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

[John Cantelo]

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.

That's odd since it's been mentioned several times on this thread. Claiming that the shooting world wasn't aware of the anti-CP petition rather begs the question ....

 

[John Cantelo]

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).

My apologies to Adam (and anyone else) for being too obscure and facetious.

My point was that the CA was quite happy to use Clarissa Dickson Wright's fame as a presenter of a BBC cookery program by getting her speak at meetings, be interviewed on the news, write articles, etc when it suited their purpose. They even had a whole series that, to a large degree, extolled the virtues of "country pursuits" (as they're euphemistically called). Yet, as far as I'm aware, there were no calls from conservation organisations at the time for her to be sacked (somewhat theoretical now as she's passed away). Nor were there hysterical press releases claiming that she was an 'extremist' and that she had broken any BBC rules on balance or impartiality. You could argue that to screen the footage this morning, given the current controversy, showed a lack of 'balance', but in reality I didn't mind too much and was using it to make a point. Neither am I anti-shooting per se (although I'm against driven grouse shooting & the continued use of lead shot), but I do think that shooting interests have tolerated (and in some cases encouraged) endemic lawbreaking for far too long. Yes, lawbreakers are a minority, but their impact in some areas is both obvious and serious.

 

[Craig H]

My apologies to Adam (and anyone else) for being too obscure and facetious.

Quite clear to me John :t:

 

[JTweedie]

I didn't vote in the petition supporting Chris Packham. Not because I don't support him; I do. But because I really feel there's no threat to his job, even despite the petition against him. I think it's all pointless really.

 

[John Cantelo]

I didn't vote in the petition supporting Chris Packham. Not because I don't support him; I do. But because I really feel there's no threat to his job, even despite the petition against him. I think it's all pointless really.

I understand your view, but I think you're wrong. The CA clearly thought that their bully boy tactics would work in the current climate where they have friends in high places and the position of the BBC is under threat. The more that they are humiliated over this issue (esp. in comparison to the rival petition) then the less confident they will be in trying the same trick against others in a more vulnerable position.

 

[JTweedie]

I understand your view, but I think you're wrong. The CA clearly thought that their bully boy tactics would work in the current climate where they have friends in high places and the position of the BBC is under threat. The more that they are humiliated over this issue (esp. in comparison to the rival petition) then the less confident they will be in trying the same trick against others in a more vulnerable position.

You see I don't agree with that at all. The petition against him was preposterous and there's no way that he would be sacked. If he was sacked I'm sure he'd have a very strong case against wrongful dismissal and that's despite the current political climate.

 

[John Cantelo]

You see I don't agree with that at all. The petition against him was preposterous and there's no way that he would be sacked. If he was sacked I'm sure he'd have a very strong case against wrongful dismissal and that's despite the current political climate.

Again I'd have to disagree. I agree that it is, and was, unlikely that Chris Packham would have been sacked, but I think the strategy was to cow the BBC so that it would think twice about airing various subjects for fear of offending a group that has very influential friends. The stronger the reaction in CP's favour the more it strengthens the BBC's ability, and more importantly, its will to face down critics from that quarter. Plus the letter was clearly an attempt to bully and for that reason alone, whether or not it was likely to be successful, it should be opposed; the petition is the easiest and most straightforward way to do so.

 

[JTweedie]

I don't see any harm of the petition in his favour and agree it's a good way to show public support. However the BBC is a monolithic organisation and it's very rare for them to take any notice of what the public say. It's not the petition in support of Packham that would prevent the BBC from sacking him, but the laws of the land.

The BBC instead should have come straight out and defended Packham. The BBC gets attacked by people on all sides - I don't think it is as vulnerable to people in high places as some may think, it is much more robust than that.

 

[John Cantelo]

I see we're not going to agree on this, but with the BBC's current charter running out at the end of 2016 I'm much less sanguine than you about the degree to which it is vulnerable to pressure.

 

[Swindon Addick]

If he was sacked I'm sure he'd have a very strong case against wrongful dismissal

Like many BBC presenters, Chris Packham is a freelance, not an employee. So he doesn't have protection against wrongful dismissal. Breach of contract, yes, but there's no protection against the BBC simply not renewing the contract.

I don't believe the CA actually thought they could get him sacked. They weren't even trying to win the argument. They were just employing a classic political tactic - they were looking to prevent any other presenters from speaking out by making them think of the difficulties they will cause for themselves if they make a powerful enemy.

Hence why I signed the petition, even though I didn't think there was any realistic risk that Chris would be sacked. It needs to be clear to the CA that they can't do this sort of thing without consequences.

 

[Trystan]

Several things to say about this.

1) Its great to see that the support via the petition ratios for CP. Unfortunately I don't know how much of this is because of the general support for wildlife and how much is just that he is a celebrity who people know and like from springwatch. It would be great if more fell into the former category.

2) I applaud any celebrity who makes a public stand for what they believe in when it may ruffle some feathers. It's all too common to see celebrities jumping on the band wagon of popular causes (comic relief, children in need for example ironically aired on the BBC)

3) I would rather see a celebrity using their fame to drive a political agenda they care about and raise awareness. It shows they are not completely vacuous as many appear to be and in some cases (Ian Botham) it shows them up for what they really are.

4) The speed with which this petition has gathered signatures contrasts with many wider, sometimes globally significant petitions which struggle to attract attention is baffling. There are many such petitions highlighted here on BF. Go sign some right now before it's too late. (Banning of driven grouse shooting, fracking in the UK, drilling for oil in the arctic, use of diclofenac in Europe). There are millions of us who are supposed to care but it's too much trouble to stick your name on a list?!?

 

[Adam W]

That's odd since it's been mentioned several times on this thread. Claiming that the shooting world wasn't aware of the anti-CP petition rather begs the question ....

Well I'm pleased to say that shows I don't take anywhere near as much notice of what people say on here as half of them rather worryingly seem to take of what I say.
In fairness I probably had seen mention of it and just forgot, It wasn't a deliberate attempt to leave it out.

 

[Adam W]

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.

As captain Blackadder would say it sounds right up my alley, soft strong and thoroughly absorbent.
Seriously though If I were to recommend you read a book by a well known gamekeeper who has been very publicly campaigning for Grouse shooting then wrote a book to explain how wonderful Grouse shooting is whilst no doubt neglecting to mention the negatives just to back up his own argument would you bother to read or be willing to actually take notice and change your views on the subject? Somehow I very much doubt it.

 

[Gill Osborne]

Aren't we just talking the average birder and wildlife enthusiast being p****d off with illegal persecution of raptors?

That is exactly the point!

I signed the petition and left a comment making it very clear that I did so NOT because Chris is a 'celebrity' but because AT LAST somebody that the average member of the public know has had the balls to speak up and say enough is enough at raptor persecution.

I grew up on Tyneside and lived there (Longbenton, Wallsend, North Shields) until I was 36 so could probably be classed as a townie BUT when I moved to rural Northumberland I was just blown away by the sheer ignorance and Old Wives Tales about wildlife and how nature works by folk who had lived in the countryside all their lives!!! TBH the general attitude up here seems to be that if it ain't a pheasant or grouse it's vermin and has to be culled! :smoke:

 

[Adam W]

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,

Good question, whether it does happen I don't know but it certainly should and would go a long way to solving the problem.
Couple of things I would say though are its important to remember that the whole idea of people paying to go and shoot on an estate is only one aspect of shooting there are many thousands of shooters like me who go wildfowling,Pigeon shooting,rough shooting etc that have no connection at all to any shooting estates so we obviously can't boycott something we don't use anyway.
The other thing is how many shooters that do use estates actually know what really goes on? I'm a shooter that knows what goes on but by far the main reason for that is because I'm also a birder and spend a lot of time looking at things such as this forum. If I was only a shooter I'm pretty sure I wouldn't know half of what I do and would be of the opinion that it just a few bad apples and the antis blowing it out of proportion.
What the answer to that is I don't know, maybe the shooting press and even organisations such as the CA need to take more responsibility for making shooters aware and trying to get them to boycott the wrong doers.

 

[Robin Edwards]

What the answer to that is I don't know, maybe the shooting press and even organisations such as the CA need to take more responsibility for making shooters aware and trying to get them to boycott the wrong doers.

So Adam, maybe the answer would be for you to positively contribute to shooting and wildfowling forums and people you know as you do to this forum. You say you know what's going on so what are you going to do about it?
Chris Packam's passion to do something about it in the ways that he can seems only to have raised your hackles rather than strengthen your resolve?

Topically, more here.

http://markavery.info/blog/

 

[Robin Edwards]

As captain Blackadder would say it sounds right up my alley, soft strong and thoroughly absorbent.
Seriously though If I were to recommend you read a book by a well known gamekeeper who has been very publicly campaigning for Grouse shooting then wrote a book to explain how wonderful Grouse shooting is whilst no doubt neglecting to mention the negatives just to back up his own argument would you bother to read or be willing to actually take notice and change your views on the subject? Somehow I very much doubt it.

You would be very surprised then Adam since I have some very good connections with life-time Gamekeepers and I also know exactly what goes on because they are very open about what their industry is all about. I've read both sides of this story, believe me and it didn't involve a trip to Specsavers. Dr Avery's book is not the one-sided argument that you seem to have judged it to be and should be read by both sides. I would then very much welcome you postively defending and making arguement against many of the things the book brings out. The CA however, choose not to do this, they try to defend their cause through bluster and bully-boy attacks on individuals.

 

[John Cantelo]

...... maybe the shooting press and even organisations such as the CA need to take more responsibility for making shooters aware and trying to get them to boycott the wrong doers.

Spot on. I think that it's this failure, more than anything, that persuades those outside of the sport that, despite convenient public posturing, illegal activities are too easily and too widely tolerated. This is compounded by calls to relax laws on bird protection which suggests to many that the de facto reality doesn't reflect de jure situation. Perhaps they're too frightened to confront and deal with the rotten barrels in their sport for fear of providing ammunition for 'antis' or maybe they just don't care ....

 

[Adam W]

So Adam, maybe the answer would be for you to positively contribute to shooting and wildfowling forums and people you know as you do to this forum. You say you know what's going on so what are you going to do about it?
Chris Packam's passion to do something about it in the ways that he can seems only to have raised your hackles rather than strengthen your resolve?

Topically, more here.

http://markavery.info/blog/

That's the thing though Robin, I'm not a member of any shooting related forums if there even are any and the only shooters I know are the three people I shoot with who are of the same opinion as me anyway.
There isn't really an active internet shooting world in the same way there is a whole internet birding world and I don't meet dozens or even hundreds of other shooters out in the field like I do birders. The shooting world just doesn't work the same way as the birding world or at least it doesn't for me anyway.
We always see people using phrases like the shooting fraternity or community as though we are all one big happy family all looking out for each other and covering each others backs sticking together to fight against the antis but it's just not like that at all. I'm just a random individual that happens to shoot and I have no connection to or influence over anyone or anything else to do with the whole world of shooting I just end up getting tarred with the same brush as the rest of it for no actual reason.

 

[pratincol]

I have always admired Chris Packham
He stands up for what he believes in and is far more a man than the domineering bullies who kill innocent creatures for 'pleasure' or illegally because they are just plain evil.