Conservative MPs have criticized the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), accusing it of using allegations of the government’s attack on nature as a “marketing strategy”.
It owns The Birds Charity, one of the oldest and most respected environmental organizations in the UK Join another biggest environment in the country NGOs, including the Wildlife Trusts and the National Trust, to condemn plans to create investment zones – which would weaken environmental protection – and to do away with nature-friendly agricultural subsidies after Brexit.
They have been encouraging supporters to pressure Tory MPs over these proposals, which they say strike at the heart of protecting the environment and wildlife. Charities Campaign Members are asked to contact their conservative deputies to leave them without a doubt opposing proposals.
But MPs have responded to voters by criticizing the RSPB, which has issued a popular call to action to its 1.2 million members.
Derek Thomas, a Conservative MP for St Ives, has accused Birds of Charity of making “incorrect claims” in order to bolster its mailing lists.
One voter, who emailed his response to the Guardian, told: “CTAs (calls to action) are part of many charities’ marketing strategy; by asking you to write, they increase their interaction with their charity (not to mention your contact details) , all at no cost to yourself. Many of them have found that letter writing calls to action add more numbers to their mailing list than calls to action that ask for donations. The genius of this marketing strategy is that the claims you complain about shouldn’t to be correct.
“And there is absolutely no truth to the RSPB’s allegations that the government is waging an attack on nature.”
Other MPs suggested to their constituents that the RSPB had set out to “make the people angry”.
Sir Bill Wiggin, MP for North Herefordshire, responded to one voter with the comment: “I would like to assure you that allegations that the Government is backing away from its commitments to our agricultural or nature reforms are wholly untrue.
“Often rumors or campaigns are designed to annoy the good people, but fortunately they are not true.”
And Mike Wood, MP for Dudley South, sent an angry letter about the Birds Charity to one of his constituents.
He wrote, “I don’t know if the RSPB really misunderstood what was being suggested or if they were mischievous, but either way, their thread of tweets is complete nonsense,” adding that the charity was “completely irresponsible” to make these claims.
Greg Clark, MP for Tunbridge Wells, was more moderate in his response: “I think one or two organizations in this area have jumped somewhat in expressing great alarm without seeing what is being proposed for investment areas, and the content that has yet to be published. “.
Despite these claims from MPs, the government has yet to adhere to specific laws that exist to protect wildlife from development, or to conserve nature funding in the Environmental Land Management Scheme. The environment minister, Ranil Jayawardena, tried to reassure the public by saying he was committed to a “strong environment” but made no political commitments.
campaign head wild animals The Trusts, Kaye Brennan, said they were upset by the MPs’ responses.
She said, “That’s what they’ve said so far. The RSPB are ‘liars’, this is all just a ‘communications issue’, and well-established and respected green charities are ‘making all of this’ to create ‘hysteria’ to force a ‘membership surge’ away from people’s fears.”
“Fortunately, I can refute. It is in no one’s interest to do this shit. We [already] You have enough to do.
Calling the RSPB and other NGOs ‘liars’ is disgusting as is a disgraceful response from an elected representative of his constituents.
An RSPB spokesperson said: “So far we haven’t heard anything from the UK government that has addressed our concerns despite ample opportunities for reassurance. It’s the specifics that really matter here. Having an environment bill with strong targets is a great start, but if you scrap the underlying mechanisms and protections. Through which these goals are achieved, they are basically meaningless.
“So, for example, we urgently need to know if the UK government will commit to maintaining key nature protection in UK law’s habitat regulations after December 2023, while not weakening protection.
“A healthy environment is integral to a healthy economy; an uncontrolled environment will set the economy up for failure. Without these detailed assurances, UK government announcements continue to be an attack on nature.”
The Ministry of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said it had no comment.