Standing Up for Rural Workers: MA Submits Complaint about Friends of the Dales to the Charity Commission
Quick summary
The Moorland Association has complained to the Charity Commission about trustee oversight of Friends of the Dales’ campaign.
We are concerned about how evidence was presented and the risks to gamekeepers, rural workers and their families.
The charity’s trustees gave assurances in April but have not substantively answered two follow-up letters.
We want proportionate corrective action, and our complaint and all ten annexes are available to read.
The Charity Commission has recently condemned the intimidation directed at RNLI staff and volunteers. Its Chair, Dame Julia Unwin, has stressed the need to distinguish powerful disagreement from harassment and abuse.
Gamekeepers, rural workers and their families deserve the same seriousness of consideration when concerns about intimidation are raised.
That principle also matters when concerns arise about the effects of a charity’s own campaigning. Trustees should be able to explain how they considered reported hostility, assessed the evidence and decided what safeguards were appropriate.
The Moorland Association has now submitted a formal complaint to the Charity Commission about trustee oversight of Friends of the Dales’ “Eyes on the Skies” campaign. We have asked the regulator to examine unresolved questions about the presentation of evidence, risks to lawful workers and their families, and the trustees’ response after those concerns were brought to their attention.
The RNLI events illustrate a principle we believe should apply consistently.
The people behind the public debate
Gamekeepers and other rural workers are people doing lawful jobs within communities where they and their families live. Public allegations can have consequences beyond the individual being discussed.
Our March complaint included a reported account of a Yorkshire Dales gamekeeper facing verbal abuse and threats of violence after asking visitors to put a dog on a lead. One visitor reportedly referred to a Friends of the Dales webinar and described gamekeepers as “all evil criminals”.
There is an existing background of occupational abuse. Professor Simon Denny’s 2025 report, drawing on information from gamekeepers on 58 English grouse moors, recorded more than 1,000 threats, more than 1,500 insults and 30 keepers physically assaulted during one year.
Those findings predate the webinars and do not establish any contribution by Friends of the Dales. They explain why concerns about hostility towards lawful workers and their families warrant attention.
We first sought answers directly
Members may recall our March update, “Why We Have Written to Friends of the Dales”.
Our complaint of 20 March asked the charity’s trustees to review the campaign, including its webinars and related material. We asked how contentious claims were checked, how publication was approved and how risks to local workers were considered.
Chair Jonathan Riley replied on 30 April. He said the Board had considered our concerns, adopted a rigorous approach and was satisfied that the campaign furthered the charity’s conservation purposes. He also rejected the suggestion that the campaign would foreseeably increase hostility, harassment or community division.
On 1 May, we asked for an explanation of the processes behind those assurances, making clear that we sought a summary of the checks and decisions applied.
Following a further webinar in May, we wrote again on 12 June. We asked what review had taken place after our earlier concerns, including any speaker briefings, moderation guidance, risk assessment or arrangements for clarification and correction.
Neither follow-up has received a substantive response. Both explained that unresolved concerns might be referred to the Commission.
Education and campaigning require care with evidence
Charities are entitled to campaign and seek changes in the law.
Describing a webinar as educational does not answer questions about how its evidence was selected and presented. Audiences should be able to distinguish established facts, disputed interpretations and the speaker’s preferred policy. They should also understand material uncertainties that could affect the conclusions they draw.
Our concern is whether trustees ensured those distinctions were clear, particularly where local estates or workers could be implicated. Individual wrongdoing should not become an assumption about an entire profession.
Our complaint identifies webinar passages referring to missing hen harriers disappearing close to grouse moors or estates. We have asked whether trustees considered what audiences might infer, whether local estates or workers could be identified and what caveats or explanations were needed.
We have also asked about the campaign webpage’s description of “152 confirmed incidents of raptor persecution”. The question is whether its wording accurately reflects the underlying evidence, definitions and geographical scope. We are seeking scrutiny of those checks; we have not presented the figure as demonstrably false.
What we want the Commission to examine
We have asked the Commission to consider:
What information and reasoning supported the trustees’ rejection of the suggested risk of increased hostility.
How they considered the reported incident and whether further enquiries were appropriate.
What review of risks and safeguards occurred before the May webinar.
Whether the public claims identified accurately reflect their supporting evidence.
Where shortcomings are identified, we seek proportionate corrective action: clarification or correction where warranted, effective evidence checks, appropriate editorial oversight and safeguards against unfair personal targeting.
Our aim is to help protect gamekeepers, rural workers and their families from unfair implications of wrongdoing and foreseeable hostility. We have offered to help the Commission hear directly from affected workers and, with their agreement, family members.
Read the evidence for yourself
Our formal complaint and all ten supporting annexes are available below. They include our correspondence with Friends of the Dales, the charity’s response, the research and campaign material cited, and the relevant Charity Commission statements and guidance.
Members can therefore read the evidence and both organisations’ positions for themselves.
We remain willing to resolve the outstanding issues constructively and will update members when there is a substantive development.
