied, but are they going to use these liars services again in the future?
• how the council failed to record any aspect of the divisive decision and without any public consultation. ·         The officer report written by the man in charge of parks at the time appeared to have no recorded genesis as to how it was suggested to be written

  ·         No mention is made of which parks culling should take place in- just a recommendation of “two”

  ·         No mention is made of the fact that these two parks just happened to be the park in which the former parks manager lived, and the other in which his son of the same name found himself a job as “project manager”

  ·         No record of the decision was made at any Council meeting

  ·         No record of any member approving the action in 2013 was taken

  ·         No record of any member approving culling in 2014 was recorded

  So in light of none of this apparently being looked at and following the Ombudsman’s action, it’s obviously  just corrupt business as usual at Sandwell MBC under the same man who was totally blind to all of this as well as apparently everything else going on in the rotten borough. It was recently revealed in The Express and Star that

  “Sandwell Council chief executive Jan Britton was paid £156,942 in 2015-16, slightly down from £157,192 the previous year.”
  

  The perfect skills for the job in running Sandwell council

WORLD EXCLUSIVE

It has today been confirmed officially by Birmingham City Council that there are NO PLANS to cull any Canada geese in any of its parks. A freedom of information request has stated that no birds have been killed by the council in the last five years and there are also no plans to introduce egg pricking of goose eggs either.

The response by Val Llewellyn, Professional Support Services Adviser Governance and Compliance and seen by SOSCG also stated

“The Parks Service has a record of all complaints received for the service but not particularly for Canada geese. However, we have checked the records and there were no complaints for Canada geese.“

This response will be hailed by campaigners who were horrified when unsubstantiated claims about “goose attacks” were made by two local councillors at Swanshurst Park in Mosley, which provoked a furious response from local residents and campaigners against culling the birds.

One however should be cautious about the response, and it should be hoped that the council will not be swayed by unfounded speculation in the local press about geese “waging war” or anything else on humans.

I suppose we shouldn’t be too surprised that the hatred of one species against another appears to have no borders.

It now appears that two  Birmingham councillors in the south of the city, Habib Ur Rehman and Martin Straker Welds have suggested a potential cull of Canada geese at Swanshurst Park in Moseley. Cllr Rehman claims in newspaper and television reports that he was contacted by people who had had their children “attacked” and “chased” by the geese in the park.

An ITV news camera crew appeared to follow them onto the park, where the alleged  complainant constituents were conspicuous by their absence. It was also apparent in the feature that no geese were attacking anyone during filming, and that in the vox pop in the park asking people of their thoughts, none were in favour of any cull. We have of course been here before in Sandwell with similar “fake news” stories.

At the same time , Rehman also appears to have hit out at the geese by going to his contacts in Trinity Mirror, where The Sunday Mercury ran a story, which later appeared  online as a Birmingham Mail piece entitled “ALL HELL BREAKS GOOSE”.

Let’s firstly “take a gander” at the Sunday Mercury/Birmingham Mail article, which features Rehman.

The claims made about the geese accuse them of “taking over” the park making it “a no -go area”. It goes on to claim that the birds had “taken over almost every inch of the once green space” .

An unnamed resident is given prominent quoted statements as though they are fact such as “I used to take my kids over the park, I couldn’t do it now.”

Councillor Rehman chips in with his own strokes commenting that “the geese are scaring children. I would support a limited cull.”

It appears the two councillors did not bother to brief their officers that they were going to the press, leaving them on a very sticky wicket, as when the newspaper contacted the council for comment they made it clear that “we are not aware of any complaints” . They have thus acted in a rather unprofessional manner by shouting out in the press whilst withdrawing themselves from the field of play, and in leaving parks officers to field the delivery of bouncers by irate animal and bird lovers who have now contacted the council asking for clarification of what is going on.

One might question the legitimacy of their complainant constituents claims, given that it appears that they have not themselves come forward with any direct evidence of children being harmed or anything remotely resembling an “attack” by a goose.

To the contrary there are many very recent public Facebook posts showing young children feeding and interacting with the birds at the park on social media, without showing any fear or incident that “resembles a scene from Hitchcock’s “The Birds” as the paper suggests, and also rubbishing the claims by the faceless “resident”, which shows that the park is very much open and attracts children and families who are not affected by any Canada geese.

Nor does there appear to be much of a talking point, up to the date of broadcast/print run of “the goose attack” in the local Sparkhill neighbourhood community.

I do find it both surprising and disappointing that a title such as The Sunday Mercury and Birmingham Mail, which has an unrivalled local investigative approach has chosen to print such an inaccurate and distorted view of hatred, all based it appears on the words of one man and a mystery “local resident”. I say “Disappointed” because I have had past experience of talking to Journalists of the calibre of Tony Larner and Caroline Wheeler who have written accurate and informed articles dealing with animal/wildlife cruelty. This is therefore not usually a “fake news” newspaper.

Mike Lockley is known for his tongue in cheek style which should not be taken too seriously, and I can quite imagine him chortling to himself that two grown men as elected representatives believe that this is the main issue of the day in the area that they represent. But the sub headline is still misleading and inaccurate ; there are not “HUNDREDS of geese” in this park as the online article claims, with the emphasis on the capitalised “HUNDREDS” , and this is picked up and rounded down to “over 100” in the main article. I am also somewhat suspicious of the photograph and the appearance of whole slices of bread which appear to have attracted a group of geese presented in a framed narrow shot which resembles a Liberal Democrat by- election victory. Pan out and you would not see “hundreds” of geese, but a couple of dozen. They are not covering almost every inch of this large open space, which has retained a great deal of greenness, especially as we are still barely out  of Winter.

The opinions expressed by Neil Elkes, the Mail’s political correspondent- comments straight out of the Josef Goebbels school of journalism are a different matter entirely. This is not the first time that this “journalist” has gone on an anti- goose rant in a story, where his own personal opinions and hatred of this species appear to cloud his objectivity in reporting the facts of the case. Note the following choice of diction in this article from 2012, which he weaves into the “story” to present a prejudiced view of this one species. “Canada goose menace” as the headline”. This is anchored by “ANGRY FLOCK” , “mobbed and pecked”, “filthy Canada geese”, “nuisance geese” etc…

I have asked the questions in blue below, which he should have asked, or anyone else would ask if they had an open opinion. But that is not Mr Elkes intention with this one sided piece.

Though he may be entitled to his personal views, it is clear that his latest “opinion” is not one founded on facts. He claims

“Not only do they strip the grass away and deter other wildlife, but they are a major health hazard. Taking a child for a walk in beauty spots like Swanhurst Park in Springfield, Sutton Park or Sandwell Valley is a huge health risk.”

What “major health hazard” has he identified and what evidence can he produce of a single person ever affected by health issues having come into contact with Canada geese in these three named areas?  What statistics does he have which confirms any correlation between geese being a “major health hazard”, or that they “deter other wildlife”?

He then makes the statement that these parks are unsafe to visit in that in their current state it is “a huge health risk” to do so. This appears to suggest that the two councils do not take human health risks seriously, or that they have not already carried out a risk assessment and found there to be a low health risk associated with the geese. I am not aware for example that these two local authorities have ever felt the need to close these locations to human visitors due to geese “taking over”.

It is apparent that previously Birmingham City Council did have an issue at Sutton Park when they released cows to roam freely in the park. It is quite apparent that the source of infection of E coli in Sutton Park in 2013 came from these unnatural animals and their faeces AND NOT ANY WILD CANADA GEESE.

Farm animals and direct contact with them are a risk to human health, and recently pregnant women were warned not to have any contact with sheep.  

Public Health England guidance on this issue can be found HERE.

Elkes’s rant appears a minority view, usually one associated with that of the male drama queen whose own self importance, always expressed through his own offspring’s or grandchild’s apparent hypothetical vulnerability is both self imagined and delusional to the point of insane OCD. Pity a child that will never connect with nature because of his father or mother’s coprophobia or fear of animals or birds that they themselves pass on to their unfortunate creations. Pity the child that believes that every animal is “a health risk” and that killing them is an easy answer. Pity the child that declares “war” on animals because he doesn’t understand them or care about anything other than his own selfish egocentric genes and their survival , and when they in turn go on to procreate, the only thing that matters is the overblown expression of wanting to be seen as a good parent “unspoiled” by nature and “dirty” animals. I pity those children and the adults they will become.

Of course not everyone likes children, and certainly not other peoples. Personally I don’t like them on account of the screeching incoherent noises they make followed by bouts of selfish tantrum squealing when their parents refuse them a demand.  It is not uncommon in “beauty spots” to see parents pulling down their preciouses trousers and pants exposing genitalia and bare buttocks, with the brat routinely encouraged to urinate in the open air with soiled parts showing, and anyone who dares to look on aghast in embarrassment is almost silently accused of being a paedophile for showing disgust. A few years later and we get the obese lardarses evolve into fast food chain guzzling machines scoffing down the freshly served trade waste of back street abortionists dished up in cardboard and polystyrene coffins from the “drive thru”. From their podgy fingers, the garbage is served down the cavernous holes in their rotund faces, and  I’m Not “lovin it” as I stroll through the open space trying to enjoy the peace and quiet of nature, but all I see around me is human greed and gluttony expectorating the body parts of dead animals and birds cooked in batter.

Used nappies are dumped, snotty rags tossed, litter is thrown, half eaten food discarded with packaging…. I could go on about these “huge health risks” but I’m not desperately trying to be a “shock journ” runt of the litter NUJ card holder in the absent guise of George Tyndale.

LOCATION LOCATION

In order to check the voracity of the claims of goose numbers in this park, I have paid a recent visit there, which confirms the numbers of “hundreds” of geese as totally false. A count of  exactly 100 was recorded.

The number of geese in the park appears to have also been recently counted by one of the city council’s rangers, which absolutely rubbishes the false numbers reported in the Birmingham Mail article.

Swanshurst Park is a park I am already familiar with, and have been involved in rescuing injured swans there in the past (fishing line). This activity is one which does require frequent attention across many of the Birmingham Parks from wildfowl rescue groups and the RSPCA. It has also previously been reported that the council itself was responsible for a massive fish die off as a result of “inadvertently” leaving open a sluice gate, so lets spare us lectures about water quality and water management please! Maintenance of parks is something that the councillors nor the reporters even appear to raise. On my visit however I saw only clean paths, not covered in any excrement at all. Coloured bulbs are also starting to sprout from the ground.

A solitary attempt at a “no feeding” sign was pinned to a tree, but in truth it didn’t appear as though on a sunny Saturday afternoon that the ground had been covered in bread or chapattis for the birds.

Indeed the geese themselves , as I already know from personal experience with this species of over 20 years,  were spending their time minding their own business, not attacking anyone, including the parents with young children that were giving them food.

THREAT

The real news story in Birmingham affecting children under threat is that it is still failing to protect its children in care with its longstanding “inadequate” reputation. The geese are not to blame for this, as they are not to blame for religious extremism in so called “Trojan horse” schools- fuelled by liberal City Council politicians in politically correct denial , child grooming sex gangs, terrorist plots hatched from bedrooms and travel excursions planned to learn violent acts in a rogue state, gun and drug gang violence spilling out of control onto the streets in riot, speeding cars, or even genital mutilation based on insane “religious” or “cultural” practices that are pure and utter backward thinking EVIL.

Perhaps Cllr Rehman and the rest of his colleagues for that matter when he states  “the safety of the children is paramount” in the ITV news clip should be looking at failings within Birmingham’s Governance, its society and in its community before scapegoating one species for damnation.

The geese are not planting IEDs down Wake Green Road in their turds, which can be cleaned up by the City council’s parks department if they so wish, or if the “problem” is even one which warrants it. They are also not shitting in the councils swimming  baths either like children.

The other major factor not linked to this story but one that I am going to and which is relevant is that councillors in this City next year in 2018 face a “limited cull” of their own with the aptly named “boundary commission”,  having reduced their number from the current  120   to 101   in redrawn wards.

“The Commission carried out an electoral review of Birmingham City Council following Lord Kerslake’s report on the governance and organisational capabilities of Birmingham City Council. The report recommended that an electoral review be conducted ‘to help the council produce an effective model of representative governance.’ “

In other words there were TOO MANY councillors in Birmingham not doing enough for value for money, and there are currently squatting in the council chamber , more Birmingham councillors than there are Canada geese in Swanshurst park.

Swanshurst Park will now come under the Northern boundary of the new “Billesley” ward according to the redrawn boundary map, where it will now be represented by just  2 councillors.

Is the  partnership of Rehman/Straker Welds I wonder one which is seeking reselection for the newly redrawn particular area? I use cricketing analogies as both men would appear to take more than a passing interest in the local cricket scene, and though there appears no evidence of any birdies having the runs on any of the nearby cricket grounds, it is something which crossed my mind, especially seeing Councillor Rehman’s declared members interests in the Warwickshire County Cricket Club as chair of the “Safety advisory group” of that club, expressed somewhat cryptically in his declaration of members interest .

I am not alleging any wrongdoing on the part of the good councillor Rehman, and nor am I suggesting that he is a complete tosser either, but I would however like to draw the readers attention to his links, just in case we suddenly see a flurry of false appeals from white jumpered enthusiasts trying to get the geese OUT.

 

It appears from the source below that he was almost run out himself in 2014, though must have just scrapped home on a TV replay and politically has been linked to “stirring the pot” with “rumours” before whilst at the crease, according to another NeilElkes/Birmingham Post story from 2013. .

CAMPAIGN

A campaign has been started to “SAVE THE SWANSHURST CANADA GEESE” on facebook, with a petition that can also be signed and which will be presented to the City Council in due course.

I would  like to state that I did not start this campaign or petition, and I am not running it either, but have given some sage advice to the very able wildlife campaigners who live in the area close to the park based on the Sandwell experience. We will of course support their objectives to save the geese and hope that Birmingham City council do not go down the line of Sandwell in culling geese based on half truths and out right lies.

I would also like to emphasise that I am not a member of any political party, I just ask questions which some people would like to avoid answering. I am somewhat confused however by Labour’s policy on wildlife and culls, and on this point I am writing to Deputy Leader Tom Watson MP to perhaps provide some unambiguous clarity on how his party can “reconnect” with the electorate. Labour style themselves as “The Party of Animal Welfare”, though when I contacted the Labour Animal Welfare Society (LAWS) about the goose cull in Sandwell and asked what they made of it, I did not get as much as the courtesy of a response.

Their charter for animals which was sent to local authorities makes interesting reading concerning wildlife.

Here are a few interesting statements made within this charter

“Wildlife

It is quite clear that when it comes to Animal Rights, there does appear to be a hierarchy of animals which are worth “saving” more to some people. Geese come much further down the league table than badgers, though are somewhat higher than grey squirrels, pigeons and rats.

I do believe that those claiming anything about “animal welfare” , including its protection should put party politics second and not first.

I am not one of those who shouts “CULL THE TORIES” as though they are to blame for everything , as it is quite plain for anyone to research that though the likes of Labour’s Tony Benn and Tony Banks made great strides for animal welfare in Parliament , there are the likes of Kate “Tally” Hoey MP who do much to kick it back. I can also appreciate that there have been some MP’s like Ann Widdecombe of the Conservatives who have and continue to speak out and up for animals nationally through their status. Anyone who tells you that there is only one evil party and Labour are somehow “the good guys” are leading you up a political garden path, as this is total crap based on the available evidence. There appears to be little difference, and you really can never trust politicians.

In Sandwell and now Birmingham, we see Labour Councillors acting as though they are God and proposing or enacting culls on the basis of spurious claims-against their own “animal welfare” campaign groups charter- just it seems as the current Conservative Government has done with Bovine TB and badger slaying. Sandwell of course infamously lied and DID NOT prick goose eggs as was claimed by one cabinet member who lied on BBC Radio WM about this.

When Cllr Welds talks of “relocating” and pricking eggs “as they do at the Sandwell Valley”, he speaks with little wisdom or knowledge on the subject, despite on his declaration CV being somehow connected with The RSPB- an elitist bird hierarchy organisation linked with supporting mass extermination of species like the ruddy duck amongst others, whilst championing the rare, and denouncing the common. Though he appears a reasonable man open to suggestion on camera, getting the media involved and making this a public issue before really thinking about it carefully wasn’t the smartest move on his part.

Birmingham City Council (under Labour control), acted in partnership with the murderous FERA marksmen at Witton Lakes in 2013 to kill 7 ruddy ducks, as revealed IN THIS FOI REQUEST.

THEY DID NOT HAVE TO GIVE LANDOWNER CONSENT AT THIS TIME.

I could ask from all of this what is Labour’s problem with wildfowl, and why does it bang the drum for cuddly hedgehogs, badgers and foxes- seen to be a Tory hunting pastime, yet in clandestine hypocritical fashion carry out and facilitate wildlife culls and hope that it does not get noticed ?  Do they believe that birds feel no pain?

What one can clearly see with direct evidence is an attack on a goose in this very park a couple of months ago where a crossbow bolt was fired through its head  at close range. The RSPCA rescued this bird, in an incident which is sadly becoming quite common across the West Midlands and beyond towards wildfowl.

It could be said to be a “species hate crime” in fact. But on this occasion, there appeared to be no words of condemnation from the local elected representatives of this area that some deranged maniac had armed themselves with a weapon to inflict harm on a defenceless bird. Perhaps this speaks volumes as to what their priorities are. One can only hope that there is a change of heart by the two councillors, that the news stories were “sexed up” and sensationalised, and that they are open to discussions in accepting non lethal methods of site management, and that there is never any merit in culling wildlife.

Culling could mean that they themselves are out for a duck.

DISPATCH THE FAECES

NOT THE SPECIES!

CULL TURDS , NOT BIRDS!

Back in September after a tip off, the pest control company who lied about killing geese in Sandwell were seen in the Sandwell Valley.

Egg pricking at this time of the year  would obviously not have been on the agenda, so what were they doing there? We decided to ask Sandwell council a Freedom of Information Request for egg pricking and nest figures for 2016, which would give a four year period of records. It was also decided to ask for more detail about the methods being used to control numbers. Additionally we also asked what other species this company may be being used to destroy on behalf of the council.

WHAT DID WE ASK.

1)      In 2016 how many Canada goose nests were identified and at which Sandwell sites were these nests located? 

 

Sandwell Sites Number of Nests

Priory Woods LNR 12

Forge Mill Lake North Island 9

Swan Pool 4

Sheepwash 6

Dartmouth Park, West Bromwich 6

Hydes Road, Wednesbury 0

Smethwick Hall, Smethwick 1

Victoria Park Tipton 4

Victoria Park Smethwick 2

West Smethwick Park 1

Red House Park 1

TOTAL = 62

2)      In 2016 how many Canada goose eggs were pricked and at which sites did this take place? 

 

Egg Pricking at Sandwell Sites Number of Eggs

Priory Woods LNR 86

Forge Mill Lake North Island 54

Swan Pool 20

Sheepwash 29

TOTAL = 189

3)      In 2016 how many Canada goose eggs were oiled and left in the nests, and at which sites did this take place?

 

Oiling at Sandwell Sites Number of Eggs

Dartmouth Park, West Bromwich 31

Hydes Road, Wednesbury 0

Smethwick Hall, Smethwick 4

Victoria Park Tipton 27

Victoria Park Smethwick 9

West Smethwick Park 5

Red House Park 4

TOTAL=80

TOTAL OF ALL EGGS = 269

4)      In 2016 how many Canada goose eggs were removed from nests and at which sites did this take place?

No eggs were removed from any nests.

 

5)      Since 2013 has Pestex been hired by Sandwell Council to carry out any services other than the control of Canada goose numbers?  If so, what were the other services that Pestex carried out during this time period?  Please state all the species that Pestex were hired to deal with throughout this time period, and please specify which methods were used by Pestex to control the numbers of those species. 

 

Rats & Mice – Routine Pest control visits to Inspect and remove Rodent Infestations by means of Rodenticide Bait – Approved Traps and Pest Proofing, to meet British Pest Control Association ( BPCA ) Guidelines and CRRU Stewardship.

Ants – Insecticidal Spray treatment to Infested area with an approved and Suitable Insecticide.

Wasp Nests – Treatment made with and approved and suitable Insecticide or Dusting Powder.

Flies – Supply and Fit Cobra or Viper Insect control unit to area to remove and keep clear. Supply and Fit Fly Screens to windows or doors to prevent Insect access.

Feral Pigeon – Controlled via Proofing works by means of the Supply and Fit of Pigeon Netting or Anti Pigeon Spike where achievable and suitable.

Carry Out a Controlled Pigeon Cull by means of two fully Trained Air Rifle Marksmen to dispatch and remove.

Feral Cat – Removal of feral cat via approved live trapping, vet checked for ID Tag, Health Check, Sterilisation and Re-homed.

Kind regards

Matt Darby

Operational Manager – Parks and Countryside – Neighbourhoods

 

Discussion

Goose nest and egg numbers.

We learn that in addition to the other formal park sites previously visited by this company that they have in this year included Sheepwash Nature Reserve, and Priory woods Local Nature Reserve, as well as visiting Forge Mill Lake for a second year in a row and where they infamously “released” geese in 2013. This in itself produces questions as to whether this should be happening, given that there are many natural predators  at these sites, including the much lauded ” Sandwell Valley Heronry” to which the eggs and goslings are a source of food, and which through their loss could impact on other more “desirable” species that the council purport to support.

Of course the total idiotic mind set of conservationists proposes that it is the geese who are discouraging other more “desirable” species from nesting- though they can offer no direct evidence whatsoever to support this in the form of loss of numbers of other species and a direct correlation that the geese have caused this reduction. It does sound good however to come out with such statements without giving any evidence.

If some bloke decides to set foot in a canoe on an island where several species are nesting side by side, one can only hope that these “desirable” species do not find their nests trampled or the birds permanently scared off.

The figures supplied by SMBC for 2016 as well as the previous 3 years should be taken with caution given that they have been supplied by the company who also lied about their presence at Victoria Park. The figures for 2015 were also skewed by including Forge Mill Lake in the egg treatment, part of which could probably be said to be in Birmingham.

We will look first at the figures between 2015 and 2016, which appear to show a general decrease in both nesting Canada geese and eggs produced at most sites. Overall even with the inclusion of the two new sites, the number of eggs treated by this company fell from 281 in 2015 to 269 in 2016. This of course assumes the company are able to tell the difference between an abandoned egg from the previous year and a freshly laid one, (something which we very much doubt).

The number of eggs per nest at Priory woods appears a little high >7 per nest, and we would suggest that it is highly likely that eggs identified would be from previous years.

IT SHOULD BE NOTED AS BEFORE THAT NOT ALL OF THESE EGGS WOULD HAVE NATURALLY HATCHED AND IF THESE EGGS HAD HATCHED THE NUMBERS OF GOSLINGS WOULD STILL HAVE BEEN FURTHER REDUCED THROUGH NATURAL PREDATION.

SITE	NUMBER OF NESTS 2015	TOTAL EGGS TREATED 2015	NUMBER OF NESTS 2016	TOTAL EGGS TREATED 2016
DARTMOUTH PARK- WEST BROMWICH	9	51	6	31
HYDES ROAD-WEDNESBURY	1	5	0	0
REDHOUSE PARK- WEST BROMWICH	1	5	1	4
SMETHWICK HALL-SMETHWICK	1	4	1	4
VICTORIA PARK -TIPTON	6	34	4	27
VICTORIA PARK SMETHWICK	2	12	1	9
WEST SMETHWICK PARK	2	8	1	5
FORGE MILL LAKE WEST BROMWICH	22	144	9	54
SWAN POOL WEST BROMWICH	4	18	4	20
SHEEPWASH NATURE RESERVE	N/A	N/A	6	29
PRIORY WOODS LNR	N/A	N/A	12	86
TOTALS	48	281	62	269

Methods.

Distinction appears to be made between pricking eggs at the nature reserve sites and oiling eggs at the formal parks, with no eggs being removed to be destroyed from the nest. There is no reason given as to why this should be the case.

Killing other species.

We now know through this request and another recently asked that Sandwell council appear to employ Pestex for their services in the Sandwell Valley area, rather than using their own staff who presumably could control Rats and mice, ants, wasps, flies and “feral cats” as qualified “pest controllers” in the same manner as they do in the formal parks or anywhere else in the borough. The question is why do SMBC employ this company presumably at a far higher rate within Sandwell Valley? We have asked this question of The chief executive of Sandwell Jan Britton.

It seems a little bizarre that SMBC would want to remove a cat from a site where they also report “rat and mice infestations” , but this is a site where they play at farming in any case.

By far the most sinister and revealing aspect of this request was the unexpected

“Carry Out a Controlled Pigeon Cull by means of two fully Trained Air Rifle Marksmen to dispatch and remove.”

The location of this is not revealed, though it is assumed The Sandwell Valley. This also once again exposes the liars Pestex who stated “we don’t kill birds mate” when I asked them about what they were doing in Victoria Park when I caught them rounding up geese.

We are aware that they were used to put up “pigeon deterents” at Lichfield Cathedral last year, but it was conveniently not revealed on the BBC Midlands Today news item if the company had prior to that shot any pigeons that they found there first!

There are of course non-lethal methods available for controlling all of the above without killing, but that is not something which SMBC or certainly not Pestex would ever understand.

 

The long running Ombudsman report saga recommended that I be paid £150 for the time and trouble I had been put to in uncovering the council officer’s lies. It was made quite clear to the Ombudsman that I rejected this and this was included in the report.

So imagine my surprise to receive a letter from the chief executive of Sandwell council Jan Britton and a cheque for £150 in the post. What a generous man!

Obviously the boss of SMBC has either not read this part of the report or maybe just wanted to put me to a bit more time and trouble in returning it to sender, which I duly have by hand delivery to Sandwell HQ.

 

Hopefully he may find time to read my six page letter over the festive season and reflect on the contents, and though it may not be gold, frankincense or myrrh, perhaps the good people of Sandwell ,(well some of them), are now better off to the tune of 150 nicker. (Should go towards another top officer failure pay off).

I had considered accepting his very kind offer or donating it to an animal welfare charity, but then that would be a total sell out and this is tax payer’s money after all as a result of the actions of  bent  Sandwell council officers for which he is ultimately responsible.  Having seen several animal rescue organisations who do not profit from the hard work they do, I would think less of them if they would even have accepted the purse of soiled silver given the circumstances from which it was accrued.

 

In August I reported on the fact that despite handing in a petition at the start of the year concerning the geese and the council’s future actions, that they had not responded to the points that I had been asked to put in writing by new interim Parks and countryside manager, (aka Satchwell’s mopper upper) Max Cookson. These were made at a meeting of The Cabinet petitions advisory committee meeting of May 18th.

When querying the fact that he had not responded, I was contacted by him asking me to meet with him to discuss the issues. I made it clear that from past experience that this would not be acceptable as only a recorded written response would be acceptable, based on the lies and misinformation of his predecessor. No written response= future deniability of ever making a statement. That has been the Sandwell way for too long, and it is not one that should continue.

It is difficult to understand that as the interim manager, he is not clued up on this issue having had several months to digest it, as well as what the situation is in parks re cleaning around the poolside edge.

I subsequently received notice that the petition would be considered “closed” given that we had previously submitted a different petition that had “addressed” these issues.

 

But they haven’t have they? The petition was about Sandwell’s ground care strategy and how this is crucial to managing the parks and also the council’s issues surrounding the birds.

If the council continue to fail to deal with ground care issues they could be the author of their own destiny as well as that of the geese in claiming that “non-lethal methods of controlling goose numbers were unsuccessful”. This also applies to egg pricking which we again have to take their word for,(or their contractors) is occurring. We already know they aren’t exactly the most truthful of characters. Do they potentially earn more for egg pricking, or more for the task of killing adult birds?

The minutes of the meeting were recorded below for the record and I attempted to make this point to the now chair of this committee Cllr Dave Hossell. I’m not sure however if the matter is fully understood by him, given he has just been pushed straight into a very big pool at the deep end. Skip to around the 26.15  mark on the link below.

vn850383

 

At the commencement of the meeting, the ombudsman report which has now been officially reported in the Express and Star article “At Last!  Truth on parks goose cull”, was mentioned by myself. It was clear that he had had no prior knowledge of this or the outcome which is relevant to the matter in hand. The Ombudsman report would have been received by Sandwell Council at the same time that I received it in late October, so I consider it a little strange that it has not as yet found its way to the cabinet member to whom the issue is most relevant!

There again, that is Sandwell council for you.

I did agree to meet with Max Cookson and Cllr Hossell, but only if the matter could be recorded for future reference. Sandwell do have a clear problem with recording matters such as this, so it is something which I believe to be necessary going forward.

 

 

 

And so the culmination of what has been a ridiculously long and drawn out process involving making a complaint against Sandwell Council’s clandestine Canada goose cull has drawn to a close.

Having gone through the council’s complaints procedure including their so called “independent investigator” , I submitted the complaint to The Local Government Ombudsman way back in September of 2015. It has taken this long for a decision to be made on arguments presented by myself and the council and the Ombudsman’s decision notice shortly to be  published on their website can be read BELOW.

16-10-19-final-decision

I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT RIGHT FROM THE START, THAT THOUGH THE OMBUDSMAN RECOMMENDED THAT I SHOULD BE PAID £150 BY THE COUNCIL, (WHICH THEY AGREED TO) FOR THE LIES TOLD BY THEIR OFFICERS AND THE TIME AND TROUBLE THAT I HAVE BEEN PUT TO IN MAKING THIS COMPLAINT-

I HAVE REFUSED TO ACCEPT THIS OR ANY PAYMENT.

I will go into greater discussion about this at the end of this blog post. This is a long post and I make no apology for this as it is the culmination, though not the end of three years of campaigning.

Before looking at the decision notice in detail, at this point it is important to explain what powers this body has and what it could and could not investigate in regard to my complaint.

Typically The Local Government Ombudsman deals with “injustice” towards individuals by way of finding “fault” with the organisation which caused it. They have limited powers to look at individual council employees, but instead can offer guidance towards the direction that the authority took if they made a wrong decision or did not follow their own rules. Many of the judgements of the LGO deal with social welfare, and one such example of an upheld complaint against Sandwell council can be read HERE. The key words of “Injustice” and “fault” have specific meanings for the Ombudsman- in effect their rules. SEE BELOW.

FACTSHEET – G2 How LGO investigates

It is therefore impossible for the Canada geese themselves to be considered in this complaint, as it can only relate to people who have suffered an “injustice”.

Page 1 of the decision notice deals with the powers of the Ombudsman.

In this decision notice, I am “Mr B” and John Satchwell, former Sandwell parks manager is “Officer Y”. Not named in this report, as they should have been, are other officers of Sandwell council who I will mention below. This has widely been published previously and so there is no need to pretend anonymity, and nor should there be any either. Points 5-20 offer a summary of my complaint, (on behalf of the geese). These have been covered extensively in detail on this website and are highlighted below for clarity.

Specifically

LIES TOLD BY SANDWELL COUNCIL OFFICERS. – John Satchwell (officer Y) former parks and countryside manager SMBC

Chris Moore– former Sandwell Park Farm Manager SMBC

Paul Smith– former Conservation officer SMBC

Matt Darby– Still current Senior countryside ranger SMBC who sent me staged pictures using his Sandwell.GOV email account suggesting geese had illegally been released and not culled.

The Ombudsman sets out the events of the case in paragraphs 6-20. I have marked the Ombudsman’s quotes in red italics and attached relevant links to some of these points to illustrate these.

What I found Law and policy

6. The Canada Goose is protected by law and it is an offence to capture, kill or injure the geese, or to damage or take their nests or eggs. (The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended). It is also an offence to relocate Canada geese. However Natural England can licence councils to kill the geese in order to preserve public health or safety, or prevent the spread of disease, but only when non-lethal means are ineffective.

Agreed. Sandwell council specifically claim that they were relying on licence GL05, which was supplied in an FOI request, but this was for 2014. They have NEVER produced any licence for the 2013 cull.

7. Natural England has produced a best practice note for councils about how to manage problems caused by Canada Geese. It sets out means to control the population including treating the eggs so they do not hatch and culling. Natural England’s technical guidance suggests how councils should go about a cull.

What happened

8. Mr B uses a public park and has an interest in wildlife. In 1997, the Council considered how to manage Canada Geese at its parks. It had been pricking eggs so they do not hatch, but only in a limited area. The Council decided to extend this to all the sites and to continue over a number of years. The Council also decided to consider culling geese if treating the eggs did not control the population.

The egg pricking is of course the theory which the council claim to have undertaken which they cannot in fact prove with any evidence over a number of years. Sandwell council have not provided any direct evidence that “non-lethal methods were ineffective”.

9. In 2013, it reviewed the situation. Officer Y was responsible for managing the wildlife population and he discussed the possibility of another cull with officers before preparing a briefing note for the Council’s Cabinet Member with political responsibility for countryside management. Other cabinet members were also consulted.

10. The Council approved the culling as an ongoing measure until it could control the population by other means. Officer Y’s briefing paper says:

• The Canada Geese population across the Council’s parks is large with up to 700 birds at any one time and large flocks graze on public spaces.

• The geese droppings may be harmful if swallowed, and make grassed areas unattractive and paths slippery. They may also impact on fish stocks if passed into water.

• The Council has tried to reduce the population by pricking and oiling eggs and installing fencing around pools, but this has not worked.

• He recommended that the Council cull in two locations and monitor whether this has been effective and gauge public reaction. It should also continue to prick and oil eggs so they do not hatch and when possible seek to redesign the parks so as to make the habitat unsuitable for large numbers of geese to thrive.

We would of course and have disputed many of Satchwell’s statements as false or not evidenced. There is no formal record of the decision, which I believe suggests that the statement of events made by the council is false. The following legislation under The Local Government Act 2000 is relevant here, and this doesn’t appear to have been considered in the Ombudsman’s decision.

“22 Access to information

 (3)A written record must be kept of prescribed decisions made at meetings of local authorities executives, or committees of such executives, which are held in private.

(4)A written record must be kept of prescribed decisions made by individual members of local authority executives.

(5)Written records under subsection (3) or (4) must include reasons for the decisions to which they relate.

(6)Written records under subsections (3) and (4), together with such reports, background papers or other documents as may be prescribed, must be made available to members of the public in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.”

The Ombudsman states that she believes that John Satchwell gave a verbal report to the cabinet member, though for such an important and divisive issue, was this really a way for a council officer and council to proceed?

11. Mr B was at that park in 2013 and saw a council contractor rounding up the geese. Officer Y and the contractors told Mr B that the Council had relocated the geese. Mr B knew that relocation is illegal and so he questioned the Council about this. Another officer sent him some photographs of geese telling him these were the geese being released.

12. In 2014, Mr B noticed a large number of the geese had gone. Officer Y again told him that it had relocated the geese. Mr B challenged the Council about this and it later admitted that Officer Y had misled Mr B and the Council had in fact culled the geese in 2013 and 2014, using a licensed contractor.

13. The relationship between Mr B and the officer had become fraught. Officer Y threatened Mr B and Mr B complained to the Council.

14. The Council found that: • Officer Y had misled Mr B, twice telling him the Council had relocated the geese when it had in fact culled them. • The Council had acted within the law when it culled the geese. • The Council could have asked the Cabinet Member to review the situation and confirm the decision to cull in 2014, but it was not wrong for the Council to act in accordance with the approval given in 2013. • It could not conclude whether Officer Y had breached the Council’s officer code of conduct because there was no independent witness to their conversations. • Although Officer Y lives in a house in the park he did not take the decision to cull the geese for personal gain. • Officer Y had threatened Mr B.

It should be stated that it was the so called “independent investigator” employed for £25 per hour by Sandwell council who made these conclusions. We will look at how Satchwell and others DID breach the officer code of conduct further on in this post.

15. At this time Mr B also submitted a petition to the Council against the culling of the geese and calling for the Council to continue with non lethal means. Under the Council’s petition scheme, if it receives 1500 signatures the organiser may call a senior officer to give evidence at a public meeting of the relevant scrutiny board.  Mr B attended the board meeting and made his case. The Council asked the board to consider a ‘statement of purpose’; essentially a summary of its geese-management policy for further consultation, in light of the controversy the cull had created.

16. The board decided not to take any action on the petition itself but did endorse the statement of purpose and asked officers to report to the committee on how it proposed to consult on this.

17. The Council’s policy allows a petitioner to ask for a review of the board’s decision if he believes the Council has not followed the correct procedure. It will not hear the petition itself. Mr B asked for a review. He said the Council had not followed the process and he did not get a response to his formal complaint until after the hearing and would like to have shared the findings with the board. The Council decided that Mr B had not identified which parts of the process the Council had not followed and so the matter did not progress further. The Council did however respond to Mr B’s later complaint about how the board conducted the meeting. It did not uphold his complaint.

18. The Council has apologised to Mr B for misleading him about culling the geese. It has reminded officers about the code of conduct to which they must work.

19. The Council has since consulted the public about the geese and whether these cause problems for park users.

In paragraph 20- the ombudsman sets out my complaint points. I have again used relevant links for further evidence to illustrate these complaint points.

” 20The Council has not given its decision to cull Canada geese due consideration. Mainly because it has not produced evidence that the geese population is too large, or has increased and crucially it has not proved that the geese are a risk to public health or safety, as required by the Natural England’s licence. Also the Council did not properly record its decision when the Cabinet Member approved the cull in 2013.

The Council either did not carry out egg pricking properly or if it did, it did not properly record its actions.

• The Council and its contractor lied to him, telling him it was relocating and not culling the geese.

• The Council did not check that its contractor acted properly. Mr B says the contractor asked him to help round up the geese because it did not have enough people, and the holding pen appeared to have been erected that day contrary to the technical guidance issued by Natural England. Mr B also says the Council was not present when the birds were killed and so cannot be sure its contractors used the correct methods.

• The Council did not send him its investigation report before the committee heard his petition. The Council knew this had findings Mr B could have used, such as that officers misled him.

• The Council has consulted the public and interested organisations on the new draft policy, but its questionnaire was biased and it gave two different versions of the draft policy.

In paragraphs 21-31 The Ombudsman considers my complaints on behalf of the geese. Note the explanations I have already given on the use of the words “injustice” and “fault” which cannot be applied to them under the Ombudsman’s rules.

“Was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

The Council’s decision to cull the geese

21. I appreciate that Mr B has very strong concerns about animal and wildlife welfare. The geese do not have a voice of their own and rely on Mr B to speak in their interest. However, the Council did give the matter due consideration before culling geese in 2013, and there is no fault in how it reached its decision.

I consider the “due consideration” comment to be absolutely scandalous. I believe that even an unbiased observer would note that “consideration” was tasked to one officer who had a clear prejudiced interest in undertaking the report- HE LIVES IN ONE OF THE UNAMED PARKS WHERE CULLING TOOK PLACE.

I remain in fundamental disagreement with this statement, as I have stated previously and will always believe, the conduct of John Satchwell was such that he created the report to facilitate something he wanted rid of, outside his property and in the other park in which his son was managing a restoration project. I have been told as much by current SMBC staff who served under him.

It is also necessary to point out that he facilitated getting his brother in law a gardening job within Dartmouth Park, the same park enjoying a lottery funded restoration project that saw his son get a lucrative job as the “project manager”. It is not known at this time what experience John Satchwell Junior had to manage such a project. It would later be stated when their figures of complaints against geese were unravelled as a lie, that it was these  “verbal” complaints to “gardeners” and rangers which the council took into consideration.

No records can be produced of increase of goose numbers over time,

no evidence of disease,

no evidence of accidents from slippages,

no evidence of numerous complaints by members of the public.

These are entirely relevant to the conditions of the licence for lawful use which the council claim to be relying on. Without this evidence there is “fault” on their part.

 I have produced evidence however from council funded publicly released newsletters which show that the council’s own egg pricking at Dartmouth Park and other sites was not taking place in the years immediately prior to the cull of 2013/14 and so they were not following their own procedures.

Satchwell’s own son would have, should have been responsible for management in this park, and his failure to do so facilitated his father in taking an action to cover up his son’s failure. There are clear conflicts of nepotism throughout Satchwell’s decision making process, not least the choice of the two unidentified parks in his report. Who took the decision to cull IN THESE TWO PARKS, ON WHAT EVIDENCE? WHERE IS THE RECORD OF JUSTIFICATION, AND ALSO THE FORMAL DECISION?

The count of geese was not recorded and neither did the council have a starting point of how many geese had increased from one time period to another time period. Crucially from the start of their 1997 policy and up to April 2013 when Satchwell’s report was allegedly written.

22. The briefing paper sets out the reasons why the Council thinks a cull necessary. The Council has given some information about how it treated eggs to stop them from hatching in an attempt to control the population before deciding to cull. The Council says it conducted a count in 2013. I agree that the evidence of this is not clear and I have taken into account that Mr B disputes the Council’s figures. However it is clear that there remained around 20 geese on that site as well as goslings. It is for the Council to decide what population is manageable in the interests of public health and safety, and if there is any doubt about the size of the population before the cull, the outcome would have been the same: the Council would have culled the geese to the same or a similar number, deciding that any more than this is too many. 

I don’t agree with this statement. I have not been provided with any evidence or information about how the council via its own staff were pricking eggs prior to 2013. Why did they only conduct a count in 2013, and what evidence do they have that the numbers were to quote the approved 1997 policy “that if flocks at individual locations increase alarmingly…”

As policy I believe the wording of this document to be judicial and exact and not ad hoc to be amended at a later date.

The key word here is “increase”. What evidence do the council have that there was any increase at all? If they have none then how are they following their own policy? A single one off count in 2013 cannot justify a cull and their policy when they cannot show any “alarming increase” since the 1997 policy was introduced.

The council  also conveniently cannot produce the report from 1997 which informed this policy and presumably would have contained goose counts from that year in order to justify the policy. Without this key relevant evidence of “increase”, a reasoned council and officer  would not have produced a report and could not have produced a report which led to a decision being taken that would have been the same the Ombudsman  suggests.

The words  “the size of the population” are not in the council 1997 policy, and this cannot be ignored because it clearly states “alarming increase” which the council cannot show occurred. Their decision is therefore not based on careful consideration of their existing policy but of an ad hoc one which Satchwell created and was wrongly endorsed. I would again state that there is no mention of the 1997 policy in Satchwell’s report, and this I believe was absent because they had forgotten about the policy and the precise wording of it.

In contrast to the unrecorded change of direction following Satchwell’s report, the 1997 policy was recorded and formally endorsed. Surely then this key point cannot be overlooked. The council cannot justify evidence that goose numbers had “alarmingly increased”, and if they had “alarmingly increased” this would be as a result of policy failure of their rangers failing to carry out egg pricking- which the council cannot produce any evidence was taking place.

I have produced independent evidence from West Midland Bird Club reports that suggest no alarming increase but an actual decrease in goose numbers leading up to the decision to cull.

This appears to me to be as suggested, in 2013 John Satchwell decided to rid two parks in which he had a personal and prejudicial interest of Canada geese, and I also believe this was a personal slight against myself when I had in the months prior to this made representations to The Lake District National Park authority about a cull of geese at Lake Windermere via what do they know.com.

This was publicly available and Satchwell’s report was a vindictive response to this. Based on the outcome of this highly publicised event where that authority decided against culling, both Satchwell and Sandwell council were aware that alternatives to culling could be undertaken; they just chose to bypass this by not making a cull in Sandwell public knowledge and deceiving members of the public to cover their deceitful tracks.

 In light of the opposition to that cull, there would have been a similar outcry in Sandwell. The cull would not have gone ahead if the public had had prior knowledge of it. The Ombudsman cannot state that the cull would have gone ahead as fact.

23. The Council must consider the risk to public health and safety, or it cannot use lethal methods to control the geese population. It is sufficient for it to do this by considering published information against its observations on site. I would not expect the Council to carry out laboratory investigations. The Council and its contractor are liable for prosecution if it cannot show that it had to cull the geese to protect public health and safety. Prosecution is outside the Ombudsman’s remit.

The “published information” was found after the event of culling in order to try to justify the cull and NOT before it. Most of this is biased American hunting/persecution literature to facilitate mass slaughter to aid their crooked aviation and gun lobby industries. If the Ombudsman does not expect the council to carry out laboratory investigations to prove what they are claiming, then this is culling without evidence, and culling with extreme prejudice. Unfortunately this policy is one we have seen with Government organisations in badger culls. BUT AS ALREADY STATED- THE GEESE HAVE NO VOICE FOR THE OMBUDSMAN.

I would remind people about evidence John Satchwell gave under scrutiny to my question about laboratory evidence below.

VN850223

24. Overall, this is a decision taken by the Council’s Members and Director with authority to do so, after due consideration. It is open to the Council to make this decision having considered the merits of the issue. The Ombudsman would expect the Council to record the reasons for a decision and it should note this in future, even if it is only to verify the reasons set out by the officer’s report.

As stated via existing approved policy- no evidence of alarming increase = no justification for cull. Due consideration is based only on evidence, if council cannot justify any evidence then no cull. Any deviation from this is not following council policy but making a new ad hoc policy. The council did not consider “the merits of the issue” as they had only the opinion of one biased officer, who did not give them accurate information. It is also worth pointing out that Maria Crompton originally stated absolute rubbish concerning non-native muscovy ducks and wanting to reintroduce them into parks in place of the “non -native” geese. This appears to now have been dropped, yet nobody including the ombudsman appears to have noted this “reason“.

It is also worth pointing out what then Monitoring officer Neeraj Sharma wrote to Director Adrian Scarrott on these points. If there was no “fault” by the council structure, then why would she have thought it necessary to write to him to “consider” doing things differently?

Though the Ombudsman may not consider these points to be an admission of “fault” by Neeraj Sharma, it is as pretty bloody close as you can get to it as far as I am concerned.

The contractor’s actions and Natural England Guidance

25. There is no evidence of fault by the contractor in how it carried out the cull itself. The contractor acts on behalf of the Council and so Council officers do not need to be present when the contractor rounds up the geese or when it kills them. I have looked at the technical guidance. This suggests good practice. The contractor is not bound by it, but should take it into account. Although the contractor should clearly not have asked the public for help, there is no evidence of fault by it in how it rounded up the geese. The Council has not produced records of how the geese were killed or if this met the technical guidance. Although there is no evidence that the contractor did not use the accepted methods and the Council does not need to be present, it must monitor its contractors and in this case its monitoring was not sufficient. The Council should consider further how it does this so that it can be satisfied the contractor acts properly on the Council’s behalf.

 

I would note again that the contractors lied to both myself and three other witnesses stating the geese would be released at Sandwell Valley and not culled. Has this ever been denied by the council on whose behalf they were acting? Surely this is “fault” on their part if “fault” was found with Satchwell telling the same lie? There is compelling evidence of “fault” with the contractor because they also lied.

Regarding the Ombudsman’s test for fault

“The service provider is directly responsible for the action that has caused the alleged fault.”

If the contractor is included within the remit of the council itself under the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, then there is “fault” on their part for their direct role in the lie and being complicit as a part of it.

“The type and scale of the fault amounts to a particularly serious failure to meet normally expected standards of public service.”

Council contractors should not lie to the public, and this is underlined in paragraph 27.

It is accepted by the Ombudsman that Sandwell council appeared to give their contractor free reign of culling, laying on facilities to do so without scrutiny or record of how they killed the birds. This is undoubtedly fairly serious criticism of the council’s cull and so when she also states that there was no “fault” in how the council carried out the cull, this is perhaps a contradictory caveat.

The Ombudsman cannot rule on Animal welfare matters and how the contractors rounded up the geese. She was not there and did not see what happened. I was. The RSPCA were approached at the time about this aspect but their call centre handlers were clearly risk averse in taking details about a corporate body and “pest controller”.

What the Ombudsman also did not investigate and most likely cannot are the standards of animal husbandry and biosecurity with which the council allowed its contractor free access to a farm where it rears animals for human consumption. It exports these condemned animals once they have served their purpose for petting and tourism to another farm in Warwickshire for slaughter. I.E NO BIRDS OR ANIMALS ARE SUPPOSEDLY KILLED ON THIS FARM.

How then or who then more to the point decided that wild birds should be imported, contained and killed within the farm environment? There is no record of this decision and who took it either. It is a shocking misuse of public money and  food standard security and yet no one has ever investigated this part of the cull story. In this regard outside the powers of the Ombudsman, she also cannot rule that the council carried out a cull within an area that was suitable.

 

That officers misled Mr B

26. The Council has upheld this complaint. It has apologised to Mr B and has considered its officers actions against its Code of Conduct. The Ombudsman cannot investigate personnel issues and so I have not made a finding as to whether officers breached the code or whether the Council took appropriate disciplinary action.

I have still to have any explanation as to what happened on the day that the geese in Victoria park in 2013 were rounded up and Matt Darby misused his .GOV email account to send me what I am now supposed to believe were staged pictures. I asked for the Ombudsman to explain the dichotomy of the fact that the council via the independent investigator had already stated that birds had been “released”- which would be illegal, yet it has been stated that they did not contravene any laws. HOW CAN THIS BE THE CASE? West Midlands Police similarly will not answer this point, and I will look at their actions in this matter in a separate future blog post.

Though the Ombudsman states that she cannot look at the officer code of conduct, I WILL HERE, to demonstrate just how seriously John Satchwell and the other liars breached this code, yet appear to have gone largely unpunished by their senior director, monitoring officer and chief executive officer Jan Britton. The code to which ALL Sandwell council officers from the chief executive down are subject to is shown below.

code

Lying to members of the public and making threats is NOT a high standard of conduct! “Honesty”, “objectivity” and “integrity” are also not nouns that could be associated with the parks and countryside management service under the guidance of John Satchwell.

I would also seriously question the decision to cull geese in the two parks to be unselfish actions. Links with sports clubs to those involved in this cull have been documented.

 

“4.2 Employees shall within their public employed capacity conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public’s  trust and confidence in the integrity of the Council and never undertake any action which would bring the Council, or its members or officers into disrepute.”

I think that this constitutes the main purpose of the officer code, and just how serious the breach was by John Satchwell, Chris Moore, Matt Darby and Paul Smith. But it should  not just be limited to them because officers also lied in a freedom of information request stating that “no one was lied to”- which of course we now fundamentally know to be an absolute lie based on the Ombudsman’s ruling.

Lying to the public is again relevant here. Not only did these four officers breach the code, but their entire department and council are now under scrutiny because of the failure to uphold it. But this also shows just how much Directors like Adrian Scarrott and others above him were failing to spot this behaviour. It also shows how the councillors and cabinet members and leader of the council were also failing to address this issue.

No senior councillor from Sandwell has addressed the serious breaches of this code with the parks and countryside department, and it is NOT satisfactory to state that employees have been reminded of the code that they should work to. No senior councillor has yet condemned or apologised for the lies of John Satchwell and others.

I myself do not trust the word of ANY Sandwell council officer based upon this experience, and I would urge others to think along similar lines when reading this. Any future dealings that I have with Sandwell council officers are tarnished beyond repair by the actions of those who have been previously mentioned. How is it possible to believe anything that Matt Darby says to be true when he continues to work for Sandwell council and has sent me staged pictures from his Sandwell email account?

How can anyone have any confidence in what council officers at Sandwell are saying is the truth or lies?

27. The Council is responsible for the contractor as this acts on the Council’s behalf. The Council’s contractor also misled Mr B when it told him it was not going to cull the geese.

This is an important point and should be noted by the council in that its contractors lied to members of the public as well as its officers.

How the Council handled the petition

28. Mr B’s video recording of the Scrutiny Board meeting makes clear that the Council followed its published process. Mr B was given an opportunity to put his case and that the Board considered this and the petition. The Board did not endorse the petition but it is clear it understood the issues presented and reached a decision having considered these.

I do not believe that the councillors on this committee had a clue what happened in regard to this cull. They took just 10 minutes to reach a decision of “no action” when at the very least there are many points within the petition that required investigation- but of course I was denied access to the fact that the council had found that Satchwell had lied by Adrian Scarrott, who also gave evidence at that meeting. How is it “clear” that it understood the issues presented?

29. Mr B is understandably frustrated that the Council did not send him the response to his formal complaint until after the Board considered his petition. The Council’s findings may have added some context to the Board’s consideration, but it is unlikely to have altered the outcome, particularly as the cull had already happened. The Board asked the Council to consult on its ‘statement of purpose’ and present its findings and this is a reasonable means to address the concerns raised by the petition.

I believe that it would have undermined John Satchwell as a credible witness. I would have course cross examined him about his lies at this meeting and explored aspects of nepotism further. I would have expected the councillors at this point to have considered the officer code of conduct and questioned him about it, but it is worth pointing out that the committee contained councillors to whom Satchwell is close to such as now Sandwell Council Deputy Leader Syeda Khatun, and Bob Lloyd.

30. Mr B had the opportunity to ask the Council to review the Board’s decision if he thought it had not followed the process. He did do this when he got the Council’s response to his formal complaint. But the Council did not accept that new information that officer’s had misled him was relevant to the process the Board followed when dealing with his petition and so it did not consider this as a formal review. This is not unreasonable and the Council did respond to process issues Mr B raised when he later complained again. In addition, none of these issues (such as a member of an organisation aligned with the Council sitting with officers) would have fatally flawed the hearing of his petition.

This is the Ombudman’s decision with which I do not agree. The councillors failed to investigate the lies told by several officers within one department, or investigate if these lies were being spread under duress by the actions of one senior manager downward. That this failure resulted in taking “no action” makes them ineffectual as councillors to hold the executive to account.

The Council’s consultation

31. I have read the Council’s questionnaire and Mr B’s comments on this. The purpose is to gauge the public opinion about if or how the Council should manage the geese. The Council has also sought views on its draft ‘statement of purpose’ which is essentially sets out its policy. Mr B may not agree with the wording of the questions but taken together, these are sufficient to gauge public opinion. Officers have referred to the draft statement as a new policy and a draft policy when it is neither of these. The Council should be clearer about this but it does not impact on the consultation significantly.

The only comment I would make on this is that the questions were designed to seek answers from those who considered geese to be “a problem” where as it did not apply the same opportunity for those who did not. Many people also saw this flaw in the questionnaire and not just myself. In any case the questionnaire results showed that the majority of the public did not agree with culling geese, which once again undermines the Ombudsman’s statement that culling would have gone ahead anyway had the council made public their proposed actions.
Agreed action

32. The Council and its contractor misled Mr B about the geese and although it has investigated the matter and apologised, this does not remedy the additional time and trouble the Council put him to as he tried to find out the truth. The Council has agreed to pay Mr B £150 in recognition of this. Mr B has refused to accept this payment because he did not expect or wish to receive any personal advantage from making the complaint.

33. The Council will review how it records its decisions so its reasons are clear.

Final decision

34. The Council was at fault when it misled Mr B about culling Canada geese. It has investigated this and apologised to him, but it should also pay him £150 in recognition of the extra time and trouble this put him to. There was no fault in how the Council reached its decision to cull the geese or how the contractors operated. The Council should however record the reasons for its decisions.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Personal statement.

I would like to make clear as stated at the start of this post that I refused the £150 that the ombudsman recommended and which Sandwell Council via Adrian Scarrott agreed to pay. I pointed out to the LGO that this figure was probably 20 times less than I had personally spent on this campaign and the time runs into hundreds of hours. BUT IT WAS NEVER ABOUT THE MONEY, IT WAS ABOUT THE CAUSE. IT WAS ABOUT THE INJUSTICE. IT WAS ABOUT THE CANADA GEESE WHO COULD NOT DEFEND THEMSELVES.

It would be perverse as far as I am concerned and morally bankrupt to accept blood money apologies from a corrupt from the top down local authority.

Contrast this if you will, with the likely large but undisclosed severance payments of the top officers who lied about this issue, who breached the officer code of conduct corrupting their whole department and their council. Satchwell’s pay as parks manager was in the region of £60-70,000 per annum.

For 40+ years service (and the same for Chris Moore), they will have received an ample pension, and for what? How far have SMBC delved into what they and others were doing and helping themselves through their jobs? Is their payment bought to silence them from spilling the beans on what local authority members were also doing? Lying it seems, deceiving the public and serving yourself favours whilst getting good jobs for your family members to cement your own position is absolutely rife within Sandwell council- particularly the parks department and within Sandwell Valley- where practically the whole staff are related to one another or have very close relationships.

But as we know, the LGO cannot look into “personnel issues”. This would be the job of Steve Handley, former street scene director at SMBC who also went the way of the exit door and also lied in a freedom of information request. Adrian Scarrott, current Neighbourhoods director is also on his way out- and good riddance because his directorship has seen nothing but corruption run rife below him which he failed to deal with.

IT IS CLEAR FOR ANYONE TO SEE THAT THIS SHIP, THIS DEPARTMENT IS SINKING UNDER A MASSIVE WEIGHT OF CORRUPTION, YET THE CABINET MEMBERS WHO PRESIDED OVER THIS CORRUPTION APPEAR TO HAVE GONE UNSCRUTINISED BY THE COUNCIL THEMSELVES.

Maria Crompton lied on the radio about egg pricking, and was probably misled by the same individual who had given the verbal briefing.

NO records of meetings, or decisions taken is the main fault found by the LGO for SMBC to consider, and this goes beyond My complaint about the geese, because it appears to be a central trait which has been operating within Sandwell’s Labour leadership  for years.

The ombudsman wrote to Chief executive Jan Brittain in July this year regarding the council’s complaints annual review.

The table below shows that Sandwell had 11 complaints upheld against it over the period. Many of the council’s departments are failing or inadequate, and given that most of the directors have left the council in recent times, it is perhaps no surprise that the new leadership now recognises this where the other previous idiot could not.

I consider the decision of the ombudsman in terms of not criticising the actions of the council in how it reached the decision to cull to be both disappointing and perverse. They cannot justify their actions with any irrefutable evidence concerning increase of goose numbers and cannot show any record for making the decision because they never had any to start with. Satchwell’s report was a heavily plagiarised rewording of bullet points cherry picked from a Natural England guidance PDF. The council did not consult the public about changing their policy but lied to them and treated me with total contempt.

The wording of this decision however should not be taken as a green light by Sandwell or any other local authority to conduct similar culls in the same vein in the future. I would remind others thinking  of doing so about how many so called “professionals” have fallen on their swords and are no more in their jobs within this council, and we would give exactly the same level of scrutiny into their affairs to any other local authority employees from any other council should they decide on a similar course of action.

The actions of the contractor whilst not able to be considered by the Ombudsman have been criticised in this decision in that they lied and provided false information. There is clear “fault” in how they operated because they lied about their very job! This has been poorly worded in the ombudsman’s summing up given that she already found fault in this instance in paragraph 27.

“27. The Council is responsible for the contractor as this acts on the Council’s behalf. The Council’s contractor also misled Mr B when it told him it was not going to cull the geese.”

The council should take awareness of this and no longer use this contractor.

Anything less than this is condoning their actions of dishonesty. They cannot discipline a contractor as they supposedly did with John Satchwell and others under the officer code of conduct because they are not council employees. Presumably Sandwell do not have a code of conduct for contractors? I would like to see some statement on this from the leadership of the council, and if they continue to use the services of Pestex, why they chose this company in the first place. They are not a professional outfit when they lie to members of the public about their own job, and even try to rope them into rounding up the birds for slaughter!

Much of the problem surrounding the way in which the complaint could be dealt with centres around the continuing corrupting influence of Natural England and DEFRA to set policy, based largely on the work of one or two individuals who for all we know operate in exactly the same corrupt manner that Sandwell council officers operated in this case. Their reports and recommendations have led to massive slaughter but productivity for economic interests whom I believe influenced their policy decisions. Add to this the corrupting influence of politicians and together they can do virtually anything they like without of course any voice for the voiceless.

Unfortunately investigations into wrongdoing and “fault” and “injustice” are investigated by the Ombudsman rules, made by civil servants and politicians- and liars know how to play the game to suit them.

It’s all about how much you give, and how much money you are prepared to pay- that’s feeding the ducks now. There have been all sorts of rubbish written on social media concerning bread, but let’s look at one of the so called “duck foods” on offer as an alternative. Priced at £1.50 for this you get 525ml by volume- not sure why this is not expressed in weight- but probably because it isn’t very much.

These pea sized pellets float and the ducks do appear to like eating them, as they do almost anything. The problem I have with this so called “natural choice”, aside from the extortionate price, is that when you take a closer look at the ingredients, it is anything but “natural”.

Boasts are made about vitamins and minerals which “boost the birds immunity and general health”.

But let’s take a closer look at some of the so called “technical stuff” in the ingredients. The list itself is pretty vague and poorly explained. “Cereals and cereal by products, oilseed by products, fish meal, oils and fats, minerals and natural antioxidant.”

Firstly protein at 19% would equate to  99.79  ml of the product. As the bread haters like to falsely inform people about bread causing “angel wing”, it comes as somewhat of a surprise to read of such a high protein content in this alternative “duck food.”

The mass of the vitamins in the food is also poorly expressed in International Units, the common  measurement of medications, vaccines and vitamins. Unfortunately the type of vitamins on the ingredients list are not defined and so this makes it impossible to calculate the amount in standard micrograms or milligrams. It is also further strange that they have then expressed the amount as a mixed iu/kg. Perhaps the amount expressed in IU fools people into thinking that the birds are getting a load more of the “good stuff” than they really are- I mean 8000 iu/kg of vitamin A sounds a lot doesn’t it? But what is this  actual mass by weight? Fortunately there is an excellent conversion chart available to work this out.

The equivalents of 1 IU for the stated vitamins are:

• Vitamin A: 1 IU is the biological equivalent of 0.3 mcg retinol, or of 0.6 mcg beta-carotene
• Vitamin D: 1 IU is the biological equivalent of 0.025 mcg cholecalciferol or ergocalciferol
• Vitamin E: 1 IU is the biological equivalent of 0.67 mg d-alpha-tocopherol, or 0.9 mg of dl-alpha-tocopherol

In the ingredients list on this product therefore the type of vitamin A  and E are not defined so we do not know what type of vitamin is in the food but as vitamin D3 – cholecalciferol is listed this can be calculated.

To convert Vitamin D3:

1IU=0.025mcg

800 IU x 0.025= 16mcg/kg

In one packet 525ml is equivalent to 525 milligrams.

1 gram  = 1000 milligrams or 1,000,000 micrograms

there are 1000 grams in 1 kg, or 1,000,000,000 (1 billion) micrograms.

This clearly does not amount to much D3 content per pack, even though the 800IU sounds quite a large quantity. Given that many birds may be on a lake, the amount each bird consumes is further impossible to calculate. Some may get more, others nothing at all.

It is certainly the case that birds can suffer from calcium deficiency, but also true that they can also suffer from over exposure to such material as supplements. One could ask the question “is it ethical to medicate wild bird food, if the birds are not ill?”

But the biggest surprise about this “natural choice” is the revelation that it contains “fish meal”. For those who are interested in ethical considerations or even veganism, it is perhaps inconsistent to be buying a product which contains ground up fish offal and bones. In fact no wildfowl would ever eat such material in the wild from fish, and so the idea that this is a “natural food” starts to unravel at the first hurdle when looking at the ingredients list. This food is in fact little more than fish food repackaged with a picture of a cute duckling on the front to advertise it.

As winter approaches and food becomes scarce, it is perhaps left to the consumer as to what they are prepared to pay to care for our wildfowl. I’m not sure birds that can decide what they want to eat and when they want to eat for themselves are that interested in the obsession of human dieting and nutrition. It is just about survival, and without natural vegetation on offer, a slice of bread goes a lot further than glorified fish guts.