Chris Packham's Facebook page

[Westward]

Unfortunately, Asperger's has become a generic term for various forms of relatively mild autism when it actually has a set of fairly specific characteristics. Perhaps the most prominent of these is an inability to perceive and accommodate the emotional sensitivities of other people, often resulting in isolation from normal, everyday group activities and conversations. Packham himself, aware that his responses and perceptions were somewhat different from most people's, sought and received a diagnosis having already looked up the identifiers for Asperger's and compared them with his own personality.

 

I was in no sense doing him or anyone else a disservice, nor would I. My wife works with numerous autistic children and both my older brother and my last boss were classic examples of high functioning Asperger's. And those experiences convince me that the one person who'll never even listen to us or indeed anyone else, much less understand our point of view, is Packham himself because he is functionally incapable of doing so.

[The Mighty Prawn]

The BBC know this but as it suits their left wing agendas, they do nothing. A formal complaint to the organisation policing the BBC's impartiality is what's needed, as they are tasked with advising on whether the Beeb are sticking to their remit of unbiased reporting. If there is evidence to suggest that they are breaking their licencing conditions, they can be taken to task.

I've already said this is another post but it's an important distinction to make, the BBC has no requirement to be 'unbiased' the term is 'balanced' I realise it's semantics but they do mean very different things as unbiased is impossible as you cannot report on anything without in some way colouring it to an agenda, however providing 'balance' is possible.

 

The reality of the situation is that CP is a very popular and able presenter - discounting his actual viewpoints, I mean his technical skills for live work, it may look easy but I've done lots of live work and hats off to anyone that can do it. I see the same traits with Clarkson, he was pilloried by some sections and loved by others but it's impossible to ignore their abilities to present.

 

Don't get me wrong, I disagree most strongly with CP's views and approach but it's not as simple as just getting him off the telly, if he was replaced for example by the most pro-shooting person out there then the non-shooting world would be as offended.

[rodp]

Unfortunately, Asperger's has become a generic term for various forms of relatively mild autism when it actually has a set of fairly specific characteristics. Perhaps the most prominent of these is an inability to perceive and accommodate the emotional sensitivities of other people, often resulting in isolation from normal, everyday group activities and conversations. Packham himself, aware that his responses and perceptions were somewhat different from most people's, sought and received a diagnosis having already looked up the identifiers for Asperger's and compared them with his own personality.

 

I was in no sense doing him or anyone else a disservice, nor would I. My wife works with numerous autistic children and both my older brother and my last boss were classic examples of high functioning Asperger's. And those experiences convince me that the one person who'll never even listen to us or indeed anyone else, much less understand our point of view, is Packham himself because he is functionally incapable of doing so.

But, should the BBC allow him to continue spouting this rubbish knowing full well he suffers from Asperger's? In this case it's possibly Packham isn't at fault, but the beeb certainly are, they're condoning untruths and biased broadcasting.

[panoma1]

Given his irrationality however bought on? and his desperate insistance that his own opinion holds more credibility than anyone else's, I bet it was a real kick in the proverbials when, against his very vocal support of the lies and propaganda spewed out by the anti shooting WWT and RSPB...............the UK government found there was no evidence to support any further ban on lead shot!

 

His current pathetic rants against eating grouse and grouse shooting are similar to a child who can't get his own way!...........they fly in the face of logic and scientific conclusion!

 

We should perhaps pity him?

[Scully]

I've already said this is another post but it's an important distinction to make, the BBC has no requirement to be 'unbiased' the term is 'balanced' I realise it's semantics but they do mean very different things as unbiased is impossible as you cannot report on anything without in some way colouring it to an agenda, however providing 'balance' is possible.

 

The reality of the situation is that CP is a very popular and able presenter - discounting his actual viewpoints, I mean his technical skills for live work, it may look easy but I've done lots of live work and hats off to anyone that can do it. I see the same traits with Clarkson, he was pilloried by some sections and loved by others but it's impossible to ignore their abilities to present.

 

Don't get me wrong, I disagree most strongly with CP's views and approach but it's not as simple as just getting him off the telly, if he was replaced for example by the most pro-shooting person out there then the non-shooting world would be as offended.

 

I can agree with much of the above but not with the passage I've highlighted. It is perfectly easy to comment on most topics without bias or agenda.

I can give an opinion on a gun for example, or Clarkson could on a car, without bias or agenda, but Packham has stated that lead shot game is 'toxic', when in fact it isn't. He is stating it as a fact, and more than that, he isn't describing it as such because he is concerned for the health of consumers, but because he is opposed to shooting for sport. That is his agenda and therefore he has made biased ( and untrue ) claims in the hope that as a result people will stop buying it, and therefore M&S will stop stocking it, and therefore the shooting industry will suffer as a result.

If he was a nobody then I wouldn't be particularly bothered, but he is using his platform as a so called celebrity and 'expertise' (?) as a wildlife presenter to further his agenda much in the same way as David Attenborough is regarded as an expert on global warming. Neither are, they're presenters.

We have our own so called 'experts' such as Robin Page and David Bellamy, but these two have fallen from grace as far as the BBC is concerned, so there is no balance here then as their voices are never heard nowadays. If you don't toe the party line then you don't get a voice.

No one wants to know the truth as it isn't family viewing.

There are quite a few shooters on TV, but very few of them speak out about it let alone sing its praises.

It's just a pity M&S haven't told him where to shove his agenda; perhaps we should tell M&S that if they listen to Packham we will spend our money elsewhere. Just a thought.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Scully

[Whitebridges]

............

It's just a pity M&S haven't told him where to shove his agenda; perhaps we should tell M&S that if they listen to Packham we will spend our money elsewhere. Just a thought.

 

This is what needs to happen. I chose not to buy anything from Scotland until Krankie gets voted out.

I've also written to the BBC about Packham. If he stays I won't buy another licence.

 

Edited July 21, 2016 by Whitebridges

[Savhmr]

I've already said this is another post but it's an important distinction to make, the BBC has no requirement to be 'unbiased' the term is 'balanced' I realise it's semantics but they do mean very different things as unbiased is impossible as you cannot report on anything without in some way colouring it to an agenda, however providing 'balance' is possible.

 

The reality of the situation is that CP is a very popular and able presenter - discounting his actual viewpoints, I mean his technical skills for live work, it may look easy but I've done lots of live work and hats off to anyone that can do it. I see the same traits with Clarkson, he was pilloried by some sections and loved by others but it's impossible to ignore their abilities to present.

 

Don't get me wrong, I disagree most strongly with CP's views and approach but it's not as simple as just getting him off the telly, if he was replaced for example by the most pro-shooting person out there then the non-shooting world would be as offended.

 

With the greatest of respect, I think that you may be missing the point. Whilst I understand and even agree with your distinction between "unbiased" and "balanced", the terms of the BBC licence are for reporting without side, i.e. with impartiality and in this particular case, there is no balance in that programme so it does breach the BBC's terms in that respect. Far more importantly, the point isn't about whether we agree with C.P's views, nor even about challenging his right to his views BUT to his passing off opinion as fact. That sort of reporting DOES require challenge and is never acceptable on any public broadcasting station. I hope that this clarifies both the concerns about C.P. and the reaction to his latest outbursts

Edited July 21, 2016 by Savhmr

[The Mighty Prawn]

 

With the greatest of respect, I think that you may be missing the point. Whilst I understand and even agree with your distinction between "unbiased" and "balanced", the terms of the BBC licence are for reporting without side, i.e. with impartiality and in this particular case, there is no balance in that programme so it does breach the BBC's terms in that respect. Far more importantly, the point isn't about whether we agree with C.P's views, nor even about challenging his right to his views BUT to his passing off opinion as fact. That sort of reporting DOES require challenge and is never acceptable on any public broadcasting station. I hope that this clarifies both the concerns about C.P. and the reaction to his latest outbursts

I completely understand, and do side with the anti CP camp, I just don't know of who could replace him as a thought exercise, Charlie Jacoby etc are really good but don't think they have the live experience

 

Scully: I think we are pretty close on viewpoints here, I wish it wasn't so hard to get things across in text that could be thrashed out in minutes over a pint! I meant observer bias in terms of reporting, you can obviously report facts easily but as soon as anything other than facts it is automatically coloured by your viewpoint - I don't think I'm even explaining myself properly here, wish virtual reality worked and there was a forum pub in cyberspace!

[CharlieT]

It would have been nice to see a BASC, GWCT or CA response to this..

 

I hope the CA won't mind me quoting their latest newsletter below:

 

Alliance asks for BBC Trust decision

Last September I wrote about an article by Chris Packham in BBC Wildlife magazine in which, amongst other things, he labelled everyone involved in traditional land management, hunting and shooting as "the nasty brigade".

As I pointed out then the BBC has editorial guidelines which state that its presenters should not engage in debate in 'controversial' issues, but Chris Packham already had a track record for this sort of thing having been censured for using social media to brand farmers involved in the Government badger cull trials as "Brutalist thugs, liars and frauds". It seemed fairly clear therefore that unless the BBC could stop Mr Packham from abusing the position it had given him he should no longer be employed by the BBC.

This fairly logical comment caused a certain amount of excitement. It was widely reported as a call for Packham to be sacked and the usual suspects decided that it was the perfect opportunity to deify, rather than dismiss him. Chris Packham himself took to YouTube in an emotional, if incoherent, response in which he encouraged people to join animal rights organisations, again in clear breach of BBC guidelines.

Meanwhile the Alliance made an official complaint to the BBC about both the original BBC Wildlife magazine article and subsequent breaches of editorial guidelines. Complaining to the BBC was in one sense pointless as it had judged that its 'talent' was innocent before the complaint arrived, and said so repeatedly. However, an initial complaint to the BBC is necessary if an issue is eventually going to be considered by the BBC Trust so for the last 10 months we have been quietly pursuing that complaint. Two weeks ago the BBC Trust was presented with a lengthy and thorough investigation and agreed a 'finding'.

I am raising this issue now for two reasons. The first is that Chris Packham's campaigning activity has become increasingly obsessive and extreme during the complaints process and is reaching something of a fever pitch. A classic example occurred yesterday in Parliament where MPs used Mr Packham's views in support of calls to ban snares. The second is that the BBC Trust has informed us that it will not be publishing its 'finding' until at least mid-September. We do not think this delay is in any way reasonable especially as the BBC seems to have washed its hands of any responsibility for its presenter who now has free rein to promote animal rights propaganda. The timing is particularly relevant because the delay in publishing the Trust's ‘finding’ extends over the 'glorious twelfth', and one of Mr Packham's particular obsessions is grouse shooting.

Our Chairman, Simon Hart, has therefore written to the BBC Trust Chairman Rona Fairhead asking her to publish its ‘finding’ immediately. As Simon said in that letter the Alliance cannot stand by and continue to allow Mr Packham to use the status the BBC has given him to spread propaganda which has a direct impact on the lives of our supporters.

 

Tim Bonner

Chief Executive

Follow me on Twitter @CA_TimB

 

[Whitebridges]

Very well done : http://www.countryside-alliance.org/

 

I'm tempted to join. I like strong leadership.

[Scully]

Very well done : http://www.countryside-alliance.org/

 

 

I'm tempted to join. I like strong leadership.

Yep; couldn't agree more. I received the same email; good to read.

I think ALL game shooters need to contact the BBC and M&S and tell them both how we feel. We are ordinary people who just happen to enjoy shooting and shouldn't be made to feel ashamed of what we do. Man is in essence a hunter, no matter however far removed we are from the actual act by a lack of necessity.

[CharlieT]

Yep; couldn't agree more. I received the same email; good to read.

I think ALL game shooters need to contact the BBC and M&S and tell them both how we feel. We are ordinary people who just happen to enjoy shooting and shouldn't be made to feel ashamed of what we do. Man is in essence a hunter, no matter however far removed we are from the actual act by a lack of necessity.

 

You will recall I said on another thread a couple of weeks ago, that I had written to the BBC DG on this subject.

 

As would expect, I have yet to receive a reply !!!

[David BASC]

Good work by our pals at the CA, one of my colleagues has been giving newspaper interviews on this very issue and also talking to the BBC abut doing a piece on the benefits of grouse shooting on Countryfile

[Harry136]

Has anyone asked him directly why he opposes shooting, not just shooting game, better yet has anyone invited him for a Clay session, it may change his mind!

[scotslad]

I wouldn't focus too much on his aspergers condition, plenty of folk have similarly entrenched views without it (and no doubt many in the BBC)

 

While it would be good to see less of him on tv, or atleast have a co presenter who would put a more factual less emotional point accross, doesn't have to be pro shooting but just not an anti.Being a shooter or pro shoter does not mean u have to push it at every oportunity and ram it in others faces so really should not offend anyone, even putting the message across about hedgehog predation by badgers (proven scientific fact) but most mainstream tv/press to scared of the badger mob to to really mention it.

 

Some of the middle aged folk will remember (prof?) david bellamy on tv, probably 1 off 1st nature presenters and paved the way for likes of packham but benched when his support of shooting became obvious.

 

In my opinion shooting does enough good for countryside to justify itself to most sane people, and even most bunny huggers should acknowledge it as a 'neccessary evil'

Still can't understand the constant attack on grouse shooting, of all game shooting it is the most defendable as is 100% sustainable wih no reared birds involved, if it wasn't for grouse shooting many waders (once common all over UK even 20-30yrs ago) would be nigh on extinct along with plenty other birds black grouse, ring ouzel etc.

Yes grouse shooting costs a bomb for a day and tends to be the rich elite that can afford it, but it is expensive for a reason cost plenty of money to have the grouse there throu keepers wages and expensive atv/argos or tracked machines to get up on to the hill.

Very few scottish moors will make a profit year on year yet still shell out big money to have a team of keepers, infact most will lose vast sums of cash every year but lairds still spend the money and the environment benefits from it

 

The cash and jobs it brings to N eng is amazing, many school kids are out 4-5 days a week @50 quid a day till school goes back, the hotels, garages etc folk making lunches, evening meals for the shooting lodges. I only travel throu the valleys to the grouse but really can be quite dreich places with not a lot of jobs if it was not for the grouse money would be a lot worse

[Scully]

 

 

Scully: I think we are pretty close on viewpoints here, I wish it wasn't so hard to get things across in text that could be thrashed out in minutes over a pint! I meant observer bias in terms of reporting, you can obviously report facts easily but as soon as anything other than facts it is automatically coloured by your viewpoint - I don't think I'm even explaining myself properly here, wish virtual reality worked and there was a forum pub in cyberspace!

 

Agree. The context of comments written are often lost in translation.