When Evidence Turns into Ideology: Why We Must Call Out Natural England’s Bias

Andrew Gilruth
Sep 10
3 min read

Rural communities, keepers and fire services stand on the frontline of wildfire risk. We provide the kit, the training and the boots on the ground when wildfires break out. Yet the very people who rely on us for safety are now undermining us, and worse, doing so on the back of so-called “impartial” science.

Natural England’s recent report on heather burning was presented to Defra as neutral and scientific. It was used to justify the latest wave of restrictions on controlled burning. But what one of its authors, Alistair Crowle of Natural England, has said in public shows just how deeply ideology has infected the process.

The exchange that says it all

When the Government’s burning ban was announced, the Moorland Association posted our concerns online:

What followed was revealing.

Alistair Crowle, a named contributor to NEER155, commented:

“I think future generations will wonder what the hell was going on in the first place, with so-called moorland management.”

Owen Williams, speaking for the wider public, asked the real questions:

Who will help Fire & Rescue Services tackle wildfires when estates sell off their fire kit?
What happens to the NFCC training keepers currently provide on safe ATV and firefighting equipment use?
How will regional wildfire groups rewrite their risk assessments without the local skills, knowledge, and equipment that keepers bring?
Will mowing actually work as an alternative?
If so, what evidence compares mowing with burning and no management?
Why have NE and Defra ignored repeated wildfire warnings from professionals like Marc Castellnou?
Has any GIS modelling shown that “rewetting” can suppress heather dominance at scale and make uplands fire-resilient?
How exactly would you “rewet” the Carrbridge wildfire site, where recent prescribed burns were the only green, fire-resilient strips?

The response? Dismissal, not answers

Crowle brushed this off:

“lots of stuff there and it is difficult to know where to begin, or even if it is worth beginning.”

He then declared:

“Any management that maintains the status quo is not sustainable.”
“Prescribed burning perpetuates the problem.”
Overseas fire experts are “unhelpful” because of different climates.
Some of the wildfire world, he claimed, is driven by “brute force machismo” rather than “data or understanding.”

Not one of Owen’s detailed wildfire questions was answered. Instead, we got ideology, dismissal, and insults.

Why this matters

This isn’t just an online spat. It reveals the truth about how policy is being made.

Predetermined conclusions - declaring that prescribed burning “perpetuates the problem” is a political position, not impartial science.
Contempt for engagement - saying it may not even be “worth beginning” a discussion with land managers and wildfire practitioners shows disdain, not dialogue.
Sneering at professionals - mocking wildfire experts as “macho” disrespects those who risk their lives to keep the public safe.
Contradiction of remit - Natural England’s own lawyers have admitted:

“Our role is not to advise Government, other public bodies, those managing land or anyone else on health and safety or fire safety.”

Yet here is a NE author opining freely on wildfire, firefighting and fuel management. Areas where NE openly admits it has no authority.

Enough is enough

This episode confirms what rural communities have long suspected: decisions are being driven not by impartial evidence, but by entrenched ideology inside Natural England. That ideology is now being written into regulation.

This undermines:

The neutrality of Natural England’s review of heather burning (NEER155)
The legitimacy of Defra’s consultation, which relied on it
The credibility of Natural England as an honest scientific adviser

The Moorland Association is calling for:

An independent review of NEER155 and its authorship.
A formal investigation into breaches of impartiality standards by Natural England staff.
A halt to reliance on NEER155 for policymaking until its neutrality is independently verified.
A clear separation of ecological advice from fire safety and wildfire policy, where Natural England has no remit.

What you can do

This is a fight for fairness, respect and the future of our uplands. We need every voice.

Report it - if you see Natural England staff making comments on fire safety or wildfire policy, areas outside their legal remit, please send them to us at press@moorlandassociation.org. Screenshots, links, or transcripts.
Raise it - write to your MP. Demand impartial evidence, not biased ideology, in policymaking.
Share it - spread this message. Show the public what’s really happening behind the headlines.

Stand with us

When evidence turns into advocacy, when neutrality collapses into ideology and when those with no remit start writing fire policy, we cannot stay silent.

Report bias. Demand accountability. Defend our moorlands.

📧 Stay updated on all moorland issues - sign up for our free Newsletter.