Countryside Alliance urges BBC to sack Chris Packham in conservation rrwo (1 Viewer)

[Paul Chapman]

I don't see how the number of people that happen to share an opinion makes it any more than still just an opinion.

Adam

'If you are driving down a motorway and all the traffic on your carriageway is travelling in the opposite direction, then a staunch belief that you are right and everyone else is wrong is probably misguided' (Confuscius, Watford Gap Services, 01.04.15)

All the best

 

[Craig H]

I don't doubt there are many people who agree with him but there are also many that don't and I don't see how the number of people that happen to share an opinion makes it any more than still just an opinion.

Surely the principle that democracy is based on?

 

[Adam W]

Adam

'If you are driving down a motorway and all the traffic on your carriageway is travelling in the opposite direction, then a staunch belief that you are right and everyone else is wrong is probably misguided' (Confuscius, Watford Gap Services, 01.04.15)

All the best

Is that really the case though? We've seen the number of 60,000+ showing their support of Chris but what about the 100,000 CA members who I assume its safe to say overwhelmingly would support Tim not Chris and what about the 125,000 BASC members again the vast majority would be against Chris and thats not to mention the 100,000's of shooters that aren't members of either it would be into millions if you include their friends and families.

For the second year running we've seen the petition to ban Grouse shooting fail miserably to get even close the number of signatures wanted baring in mind that the 100,000 required would only be less than 10% of RSPB members never mind birders in total.

Only recently we had everyone shouting it from the roof tops when 80% of people voted in an online poll to keep the hunting ban but oddly enough I haven't seen a single birder mention the two polls I saw shortly after that had 70%+ in favour of restraunts serving Grouse and against banning Grouse shooting.

Whichever side of the fence you're on if you look at the numbers one way traffic it most certainly is not.

 

[Paul Chapman]

Adam

I was responding to YOUR point that the number of people who hold an opinion is not relevant. I do not consider that to be the case. Of course, majority opinions can be wrong but that is the exception. Generally majority opinions tend to be correct.

In this instance, I imagine the majority of the population consider both sides of the 'debate' an irrelevant extremist minority. The fact that green in the public consciousness now means energy efficiency, carbon neutrality, etc and has abandoned conservation and biodiversity is evidence of that.

All the best

 

[Sandy73]

Is that really the case though? We've seen the number of 60,000+ showing their support of Chris but what about the 100,000 CA members who I assume its safe to say overwhelmingly would support Tim not Chris and what about the 125,000 BASC members again the vast majority would be against Chris and thats not to mention the 100,000's of shooters that aren't members of either it would be into millions if you include their friends and families.

For the second year running we've seen the petition to ban Grouse shooting fail miserably to get even close the number of signatures wanted baring in mind that the 100,000 required would only be less than 10% of RSPB members never mind birders in total.

Only recently we had everyone shouting it from the roof tops when 80% of people voted in an online poll to keep the hunting ban but oddly enough I haven't seen a single birder mention the two polls I saw shortly after that had 70%+ in favour of restraunts serving Grouse and against banning Grouse shooting.

Whichever side of the fence you're on if you look at the numbers one way traffic it most certainly is not.

To counter your point in the first paragraph. What about the 1 million ( ish) RSPB members, family and friends. Then the Wildlife Trusts etc.

That is also assuming all members belong solely to one body.

Regards

 

[SteveTS]

Adam

I was responding to YOUR point that the number of people who hold an opinion is not relevant. I do not consider that to be the case. Of course, majority opinions can be wrong but that is the exception. Generally majority opinions tend to be correct.

In this instance, I imagine the majority of the population consider both sides of the 'debate' an irrelevant extremist minority. The fact that green in the public consciousness now means energy efficiency, carbon neutrality, etc and has abandoned conservation and biodiversity is evidence of that.

All the best

Of the 48 counties of England alone, the two largest Police licensing authorities issue in excess of 20,000 certificates each for the possession of shotguns, Section 1 firearms, and explosives.

Cumulatively the figures dwarf the memberships of the extreme minority interest animal rights movements, and then some.

Best wishes,

 

[Craig H]

Of the 48 counties of England alone, the two largest Police licensing authorities issue in excess of 20,000 certificates each for the possession of shotguns, Section 1 firearms, and explosives.

Cumulatively the figures dwarf the memberships of the extreme minority interest animal rights movements, and then some.

Best wishes,

Not necessarily - many of these licences will be for individuals who take part in target shooting only, or who collect firearms but don't use them.

Its pointless to debate 'these numbers could be this and those could be that'. The fact is that 60,000 people could be bothered to vote for CP, only 2500 could be bothered to vote to try to sack him.

Similarly 20,000 or so voted to ban DGS last time (16,000 so far this time) and only around 3000 (if I remember correctly) voted to implement the joint recovery plan. Neither figure represents the number of people in organisations on either side.

Ultimately it will not be the membership of either side that dictates what happens with grouse shooting, hunting with dogs or anything else like that. It will be the general public and how they influence their MP's, and how the bloke in No10 decides to tell his party to vote. All we can do is try to influence the public. As Paul says I suspect most are now only interested in global warming as an issue, but where they do show an interest I think the conservation side has the upper hand.Its strange though, if the rest of the shooting fraternity did something about the raptor persecution I suspect most of the opposition would fade away.

 

[SteveTS]

Not necessarily

Yes, necessarily. The national membership of the RSCPA is estimated at only 20,000 and falling, befitting it's status as by far and away the largest of the minority interest pressure groups.

Its strange though, if the rest of the shooting fraternity did something about the raptor persecution I suspect most of the opposition would fade away.

This is very true and many in the shooting community would agree with you.

Best wishes,

 

[Adam W]

Right so lets see where we are. It would seem that most other than me seem to think that the opinion that is held by the most should be taken most seriously and is most likely correct,That's how it should be and that's how democracy works. So where does that leave us? Well I'm pleased to see Paul make the point I've so often tried to make myself which is this whole debate is actually only between two minority groups at opposite extremes which means that the majority and therefore probably correct opinion is that we shouldn't actually care at all.
If we only look at the two groups that actually have a strong opinion on the matter well I've given the facts and figures to back up what I've said but where are the numbers to back up the idea that most people seem to think is true that the majority and therefore correct opinion is pro Chris anti Grouse shooting?
The only numbers I can see is in the Chris v CA argument 60,000 signed a petition to support Chris against the 100,000 CA members and the very heavily publicised petition to ban Grouse shooting that two years running has got about 20,000 signatures which adds up to what maybe 1-2% of birders?
I don't think it needs me to point out that none of that adds up to a majority.

 

[John Cantelo]

Another example of scandalous bias at the BBC. "Saturday Kitchen Live" this morning had a clip from "Two Fat Ladies" showing Jennifer Paterson and Clarissa Dickson Wright having a jolly time shooting and then preparing grouse for the table. No mention of the dangers of lead shot, the plight of raptors on grouse moors, etc either in the clip of elsewhere. The self same Clarissa Dickson Wright was a vocal supporter of the Countryside Alliance attending rallies, speaking at rallies, etc whilst also featuring on the TV. Not only did she write articles in favour of hunting etc., she also had a series called 'Clarissa and the Countryman' (the latter being Sir Walter John "Johnny" Scott a multiple president/patron of various groups linked with blood sports). What little of the program I could stomach was an uncritical paean of praise for blood sports - no balance. Hence I find the Countryside Alliance's complaint deeply hypocritical.

 

[John Cantelo]

The only numbers I can see is in the Chris v CA argument 60,000 signed a petition to support Chris .....

You conveniently omit to mention that there's a 'sack Chris Packham' petition which has attracted embarrassingly little support and has really struggled to top 2,500 (currently 2,516) whilst the pro-Packham petition now stands at 68,514 putting on more votes in a few hours than the rival one has managed at all. This seems to reflect the nation's mood ....

 

[Adam W]

You conveniently omit to mention that there's a 'sack Chris Packham' petition which has attracted embarrassingly little support and has really struggled to top 2,500 (currently 2,516) whilst the pro-Packham petition now stands at 68,514 putting on more votes in a few hours than the rival one has managed at all. This seems to reflect the nation's mood ....

I didn't neglect to mention it I simply wasn't aware of it like I dare the majority of the shooting world and frankly I don't care either I, like most of the shooting world have far better things to do where as the birding world often seems to devote an amazing amount of time and effort to such pointless things so in that respect then yes I agree it does reflect the mood.

 

[Adam W]

Another example of scandalous bias at the BBC. "Saturday Kitchen Live" this morning had a clip from "Two Fat Ladies" showing Jennifer Paterson and Clarissa Dickson Wright having a jolly time shooting and then preparing grouse for the table. No mention of the dangers of lead shot, the plight of raptors on grouse moors, etc either in the clip of elsewhere. The self same Clarissa Dickson Wright was a vocal supporter of the Countryside Alliance attending rallies, speaking at rallies, etc whilst also featuring on the TV. Not only did she write articles in favour of hunting etc., she also had a series called 'Clarissa and the Countryman' (the latter being Sir Walter John "Johnny" Scott a multiple president/patron of various groups linked with blood sports). What little of the program I could stomach was an uncritical paean of praise for blood sports - no balance. Hence I find the Countryside Alliance's complaint deeply hypocritical.

So Chris has his say against Grouse shooting and that's great only right and how dare anyone complain but the other side gets a chance to put their side across and that's 'scandalous bias' that seems fair!

 

[Craig H]

Yes, necessarily. The national membership of the RSCPA is estimated at only 20,000 and falling, befitting it's status as by far and away the largest of the minority interest pressure groups.

Best wishes,

I never actually considered the RSPCA a pressure group. I suppose if you are talking about 'extreme' animal rights groups then yes, I'd agree. But we're not talking extreme animal rights are we? Aren't we just talking the average birder and wildlife enthusiast being p****d off with illegal persecution of raptors?

FWIW I have absolutely no problem at all with someone doing a bit of wild fowling, pigeon shooting, rough shooting etc. I'd even say I don't have a problem with walked up grouse. I do have a problem with raptor persecution and I'm not a member of an extreme group. So, where does that leave us?

 

[Craig H]

So Chris has his say against Grouse shooting and that's great only right and how dare anyone complain but the other side gets a chance to put their side across and that's 'scandalous bias' that seems fair!

Come on Adam. You are either misreading that on purpose to wind everyone up, or you are letting yourself get so wound up you've stopped talking sense - which I have to say that you usually do.

Its quite clear that the point is that the BBC show both sides. Some people (like John I presume) don't like the fact they've shown grouse shooting. The point is that neither John nor the RSPB have called for Clarissa or Johny Scott to be sacked(and she does do her bit for supporting shooting on top of BBC programmes).

 

[Robin Edwards]

So Chris has his say against Grouse shooting and that's great only right and how dare anyone complain but the other side gets a chance to put their side across and that's 'scandalous bias' that seems fair!

Have you ever watched BBC Countryfile Adam? Plenty of people given a voice more worthy of complaint than you should ever wish to complain about. The only nose out of joint here is the CA (and yours clearly) and that's simply because they don't like it up em when it comes to drawing attention to the evidence that shows very clearly how illegal activities underpin DGS in the uplands - as has happened for generations. CP and many, many others have had enough, that's all.

 

[James Lowther]

Come on Adam. You are either misreading that on purpose to wind everyone up, or you are letting yourself get so wound up you've stopped talking sense - which I have to say that you usually do.

Its quite clear that the point is that the BBC show both sides. Some people (like John I presume) don't like the fact they've shown grouse shooting. The point is that neither John nor the RSPB haven't called for Clarissa or Johny Scott to be sacked(and she does do her bit for supporting shooting on top of BBC programmes).

yeah come on Adam, if it's a matter of principle of impartiality and lack of political bias in BBC presenters lets get Clarissa sacked too.

you've said yourself "using your position to try and influence other peoples opinions is a whole other matter and not one the BBC should be involved in"

do you want to set up the petition or shall i do it?

cheers,
James

p.s. on a more serious note if this is really something most shooters don't care about why not use your influence as a collective and persuade the CA leadership to stop wasting their time on such embarrassing, vindictive sideshows, which just make your community look bad?

 

[Adam W]

Right okay then it would appear that the BBC will show both sides so thats great peoblem solved and the CA have no grounds for complaint. The only thing I will say as im sure we've all seen the outrage amongst birders about todays programe no doubt the very same birders praising Chris but you can't have it both ways it has to be both sides with an equal say or neither not just whichever one you happen to agree with.

 

[string boozel]

I have one question, have any of the shooting fraternity chosen to boycott those estates where illegal raptor persecution has been proven? That course of action would certainly produce results far quicker than any number of petitions or celebrity articles.

James,

 

[Robin Edwards]

Adam, I strongly recommend that you read Dr Avery's latest book Inglorious. Whether you're a fan or not ( I somehow suspect you're not), you will find the argument about DGS very compelling showing why CA will look to complain at any opportunity.