Save Our Sandwell Canada Geese

We have now posted the full and unedited filming of the Sandwell joint neighbourhoods/health scrutiny meeting of 25/2/15 held at Sandwell council house. As we await whatever fate geese in the future face in Sandwell from what appears to be on the basis of a biased and flawed questionnaire which the council failed to advertise either publicly or on its own website, here is an opportunity to see how their woeful councillors deal with tackling the executives decision about another issue where they failed to consult on a change of policy.

Bizarrely it appears that the scrutiny committee annual report for 2014-15 appears to believe that it did “hold the executive to account in its annual report- which unfortunately shows up the committee for what it is- a head nod without any. Page 18 refers.

On this point  we would reiterate that Head of Neighbourhoods Adrian Scarrott at the time of this meeting was in full knowledge of John Satchwell and other parks and Countryside staff’s lies concerning the goose cull, but deliberately chose not to release the independent report to me until after the farce of the scrutiny meeting. Questions would have of course been asked if we had had this information, so it was deliberately withheld by this director.

That he chose to allow the unmasked liar to provide commentary on Sandwell council’s actions is indeed a case of poor integrity on his part which reflects badly on his professional judgement. We have noted this to the Local Government Ombudsman in a wide ranging complaint.

We have chronicled OUR CASE HERE.

Analysis of the meeting and the council’s decision to take “NO ACTION” is given HERE.

Just a few pointers to key questions/ statements made in the youtube video.

27.44 Councillor Webb questions John Satchwell over any reported injuries suffered by members of the public concerning goose faeces in Sandwell.

Councillor Webb: “Thank you Chair. Question to the officers- Have there been any reported injuries of members of the public slipping on this faecal matter?”

John Satchwell : “NOT THAT I AM AWARE OF.”

28.53 question asked about any studies that SMBC have carried out regards laboratory evidence/proof of pathogens on the two parks in question.

IAN CARROLL: “I would like to again stress, and I can’t stress this fundamentally enough, this general licence was applied for by the council; only allows them to  do this method “to preserve public health and public safety”. Any issues regarding unsightliness, nothing to do with it whatsoever. Can I ask the officers, what laboratory evidence and analysis have Sandwell council undertaken of geese faeces on these two parks of pathogens present? Can you produce any factual evidence of pathogens in a laboratory report rather than just theoretical studies that you have found off the internet?”

John Satchwell: “THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION CHAIR IS “NO”.

30.47 question about biosecurity at Forge Mill farm where birds the council claim carry certain pathogens were introduced onto a site which breeds turkeys for public consumption which it sells as meat.

Ian Carroll

“If you didn’t screen the birds for any of the public health risks that you state (the geese) are capable of carrying, why did you introduce them onto a farm where you are actually rearing turkeys for the table to be sold at Christmas? Isn’t that a public health risk, isn’t it a biodiversity risk, and isn’t it a bio-security risk?

John Satchwell

“I would say no to that.”

Ian Carroll

“Well you’ve identified all of these pathogens present, but you are introducing them onto a farm  by relocating them where there are birds present for the human table, I would have thought that that is defeating your own argument there because if they are not harmful, you haven’t undertaken any laboratory evidence that they are harmful so therefore there isn’t any harm is there; that you’ve taken these birds to “preserve public health and pubic safety”, yet you’ve taken them to a farm where you’re serving birds for the table, for the public to buy and that strikes me as rather odd.

John Satchwell

“It is fair to say chair that the turkeys were bred in a controlled, a controlled, way that’s quite clear.”

WELL IS IT CLEAR?- DOES THIS MEAN THAT THE TURKEYS ARE BATTERY FARMED AND NOT FREE RANGE?

The Audible recording of the meeting can be heard by clicking on the link below.

VN850220

We are now in the midst of two things from looney Sandwell council and its obsession with exterminating geese from its two green flag parks, and be in no doubt that is their desired outcome of their green spaces staff and certain individuals who call themselves “friends” of these two particular areas.

The first is an attempt to show that public opinion is on their side, which it is not, and the second to use an ambiguously worded but leadingly biased “questionnaire” as an instrument to achieve this.

• HAS ANYONE ACTUALLY BEEN GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLETE ONE OF THESE INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONAIRES?
• THERE ARE CONCERNS THAT THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN OUT TO CERTAIN PEOPLE WITHIN THE FRIENDS OF GROUPS TO OF COURSE TARGET CERTAIN PEOPLE WHO WILL FILL THEM IN, AND NOT ALLOW ANYONE WHO DOES NOT AGREE WITH THEIR CULLING POLICY THE OPPORTUNITY.
• WHO IS UNDERTAKING THE DATA COLLATION OF THESE INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONNAIRES- IT SHOULD BE INDEPENDENT RESEARCHERS ONLY- NOT SANDWELL COUNCIL, AND NOT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHOM JOHN SATCHWELL CALLS “COLLEAGUES”.
• WHY HAS THE COUNCIL YET TO ADVERTISE THIS CONSULTATION PUBLICLY OR ON ITS OWN WEBSITE?

We are still of course to learn of Sandwell council’s evidence base , of which it could offer none when our petition was presented at the so called “scrutiny meeting”.

The response to this at the time from Adrian Scarrott and Steve Handley was a “Statement of purpose” draft policy framework– again an ambiguously worded nonsense which claimed it would continue with egg pricking and non-lethal methods of management, (whilst ignoring the fact that they had misused a general licence without evidence being proven of a risk to public health and safety). The penultimate paragraph of this consultation piece however read as follows-

“Wild Waterfowl Whilst The Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) makes it an offence to capture, kill or  injure any wild bird, or to damage or take their nests or eggs, there are exceptions to  this act. Therefore, should nonlethal control methods be ineffective or  impracticable, the Council may consider implementing lethal methods of control.  Any such control would take place subject to the conditions of a general licence or, if  required, subject to the conditions of an individual licence obtained from Natural  England. “

Over the Summer I awaited the consultation exercise of this document but it never came, none was ever put forward. I made phone calls to Adrian Scarrott’s secretary, who could offer me no advice on what had happened to this. Apparently he was to hold a meeting on with Maria Crompton in August but what came out of this is currently unclear.

The questionnaire with all its ambiguous questions has now been partially circulated, yet there is no mention of the previous draft policy document. There is also the problem with question 7

“Do you agree with SMBC policy on managing Canada goose populations?

The question I raised was “What is your policy?”

So imagine my surprise  when receiving a letter from John Satchwell attaching a new “statement of purpose”, which he claims is now council policy. Well how did that happen? When was this approved and who by, at what meeting, where was the consultation that the scrutiny committee recommended for consultation?

As  consultation on this document never happened how can this be the current policy of the council, without it being formally ratified?  Stranger still, the only change in what he is calling “council policy” is the omission of the offending penultimate paragraph talking about culling. So if a nameless person ratified this document then did they also dismiss this paragraph at the time, and where is the formal record of this at any meeting?

The whole thing smells like crap to me, but it is the latest in a series of blunders, denials and deliberate misinformation emanating from the same council department, and it’s time someone went.

The desired outcome no doubt is for those who oppose the cull to tick “yes” I agree with SMBC policy, yet I do not believe that this document is the council’s policy at all- for the lack of evidence of it ever being consulted upon, or formal process of it being ratified as policy. In his April 2013 culling report, the absence of the council’s formal policy is conspicuous by its absence- actually ratified in January 1997 at a formal meeting. This stated that egg pricking would be undertaken by the countryside rangers, though we know that it didn’t.

THIS AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED IS THE COUNCIL’S BOROUGH WIDE POLICY.

A new one for these two particular parks appears to be being formalised through subterfuge.

Below I have placed side by side the February drafted “draft statement of purpose”  on the left together with what Mr Satchwell is now terming “council policy”- though there appears no record of it ever being approved.

There are some slight changes as can be seen.

CLEARLY ABSENT FROM THE NEW “POLICY” IS THE OFFENDING PARAGRAPH PREVIOUSLY STATED. ONE CAN ONLY WONDER IF THE COUNCIL ARE ONCE AGAIN DELIBERATLEY TRYING TO MISLEAD OR CONFUSE PEOPLE WITH THESE TACTICS.

I HAVE IN CURRENTLY A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST WHICH WILL HOPEFULLY CLEAR THIS UP- BUT I AM NOT HOLDING MY BREATH – WE ARE AFTER ALL TALKING ABOUT SANDWELL COUNCIL.

A recent Freedom of information request has revealed the number of eggs and nests dealt with by Sandwell Council’s exterminators in 2015. This now gives a three year record of data which may tentatively lead to some basic conclusions about nesting habits and numbers of birds involved. Of course this would have been more complete if Sandwell council had kept official records when its countryside rangers were supposedly tasked with egg pricking from 1997, when the policy passed by the Leisure Committee in January of that year stated that they would be.

We do not believe this happened from either anecdotal evidence or direct evidence observed ourselves through goslings that had hatched. Many on Dartmouth park were actually ringed with BTO and darvic rings. This is irrefutable evidence that egg pricking was not taking place in these years as it was stated it would be. Consequently any increase in numbers can largely be blamed on Sandwell council’s own lack of following its own policy.

We asked as part of this request;

(i) I am requesting a list of Sandwell sites where egg pricking of Canada goose eggs was carried out in 2015, the number of nests identified and eggs pricked at each site.

The council replied with figures.

The tables below show the number of sites visited in 2015 which this year includes Forge Mill Nature Reserve where Pestex were observed and also Swan Pool. We also believe that Icehouse pool was also targeted, though there are no figures given here. Egg pricking on Nature reserve sites  is in itself worthy of discussion and we will look at some of the ramifications of this below. The figures for 2013 and 2014 are shown in a table below that for comparison.

DISCUSSION.

Firstly it is important to note that not all eggs hatch naturally, and would not be fertile when laid, so it would be disingenuous to state that all these eggs would have become new goslings. Some nests may have been abandoned already before egg sitting had commenced as fighting between pairs can occur. This does not limit other species to breeding successfully, indeed the egg prickers may disturb birds when setting foot on the islands. Goslings are also prone to be predated after hatching. Numerous other wildfowl successfully breed on all of the sites where Canada geese lay eggs.

The figures also prove that not all pairs of geese actually breed, and this is consistent with mute swan studies over many years where ringing has shown clear trends that only a small percentage of pairs ever produce young. It would be advantageous to ring the geese to ascertain clear evidence of laying pairs and where these birds actually attempted to nest. This would enter some science into the equation, rather than the black and white figures offered by the council which prove very little.

The counts of adult birds on the sites obviously outnumber the totals of nesting pairs. If the figures on Dartmouth park and Victoria park Tipton are to be believed for 2015 this amounts to just 30 breeding and nesting birds, 15 male and 15 female. Clearly the rest of the flocks at these sites never attempt to breed, and therefore many of them are likely to be none resident with no interest in breeding at all. This is important because the council appear to not distinguish between non breeding ‘migrant’ birds and resident breeding birds. Natural England guidance clearly makes a distinction, so the council would do better to take these statistics on board when considering blanket eradication. There is also no science in rounding up birds without determining their sex, or if they are actually breeding birds or not. Unfortunately the council appear to believe that all the geese are likely to breed, which is not what their own figures or expert opinion confirm.

“2.1 Canada geese can live up to 20 years of age and a pair of geese normally mates for life and can produce up to 100 goslings over that period.”

From report from Adrian Scarrott which is completely misleading.

The majority of the formal park sites have limited breeding appearing to take place over the three year period. This may effectively ensure no geese replace those which die on these sites, but it could also offer scope for others to fly in after the molt has ended. It could also encourage those unsuccessful birds to go elsewhere, including other parks where the council do not want them to go.

The increases in eggs at Dartmouth Park West Bromwich and Victoria park Tipton appear somewhat dubious to us. Having had occasion to go on both islands at Victoria Park, there was on one island only evidence of one nest. On the other island a pair of swans were nesting where the female unfortunately died. These eggs did not hatch. Neither did one of the pairs at Dartmouth Park, swan pool or icehouse pool which appears extremely suspicious.We hope the contractors are able to tell the difference between swan eggs and goose eggs when they encounter an “abandoned” nest!

At Dartmouth park two pairs of geese actually bred successfully producing 9 goslings which fledged. At Victoria Park, one pair produced 3 goslings, which were all presumed eaten by predators within a few days of hatching. Did the egg prickers deliberately leave these nests, or miss them?

Dartmouth park goslings 2015

This has been consistent with swanwatch observations over a number of years, where survival rates at Dartmouth park are fairly good, whereas predation is heavy at the Tipton site, most prominently through great black backed gulls.

The inclusion of two and we believe three of the other Sandwell Valley pools which are not formal parks but “Nature Reserves” has obviously been  included by the council this year with the rationale of reducing numbers gathering at Dartmouth Park. The Forge Mill numbers look eye watering, yet taking into account the high levels of predation likely at such a site they should not at all be taken as evidence that these eggs would have all survived to become adult geese. The experience is quite different. At Sheepwash nature Reserve this year a total of 40 goslings were noted, yet of these only 3 actually survived to fledge- the rest all being presumed predated. There was clear multiple evidence of crow predation witnessed. A similar scenario at Forge Mill is therefore highly likely. The figure of 6.4 eggs per nest at Forge Mill appears high and is in itself a food source to other birds and animals. One could therefore question the rationale of egg pricking at such sites, given the likelihood that natural predators are likely to eat hatched goslings, and that removing this food source may only reduce the food chain chances of “native” species.

Furthermore as we have pointed out before, if those birds that had their nests addled decided to leave the site and fly to Dartmouth Park for example, the council and their contractors have merely provided the scenario that they do not want to achieve in facilitating this themselves through their direct intervention.

The goose killers

Last year we achieved a total of 3,122 signatures on the online petition. This was a great way of raising the profile of the campaign and provided Sandwell council with something to think about, as well as bad publicity. It no doubt helped prevent a cull in 2015.

So with the threat towards our geese still present in the shape of a ludicrous questionnaire that the council do not appear to want to advertise, this is your opportunity to show YOU care.

Please sign the petition HERE.

Science over superstition, Truth over lies, diversity over prejudice.

SAVE OUR SANDWELL CANADA GEESE

IT’S ALL SHIT SHERLOCK!”

SADWELL MBC

PARKS AND GREEN SPACES SERVICES

We like to think Parks and Green spaces are important to the people of Sadwell. We need your support to help our work by completing this short questionnaire.

PEOPLE

Management Survey 2015

Organisation Survey

VICTORIA PARK TIPTON /DARTMOUTH PARK WEST BROMWICH

1) Do you consider People to be a problem within Victoria Park/Dartmouth Park?

Yes   Ο                                  No    Ο

2)Do People affect your ability to use Victoria Park/Dartmouth Park?

Yes    Ο                                   No   Ο

If yes please tell us why

—————————-

—————————-

—————————-

—————————–

PEOPLE

3) What do you think is an acceptable number of people to have within Victoria Park/Dartmouth Park?

under 10  Ο      11-20  Ο   21-30  Ο

31-40    Ο  41-50     Ο    50+    Ο      12,000+ at a bonfire display   Ο

4)What concerns you most about problems associated with People?

Their excrement/spittle/vomit/urine      Ο             Aggressive behaviour  Ο 

Large non native populations     Ο             The effect on the white elderly race  Ο 

Nuisance behaviour during your visit to the park  Ο       

Abhorrent treatment of birds and  animals  that live in the park    Ο 

5)Do you think that numbers of people should be managed within Victoria Park/Dartmouth Park?

Yes     Ο                    No      Ο 

6)How would you like to see Sadwell MBC manage large populations of People

(please tick)

Try to discourage public foodbanks     Ο 

Abortion of foetuses of breeding pairs  Ο 

Obstruct access to potential housing developments   Ο 

Controlled and humane culling (gas or shooting)    Ο 

Physical deterrents such as razor wire/dogs/armed police   Ο 

Ground level landmines and claymores    Ο 

White noise and waterboarding in detention camps wearing orange boiler suits  Ο 

“Re-location” of them to work camps  Ο 

8) Do you agree with SMBC Policy on managing populations of People?

Yes     Ο                   No    Ο 

If yes please tell us why?

—————————

——————————-

——————————

About your organisation

8)Name of organisation

9 Contact No

10) How many Canada Geese are involved in your organisation?

Way back in February we presented a petition to Sandwell Council against their decision to cull a reported 220 Canada geese in two of their green flag parks. As has been revealed through scrutiny of the councils actions, this decision was never one based on any scientific evidence that the birds posed a serious risk to human health.

Moreover not only was there NO EVIDENCE to support this, the council could not even remember its own policy or produce the report which informed it, including crucially the claim which supported theirs that would show an increase in goose numbers in Sandwell’s parks.  We dispute there has been an alarming increase in numbers at all, merely one of perception based on the council’s lies and posturing on its green flag status, backed up by bigots within certain “friends” groups and those selfishly engaged in amateur competitive sports.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT GOOSE NUMBERS HAVE INCREASED. THE COUNCIL STATE THIS AS FACT, YET CANNOT AS YET PROVE IT EVIDENTIALLY.

This in itself is not a valid lawful reason for carrying out a cull according to Natural England guidance, and certainly the council would need to demonstrate that the birds they would intend culling are resident and not merely transient in molting and then moving on to other areas.

IN THIS REGARD THE COUNCIL HAVE ALSO FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE WHICH CAN BE MEASURED TO FORM AN OPINION BASED ON SOUND SCIENCE. In February it was decided by a scrutiny board so bereft of any definition of the word to endorse a “statement of purpose” for consultation offered by the Head of Neighbourhoods and Director of Sreetscene, Adrian Scarrott and Steve Handley respectively. This was endorsed by the joint scrutiny board for health and neighbourhoods, and this is minuted by the council as a true record. From minutes of the joint neighbourhoods and health scrutiny board February 25th 2015

“The Board was therefore minded to endorse the draft Statement of Purpose as a basis for consultation and requested that the proposed framework for the consultation be submitted to a future meeting of the Board for endorsement, before submission to the Cabinet Member.”

Nothing appeared to have happened with this and no consultation materialised over the spring or summer months, whereby I finally received a response from Scarrott that there would be no goose culls this year. Imagine my surprise then this week to receive a questionnaire and letter purporting to be from John Satchwell, the architect of the cull and biased goose hater. One would have thought that the council would have not involved such a divisive figure, exposed as a serial liar and an officer who engages in making threats and provoking confrontations towards a campaigner who disagrees with his dogmatic hatred of wildlife in Sandwell’s parks. But this is Sandwell council, and they are not very bright.

Here is the letter below. Nothing much new, the same old lies and illusory correlation which as stated above they cannot support with evidence under scrutiny, but the “statement of purpose” appears to have mysteriously been ditched. Where was the meeting which dispensed with this, and who approved a questionnaire?

The other main point is that this now appears to be a two park issue rather than a borough policy issue, which only confuses what this council are trying to achieve. Satchwell’s involvement in these two parks, are too close for him to lead such an issue, and his bosses only serve to further tarnish their portfolios by involving this disgraced officer.

The council have not attempted to manage Canada goose numbers by methods suggested by Natural England. The council and their “partners” are frequent in quoting legislation and guidance from outside organisations to back their flimsy arguments, yet scrutiny of their claim does not stack up. We know through sources within the council that the countryside rangers, tasked with carrying out a two week egg pricking exercise in the 1997 policy report, did not do anything like this in the intervening years. Specifically they did not prick eggs at Dartmouth park.

Large numbers of creched goslings up to 40+ were ringed with red rings. The header photo used in our campaign is of goslings from this site in 2011. So their claim is a lie, written of course by a proven liar. Of course I would accept that he may have been misinformed that pricking was taking place by another proven liar in charge of parks and countryside services during this time.

When questioned on how many eggs had been pricked, Satchwell could yet again offer no recorded evidence to support the statement, which we know to be untrue. The numbers of course have not increased, if one is to believe that egg pricking was being carried out. As it is, the numbers have not increased significantly at all.   The council attempt to link our petition calling for action and investigation into Satchwell’s lies by claiming that this biased unscientific questionnaire is an attempt at quelling our concerns.

IT ONLY OF COURSE FUELS THEM.

For some reason I received 20 questionnaires relating to Victoria park and an identical one related to Dartmouth Park, complete with business reply envelopes to return to a council PO box number. This must be costing the taxpayer a fortune, and for very little reward. One has to wonder what exactly is going on with this questionnaire and there are widespread implications for fraud which we will look at below. Do individual members of the public have a voice for example, and why should any “group” be more important than one informed person? Moreover more worryingly, some of the supporters of SMBC have no regard whatsoever for wildlife.  

So the approved “statement of purpose” for some reason has been ditched for a junior school type popularity contest. If this is the level of standard within this council you can see why they should be in special measures. There is no end date of when the consultation finishes, which is concerning in itself.

By way of reminder here is what Councillor Maria Crompton stated in a letter to Animal Aid last year. One can only assume that her words were utter rubbish concerning informed decision making, and what we have instead is an avian “x factor” nonsense, where results can be manufactured to the council’s benefit.

The questionnaire itself could only be described as having been constructed by someone of less than GCSE standard, and that is probably an insult to some of the gifted kids in Sandwell perennially failed by a rubbish council. Worse than having very little input in terms of informed scientific evidence, it is the confirmation bias which is most troubling in that it is constructed to read exactly the way in which the council want a “consultation” to appear. This is that their approach is correct and the public support it.

Let’s analyse the questions in turn.

QUESTION 1

The term “problem” is not identified, nor why this one species should be more of “a problem” than any other. Instantly people are confronted with a yes/no choice that is not scaled.

QUESTION 2

Another yes/no question, but this time the council want elaboration from people who consider the geese cause them a disability in using the park. This information can of course be misused to suggest that the geese are causing a greater issue than they actually are with members of the public. Statements will no doubt be amplified by the pro cull council, whereas anyone who replies “NO” gets to make no other statement.

QUESTION 3

Out of all the questions, this is without doubt the most ludicrous and appears to confirm the amateurish designer’s lack of knowledge regards geese, their behaviour and different times of year when different numbers of geese will be present in parks.

The question is loaded in that it assumes that a number of geese should be identified above the number of any other wildfowl present at the site, yet if someone had answered “no” to both the first two questions, they are then met with this third one which they have little choice but to conform to the council’s biased idea that goose numbers must be controlled. The lack of knowledge suggests that this loony council will achieve a consensus number which people want and then justify any numbers above this to carry out a cull.

Such nonsense would clearly NOT comply with any licence for culling by Natural England. Public popularity is not an issue which they consider reasonable, and the council if acting on this would be acting unlawfully. The 10 number incremental gradation is also laughable, given that birds may well be present on islands, in the water, on the grass and none of them actually causing the public any harm whatsoever.

Counting geese is not causing people real harm and the council have still to justify a correlation between a single goose causing human health related issues let alone several more.

QUESTION 4

The council now resort to repeating and attempting to coerce people into ticking a box which they have pre identified as being “a problem” about the geese. Most of these are based on Satchwell’s lies within his original report, but it is an attempt to merely justify the lies by inciting public opinion to back them. Anyone who answered “NO” to the first question is left baffled by this one, yet there is no box provided to state that the respondent considers that the geese cause no problems and the council have got it wrong. The council have not proven that any of the “problems” that they identify actually exist with any scientific evidence.

In short we have refuted their claims about

“GOOSE EXCREMENT”

“AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR”

“LARGE POPULATIONS”

“THE EFFECT ON NATURE CONSERVATION”

“NUISANCE BEHAVIOUR DURING YOUR VISIT TO THE PARK”

Quite what the last response relates to is baffling given the numbers of anti social behaviour being carried out by humans in the two parks, including murder.

QUESTION 5

This question is ambiguous and could be misleading to respondents. It also provides a Hobson’s choice answer. Canada geese may be “managed” , but there is a major difference between answering “yes” and then agreeing to killing them off. If stating “No” they should not be managed this should not rule out egg pricking, but the results could be skewed to present such a black and white answer for the council.

QUESTION 6

This now assumes two things for the council which lead to bias. They state that there are “large numbers” of geese and tie it to how the council should “manage” them. This further confuses people who do not agree with either of these two statements, largely because the council fail to provide any recorded evidence to prove the statements. What population can be  described as “large”? It is also ignorant of the fact that the geese numbers vary by time of year, so are not as “large” at different times as others. The options are of cause crucial, yet there is a sinister non accidental placing of “Canada geese” written in white on green background immediately opposite the “controlled and humane culling” option.

QUESTION 7

Another ambiguous statement of yes or no. The policy of the council is still officially egg pricking, yet this we know has not been carried out. But in this context “the policy” may refer to their illegal misuse of a culling licence taking place in the two parks in 2013/14. So which option are respondents supposed to tick, and how do the council interpret this ambiguous badly worded question? They also invite a “praise” response for themselves whereas a “no” option In short if a greater majority of people tick “no” for questions 1, 2 and 5, their opinions will be given less imput than those who answer in a different way. THIS IS NOT FAIR AND SHOWS BIAS.

Aside from the biased questionnaire, we do not know which organisations have been sent these questionnaires or how many they have been given. One could be extremely pessimistic that the council has sent large numbers to organisations which back their culling policy such as “the friends of Dartmouth park.”

Such vote rigging does not inform policy it just corrupts it entirely. If this is to form the basis of the council’s decision on killing more geese then of course we will oppose it. As the council’s questionnaire appears biased and flawed in its apparatus, we of course encourage people who signed our petition as “SAVE OUR SANDWELL CANADA GEESE” to back our organisation and download the above questionnaires to return to Sandwell council. They were back to back copied for each park, and make sure to fill one out for each park. We would suggest the following answers.

Q1 “NO”

Q2 “NO”

Q3 “50+” You could also write a comment here regarding how this question shows poor understanding of bird movements.

Q4 ADD A BOX “NO PROBLEMS” or something similar.

Q5 “NO”  and add underneath “NOT BY KILLING HEALTHY ADULT BIRDS” or something similar just so the council are clear on your response.

Q6 The best option remains “pricking or oiling of the eggs of laying pairs.”

Q7 Please clearly state that you do not agree with killing adult birds

Finally please send your completed questionnaires to

LYNNE FLOYD

Street scene

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

PO BOX 2374

OLDBURY

B69 3DE

YOU COULD OF COURSE ALSO INCLUDE A LETTER TO GIVE SANDWELL COUNCIL YOUR INFORMED OPINION.

An important announcement in this campaign, now a year old since we learned of Sandwell council officers lies and deception and that this council had conspired to murder 220 geese in two of its green flag parks. This is unquestionably avian cleansing, at first denied with lies of “relocation” and then justified with smears that when questioned do not stand up to scrutiny, yet “no action” taken to look at the officer lies and deception or investigate it from Sandwell council’s so called “scrutiny” committee.

Pivotal to several sources of misinformation about the geese has been compiled by Sandwell’s Director of Neighbourhoods Adrian Scarrott. He has selectively released information on a drip feed basis in order to neutralise scrutiny of his department’s decisions and has wilfully delayed responses that I have asked for over several issues.

Principally he delayed sending out the independent investigators report (completed 11th February 2015), (sent out by him on 23rd March 2015) which confirmed that John Satchwell and others had admitted lying about the cull till after that same officer had been answering questions under scrutiny at our petition hearing (on 25th February 2015).

One would think it important that such an officer who admitted lying would be given a grilling by a scrutiny committee, but alas Scarrott and co assured that this key report was not released before this in order that he wouldn’t.

The latest stalling tactic involved a response to me asking  questions which I posed in an email dated 28th June 2015. Note that the council are supposed to respond within 20 working days, yet this has taken over two months just for this formal answer, dated 26th August 2015. I had previously asked the questions via telephone conversations with his secretary as well as other scrutiny officers who claimed to not have the answers. I don’t know who really does in this council because they appear to make it up as they go along, digging holes and then backpedalling in the hope that someone behind them has filled them in.

This is the response from Scarrott, which confirms that no geese will be killed this year.  I have of course heard this story before, and so I treat it with the scepticism and suspicion as should everyone else reading this should. What is also revealed is that for some reason the two parks in question and none of the others it seems are subject to a “consultation” on how geese are to be managed. Why these two parks have been singled out again is not revealed though of course it should be restated that the parks manager lives in one with his son as “project manager” of the other. It would be nice to believe that decisions were made on scientific evidence rather than family ties and nepotism, but I know that this is not the case with this local authority shambles.

A Freedom of information request for this report referred to stated that it could not be found. This I find impossible to believe and the reason stated for not keeping it questionable. That the council retains minutes, yet not the reports referred to within them appears highly unlikely. Reports are usually found within the council minutes.

The letter includes the minutes from January 13th 1997. It was around this time that reports in the local media suggested a cull of geese, and myself amongst others wrote to the council at the time receiving this response from Paul Cosgrove. This stated that the council would be continuing with egg pricking. “It has at no time been the Local Authority’s intention to pursue any other policy..”

It should be noted that as revealed in this post that Chairman of the Leisure committee at the time was Friar Park Councillor Geoff Lewis– an angler. That the committee decided to try and convince people of “the problems caused” by the birds is also perhaps not surprising given that they obviously spoil the fishing of his mates.

• What is revealed here is that egg pricking was accepted as the method for controlling the goose numbers- and therefore formed Council policy.
• That it would be the task of Sandwell’s countryside rangers to prick the eggs on Sandwell’s sites.
• That this work would be undertaken during a two week period over a number of years.

The second paragraph needs to be explored in detail. In the absence of the report it would appear that the only method of noting “alarming” increase in flock numbers would be to have undertaken some form of count at each site. In the absence of the report we conveniently do not have such numbers, which of course allows this council to speculate that the numbers have increased. THEY HAVE NOT. Indeed how could they IF the countryside rangers had been carrying out egg pricking during a two week period over several years?

If the council thought they were being clever here in trying to argue that they have not in fact breached their existing policy, then they have once again shot themselves in the foot by not being able to produce a report which justifies the caveat which they may now be relying on. I would hope the Local Government Ombudsman is not so easily hoodwinked by a change of policy without consultation, as has been admitted by Sandwell’s monitoring officer, Neeraj Sharma.

• There is no mention of this report or the minutes of this committee at all in John Satchwell’s 2013 report entitled “options for the reduction in Canada geese numbers in Urban parks”,
• No mention of it in Adrian Scarrott/Steve Handley’s rebuttal of our petition
• No mention of it in the information supposedly relayed by the council to the so called “independent investigator” who found that the council had supposedly followed a process- when in fact they had not followed their existing policy.

The only conclusion one can draw from this is that the report, whoever wrote it, had been forgotten.

The last sentence states “consideration be given to the total removal and human dispatch of those flocks.”

This is absolute nonsense. Why would “the total removal” be justified in an increase in numbers? This is clear extermination of an entire species without justification, and could not be supported by the general licences that Natural England supposedly govern. There appears to be little understanding of goose movements or behaviour by the author of the report and by the councillors on this committee.

The third minute of this report basically involves council taxpayer funded propaganda for tackling Lewis’ spoilt fishing days out.

So once again it is time to gear up for confrontation with Sandwell council concerning potential goose culls in 2016. We need your support as do the geese. We need to be ready when the council come out with the wording of their “consultation” and respond to it that no culls of adult birds will be acceptable.

So Western Super sludge has “Dismaland” well  it’s not a patch on a much wider theme park known as “Sadwell”. The theme is mainly animal excrement mixed with toxic waste and sport. It’s free to enter and the visitor numbers are up, unfortunately meaning that the number of houses being built is taking over every blade of disappearing grass available.

AREA SL31

A chemical waste disposal site located next to a newish housing development. Poisoned birds a speciality.

LANGLEYLAND

An extensive piece on this themed area can be read HERE. The Red zone comprises several chemical factories with a record of extensive fires. Gas masks are provided on request. Please be aware that this site may not be suitable for people with heart conditions or small children and pregnant women. Gaze in awe at the number of species at The Fly tip reserve. Stop for a tipple at the half demolished Bridge pub and view the derelict Langley Maltings in all its glory.

NELSON’S COLOSTOMY BAG

Yes somewhere in there is a five pound note. Can you find it and be a bingo champion?

THE PUBELICK

A £72 million bent college deal in the making. How a barmy “arts centre” idea moneybox kept being fed until it burst. Plenty of empty shops to look at in nearby Ghostbrom.

THE MAGIC ROUNDABOUTS 

Marvel at the “award winning” Birchley island in all its “attractive” glory.

Yes if you want a jolly day out it’s “NO SHIT SHERLOCK”. Just don’t bring your dog because it may be donated to a local foodbank.

THE DAILY FART

ZOMBIE JOURNALIST ATE MY HAMSTER.

THEY ARE HERE, AND TIS THE “SILLY SEASON” TO BE JOLLY.

In the latest in a series of unprovoked attacks sweeping Britain, my hamster was yesterday eaten by a zombie journo. Starved of suitable diet, the wide eyed hacks have in recent weeks been turning into bloodcurdling simpletons walking the streets at night, haranguing people in shopping centres and stalking celebrities for their stories.

Research has shown that the ZJ’s as they are known are particularly fond of small animals at this time of year, and so it was with great sadness that our Freddy was cruelly snatched whilst in his plastic ball outside on the front lawn. He was downed in one, head first.

Fred the Ted as he was known became a national treasure after auditioning in Britain’s Got Talent playing the ukulele.

Prime minister David Cameron called an emergency Cobra meeting to discuss the escalation  during the parliamentary recess, just stopping short of a recall which experts predict may end the invasion of the swarming menaces and also emphasised that we need a “big conversation” on how the ZJ’s operate in public places.

A resistance led by West Bromwich West Labour Deputy Leader contender Tom Watson has mobilised to counter the parasites which can cause serious damage to human health. Support for a cull is growing, but unfortunately the ZJ’s are protected by laws which mean it is an offence to disturb or kill them whilst typing, vox popping , or surrounding a target.

page 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 TITS, TITS, AND MORE TITS.

OK so that was total bullshit, but in recent weeks there have been a slew of attack gull stories, which follow on before from stories concerning fox attacks and also badger attacks. The pattern is by now familiar.

*Hysterical person reports a story- damage to property, a pet “eaten”

*More hysterical people report similar stories because they are deemed “newsworthy”.

*Politicians start making statements after being asked to by those trying to fill pages with comments to keep the story going.

*A species is smeared and inevitable attacks on them follow which are also then reported.

This year its the turn of gulls, and there are talk of culls. Next year it could be cats. In the past it has been dogs- which led to one of the weakest kneejerk and ill thought out pieces of legislation in recent history.

One can only hope that Canada geese escape the wrath, but with councils like Sandwell and many others internationally declaring war on a species which is far less harmful than man, it is up to those who know them to fight their corner and rebut the media driven drivel.

“We receive numerous complaints from families with young children complaining about the mess they leave and their aggressive behaviour during the breeding season.”

From Press statement from Maria Crompton  August 2014- Cabinet member for environment and highways Sandwell MBC, and goose culler.

A long title, but a simple yes or no answer will suffice. The question appears to be answered in a well buried report on Sandwell council’s CMIS website. This is the virtual burial ground for such matters that the council think that no one will be bothered to read, except anorak types and perhaps a passing journo who might actually want to take them to task instead of just printing off verbatim their press releases- as Sandwell council are accustomed to in these parts.

On 30th March 2015 the sub committee of the standards committee met to discuss two items. Neither the attendance, declarations of interest or visitors have yet been recorded on the page, but the minutes of the meeting have been.

I would like to stress from the outset that the referral of Councillor Crompton to this committee had absolutely nothing to do with myself, but a member of the public who felt disgusted that her statements particularly in the press had been used to justify a cull, which later when the same person asked a freedom of information request of the council appeared to contradict the information which Crompton had reported as facts of the case. I believe that the person making the complaint was fully justified in doing so, but of course as this is Sandwell and has a domination of Labour members, they are not going to bring to book one of their own.

The complainant brought the matter to the attention of Sandwell’s monitoring officer, Neeraj Sharma, who decided that there was no case to answer in her opinion regards Crompton’s statements. Members of the council are subject to a code of conduct, which was recently updated following some extremely embarrassing gaffes by other councillors who failed to declare interests. It is interesting to note that the monitoring officer appears to believe that they did no wrong either, even though making false declarations is a criminal offence, it states so on the actual forms they are supposed to complete. The complainant has the right of appeal to refer the matter to the standards committee, and duly this was referred.

The matter before the members related to an allegation of conduct which if proved could constitute a breach of paragraph 12(6) the Members’ Code of Conduct. This states that a member, when acting as a member does not conduct herself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing their office or authority into disrepute.  

Meeting to discuss this issue Councillors Ahmed, Dhallu, A Hughes and Lewis. Councillor Lewis as chair asked if he should declare an interest concerning being the former head of leisure concerning goose egg pricking. Given Lewis’ angling interests, it is quite clear that he is not particularly appreciative of either wildfowl or those who care about them. I state this from personal experience, given that several years ago he challenged me concerning the statements that I had made with respect to how angling in Sandwell was badly affecting wildfowl. He asked me for “evidence”, to which I produced a 62 page report outlining just how much it was affecting wildfowl in Sandwell on a site by site basis, also collecting a measured 2 miles of fishing line from Sandwell’s grotty poolsides.  Perhaps I will look at this in another blog post in the future, but surprise surprise, I never heard  from him again, on receipt of this irrefutable evidence of harm that his fellow fishermen  were causing birds.

We would note however that during Councillor Lewis’s chairmanship of the leisure committee, he may have approved of the pricking of goose eggs, but DID NOT APPROVE A POLICY OF ADULT GOOSE CULLING- ONE COULD ASK WHY, AND WHAT HAS APPARENTLY CHANGED IN THAT REGARD SINCE HIS CHAIRMANSHIP?

“Not for Publication Exempt information relating to any individual The information contained in this report is strictly confidential and in accordance with the appropriate Codes of Conduct, must not be disclosed to unauthorised persons”

The outline of this meeting is described, with some relevant links provided.

“4/15 Request for Review The Sub-Committee was advised that in accordance with the Council’s arrangements for dealing with allegations of breaches of the Member Code of Conduct, the Monitoring Officer, on 6th March 2015, considered a complaint received from a member of public with regard to the conduct of Councillor Maria Crompton. The Monitoring Officer had decided to take no action in respect of the complaint. The complainant and the subject member were notified of this decision and the reasons for the decision.

The complainant had subsequently submitted a written request for a review of the decision of the Monitoring Officer. The Sub-Committee considered the details of the complaint, which alleged that Councillor Crompton had been dishonest in a press release; an article on the Council’s website and a personal response to a letter stating that the culling of geese in Sandwell parks was due to repeated complaints. However, a Freedom of Information request by the complainant had revealed that eight written complaints had been received over a five year period.

If the allegation was proven, this could constitute a breach of paragraph 12(6) of Part 1 of the Members’ Code of Conduct.  The SubCommittee also considered the Monitoring Officer’s response and the complainant’s request for a review. The Sub-Committee took into account the assessment criteria approved by the Standards Committee for dealing with complaints about member conduct and the comments from an independent person appointed by the Council to advise on standards matters.

The Sub-Committee carefully considered the matter and concluded that the member was acting in her official capacity. The Sub-Committee took into consideration that the Cabinet Member was confirming information supplied to her by officers which was made in good faith and that a number of verbal complaints by members of the public and Park Wardens had not been included as part of the written complaints received.

The Sub-Committee did not feel therefore that there had been a breach of the Members’ Code of Conduct and endorsed the views of the Monitoring Officer.  The Sub-Committee further concluded that, all complaints, including verbal complaints, should be logged onto the system to show an accurate number of complaints received and logged by the Council.

Resolved that, in relation to the conduct of Councillor Maria Crompton, the Sub-Committee uphold the findings of the Monitoring Officer, and that no further action be taken.

   ” The key statement made in this blurb is the one below. “The Sub-Committee took into consideration that the Cabinet Member was confirming information supplied to her by officers which was made in good faith and that a number of verbal complaints by members of the public and Park Wardens had not been included as part of the written complaints received.”

The term “made in good faith” could imply that the councillor was just acting on statements made to her by officers, and that these officers had made statements which were later not as robust as they appeared when uttered by the councillor in question.  In this case it appears to suggest that the officers may not have been as accurate and informative with sound information as previously suggested. Some of the information put forward in letters to myself and in interactions in the media and written in her name have been priceless.

• The statement “We receive numerous complaints from families with young children and the mess they leave behind and their aggressive behaviour during the breeding season.”  Letter dated 14th August 2014.

This was of course not supported in the freedom of information request from the complainant- 8 complaints in 5 years- 2 per year and none in one year at all. This is not “numerous”.

• The idea that Muscovy ducks would be added to Sandwell’s pools after Canada geese had been culled- thus illegally replacing a non native species with another non-native species- Letter dated   14th August 2014. This at first was put forward as one of the reasons for culling.
• “The increase in numbers has had a detrimental impact on other waterfowl.”

There is no evidence of this, and this is not the reason why the council supposedly carried out the cull for reasons to “protect public health and public safety”.

A Canada goose and a Muscovy duck that someone has illegally released

• ““There was clear evidence that the damage they caused and the mess they left behind was a constant source of complaint by visitors…..“ Letter from Crompton to Animal Aid dated January 14th November 2014

As previously stated there is no “clear evidence” of complaints to the council- we know that only 8 were made in these two parks in the last 5 years, and are likely to be complaints from the same individuals- source Sandwell council in an FOI request.

• The inaccurate longevity of Canada geese as “Knowing the age geese live to approximately 25-30 years”  

, an important point when the authority is trying to argue that the birds have no predators and live and breed for their entire lives, which is nonsense in itself. The British Trust for ornithology record  of this species confirms her statement to be false and misleading.

• Her performance in a radio interview on Radio WM immediately after the cull story had broken.

In this interview she…..

• was unable to state how the birds had been culled, yet later her officers appear to have found out that their necks had been broken, despite them not being present to witness this themselves.
• appeared to admit that officers had lied to myself, but offering no apology or explanation as to why this had happened.
• Appearing to know nothing about Matt Darby sending me pictures of geese being illegally  released from his .GOV email account.

It has been seen that several officers of the council lied concerning the goose cull, so are we to really believe the council’s claims that a number of complaints were made verbally, which they did not record? I wonder who- with a vested personal interest in getting rid of geese in his back yard could have exaggerated the number of verbal complaints?  Or were the 8  whinging old bastard gloom and doom merchants who hate geese the same who told  tales of woe to every park ranger that would listen?

The point is that with some people such fixated issues reveal that the problem is really them- because they have mental health issues. Below are relevant extracts from the then code of conduct enacted in 2012. I would note the following points in section V “Expectations of conduct.”

“Members  shall at all times conduct themselves in a manner which will intend to maintain and strengthen the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of the authority and never take any action which would bring the Authority, or its members or officers generally, into disrepute”

and also the previously mentioned section 12 (6)

“Do not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or your authority into disrepute. “

Prior to the complaint being taken to the standards committee, this is the letter sent to the complainant by monitoring officer Neeraj Sharma, the officer supposedly in charge of ensuring that members respect and do not breach the members code of conduct. The letter in itself reveals some new information which will be discussed below.

Theses 3 points from Sandwell’s chief legal officer confirms that the council

• DID NOT ACCURATELY RECORD COMPLAINTS
• CONSULT ON POLICY CHANGE
• BASED ITS ENTIRE CHANGE OF POLICY ON STATEMENTS MADE BY ITS OWN OFFICERS WHICH WE HAVE CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN TO BE MISLEADING AND DISHONEST.

That councillor Crompton repeated her officer lies only calls into question her judgement to hold this office. In Governmental terms she has collective responsibility  in her portfolio area. If civil servants lie, the politician has to go. This has not happened, and neither did Sandwell councillors so called scrutiny committee see fit to investigate their officers lies, or the wider points made by their chief legal officer.

One can only assume from this, that this council from the top down receives poor advice from its officers, which is repeated by councillors who do not have the brain to question them. Or is it just plain joint corruption?