Chris Packham CBE (1 Viewer)

[PYRTLE]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, surely. Let's not gang up eh just because someone asks a question which some may find awkward.
Thank you.
P

 

[Farnboro John]

I have no issue with who pays him what, or where he lives.
To me there seems a blindness to some of his weird attitudes in conservation.
He is outspoken and passionate, but he seems to have had a "its only worth conserving, if I think its worth conserving" view.
The outstanding example of this is his attitude to the Giant Panda, I seem to remember him saying that he'd happily eat the last one alive if the money spent on its conservation was redistibuted to more worthy causes.
The nene is lucky he thinks it more worthy, or he's not hungry.

On the other hand, there is a heap of good supporting evidence for those causes he espouses so I don't disagree with the gong, but he does seem to have his faults too.

People have issues with the RSPB as well but in general even they would admit it does a ton of good work. We'd miss it if it wasn't there!

Funnily enough I kind of agree with what Chris said about the Giant Panda: its an animal that needs an enormous amount of space with very specific habitat requirements and breeding biology that is enough to make anyone tear their hair out. The Chinese have cracked the last issue in captivity and can churn out Giant Pandas in large quantities, but they haven't anywhere to put them and are never likely to.

However it's clear to me that what Chris really meant was that giving all the attention to a species because it looks good according to some meaningless human system of aesthetic values is no way to judge the conservation requirements of an ecosystem. Or the world. I don't think for a minute he was actually anti-panda, or had it confused with antipasti.

John

 

[trw]

For goodness sake, he's been at the top of his game for decades during which he's been in numerous programmes as a high profile TV personality/presenter, has written books, has written the odd bit of journalism and has had the chance to earn money in other ways so it's not surprising that he has got a pleasant house in a nice place (which, for all we know, may have been run down when he bought it) but what the hell does it matter? Frankly, how much he may have earnt over the years, where and how he lives is totally insignificant compared to his role in promoting and campaigning for conservation (on which he spends a good deal of his own cash). So bravo Chris Packham!

Couldn't agree more John.
Well done Chris. You deserve it.

 

[pppppvvvv]

Can't imagine he's made enough to buy that cottage from what you describe Pat. Maybe family money or his wifes?

No enmity towards the bloke, I quite like him, just curious.

Which one? The New Forest cottage, or the one in France?

 

[mark clements]

People have issues with the RSPB as well but in general even they would admit it does a ton of good work. We'd miss it if it wasn't there!

Now, there's a real tricky path to walk.:t:

 

[dantheman]

The shooting fraternity etc must love it - some bloke doing good/excellent stuff for conservation and we're all questioning it/arguing about whether he is entitled to the house he has. Give us a break!

It really is kind of irrelevant where he got his money from, unless there's a question of impropriety/syphoning of charitable funds, which don't think there is any question of?!!

Presumably John C is right in that he earnt it - endorsements, speaking fees etc etc. as anyone at the top in any field does. (Although obviously as a conservationatist he should be wearing sackcloths and living in a hovel). But he may have inherited his money, his partner could have, or he could have sold a manky bit of property in a central london location and moved to the country. I couldn't care less to be honest!!!

And tbh, whilst people are entitled to their opinions (or to troll), it's a bit sad. Maybe we should do a rich list of all those involved in conservation and the various fields of wildlife filming, biology, ecology etc and moan about them too, instead of being a tad grateful for what they have actually achieved ...

 

[Andy Adcock]

The shooting fraternity etc must love it - some bloke doing good/excellent stuff for conservation and we're all questioning it/arguing about whether he is entitled to the house he has. Give us a break!

It really is kind of irrelevant where he got his money from, unless there's a question of impropriety/syphoning of charitable funds, which don't think there is any question of?!!

Presumably John C is right in that he earnt it - endorsements, speaking fees etc etc. as anyone at the top in any field does. (Although obviously as a conservationatist he should be wearing sackcloths and living in a hovel). But he may have inherited his money, his partner could have, or he could have sold a manky bit of property in a central london location and moved to the country. I couldn't care less to be honest!!!

And tbh, whilst people are entitled to their opinions (or to troll), it's a bit sad. Maybe we should do a rich list of all those involved in conservation and the various fields of wildlife filming, biology, ecology etc and moan about them too, instead of being a tad grateful for what they have actually achieved ...

What a massive, ridiculous over reaction to a fairly inane question which was out of nothing more than curiosity.

Where did I or anyone anyone question his right to own the property and where did I 'moan'. About three people here arguing and making a fuss of which you're one. You made one of your usual, flippant comments abdout me and the Daily Mail, you're the one twisting words and interpreting those of others so you can be outraged. You omit to mention another post where I say I quite like him, but it clearly doesn't fit your agenda to mention that does it.

He's not a member of the Rolling Stones and I'd have thought he would be quite low on the BBC payscale so I was surprised to see his property, no more than that but carry on being outraged and making a scene, it's what you like to do.

Yes it is sad, from the little band of snowflakes on here, who can always be counted on to leap on the most innocent of comments and twist it to suit their own agenda.......move along, nothing to see here, I won't justify my curiosity to you or anyone else.

 

[dantheman]

What a massive, ridiculous over reaction to a fairly inane question which was out of nothing more than curiosity.

Where did I or anyone anyone question his right to own the property and where did I 'moan'. About three people here arguing and making a fuss of which you're one. You made one of your usual, flippant comments abdout me and the Daily Mail, you're the one twisting words and interpreting those of others so you can be outraged. You omit to mention another post where I say I quite like him, but it clearly doesn't fit your agenda to mention that does it.

He's not a member of the Rolling Stones and I'd have thought he would be quite low on the BBC payscale so I was surprised to see his property, no more than that but carry on being outraged and making a scene, it's what you like to do.

Yes it is sad, from the little band of snowflakes on here, who can always be counted on to leap on the most innocent of comments and twist it to suit their own agenda.......move along, nothing to see here, I won't justify my curiosity to you or anyone else.

It's a standing joke that the Daily Mail always quotes the price of someone's house when they do a story on them, hence my flippant/jokey comment about you and the daily mail.

No-one's getting particularly het up, to be honest, apart from the person in #post 17 accusing people of being liberal muppets and using the online expletive FFS.

;-)

Happy New Year.

 

[Andy Adcock]

It's a standing joke that the Daily Mail always quotes the price of someone's house when they do a story on them, hence my flippant/jokey comment about you and the daily mail.

No-one's getting particularly het up, to be honest, apart from the person in #post 17 accusing people of being liberal muppets and using the online expletive FFS.

;-)

Happy New Year.

Several paragraphs in post 26 would suggest otherwise.

'Oh and Sir, Sir, he swore Sir,' no doubt some punishment will come my way as you clearly intended by pointing this out ......get a life

 

[dantheman]

Several paragraphs in post 26 would suggest otherwise.

'Oh and Sir, Sir, he swore Sir,' no doubt some punishment will come my way as you clearly intended by pointing this out

True I may have used too many exclamations points in re-reading, yes, but I'm not particularly stressed, no. Might be a bit annoyed, but guess it's all rather pointless anyway. Probably shouldn't have put the 'troll' word in.

Online swearing - well, no need to argue the point I guess. It's a family-friendly forum (or whatever the phrase is), and not everyone swears, but I guess there's no rules on it as such. If you want to swear whenever someone says something you don't agree with then I guess that's your prerogative.

Get a life? - Thanks!





:cat:

 

[Sandra (Taylor)]

For goodness sake, he's been at the top of his game for decades during which he's been in numerous programmes as a high profile TV personality/presenter, has written books, has written the odd bit of journalism and has had the chance to earn money in other ways so it's not surprising that he has got a pleasant house in a nice place (which, for all we know, may have been run down when he bought it) but what the hell does it matter? Frankly, how much he may have earnt over the years, where and how he lives is totally insignificant compared to his role in promoting and campaigning for conservation (on which he spends a good deal of his own cash). So bravo Chris Packham!

:clap::clap: Well said!

 

[Nutcracker]

Yep, well done to Chris!

This award also suggests the honours system is not completely broken yet.

The middle and lower ranks of awards have always been reasonable, it's at the top (knighthoods) that it really stinks

... or he could have sold a manky bit of property in a central london location ...

That's quite likely - selling a broom cupboard in London could buy you a mansion in some parts of the country

The outstanding example of this is his attitude to the Giant Panda, I seem to remember him saying that he'd happily eat the last one alive if the money spent on its conservation was redistibuted to more worthy causes.

I'd disagree there - saving Giant Pandas results in huge areas of high quality habitat saved for vast numbers of other species, which would get nothing if it wasn't for the 'cute' species spread thinly at the top. Who is going to pay money to buy land to save the threatened species Farges's Fir Abies fargesii? No-one. But it occurs in panda reserves, and that preserves its habitat :t:

 

[Andy Adcock]

Yep, well done to Chris!



The middle and lower ranks of awards have always been reasonable, it's at the top (knighthoods) that it really stinks

That's quite likely - selling a broom cupboard in London could buy you a mansion in some parts of the country

I'd disagree there - saving Giant Pandas results in huge areas of high quality habitat saved for vast numbers of other species, which would get nothing if it wasn't for the 'cute' species spread thinly at the top. Who is going to pay money to buy land to save the threatened species Farges's Fir Abies fargesii? No-one. But it occurs in panda reserves, and that preserves its habitat :t:

That habitat is mainly bamboo which is a problem becaues once it flowers, it dies.

 

[Nutcracker]

That habitat is mainly bamboo which is a problem becaues once it flowers, it dies.

So you need to set up huge reserves for land enough to carry enough different cycles of bamboos, plus the corridors between them - exactly my point :king:

 

[Andy Adcock]

So you need to set up huge reserves for land enough to carry enough different cycles of bamboos, plus the corridors between them - exactly my point :king:

But is it a prolific habitat for other species that also benefit, I'm not sure? I always think of Bamboo as equivalent to a Pine Forest in which you can walk for hours without seeing anything - other than Pine that is?

 

[Nutcracker]

But is it a prolific habitat for other species that also benefit, I'm not sure? I always think of Bamboo as equivalent to a Pine Forest in which you can walk for hours without seeing anything - other than Pine that is?

It's patches of bamboo scattered among a highly diverse habitat. SW China has - by far - the highest temperate climate biodiversity of anywhere in the [temperate] world, very nearly as diverse as tropical rainforests; panda reserves incorporate big swathes of it.

 

[Richard Prior]

And a Happy and peaceful New Year to you both, a Birdforum belter of a thread this one B

 

[Lisa W]

You are straying off topic, please stay on topic and quit the sniping at each other.

 

[Johann Sebastian Bach]

Yes, I think Packham's gong is well-deserved, even though the majority of the honours system stinks of corruption and nepotism.

I also think he deserves to be well paid and to be able to afford a big house (not that that's any of my business).

For all I know, he may also have a posh car, eat pickled lampreys off a silver platter and have the Berlin Philharmonic turn up en masse on his doorstep to play "Happy Birthday".

He richly deserves it all.

Peter B

 

[dantheman]

Yes, I think Packham's gong is well-deserved, even though the majority of the honours system stinks of corruption and nepotism.

I also think he deserves to be well paid and to be able to afford a big house (not that that's any of my business).

For all I know, he may also have a posh car, eat pickled lampreys off a silver platter and have the Berlin Philharmonic turn up en masse on his doorstep to play "Happy Birthday".

He richly deserves it all.

Peter B

Hopefully not ...

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5164



But yes