WelshAndy Posted May 14, 2018 Report Share Posted May 14, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted May 14, 2018 Report Share Posted May 14, 2018 A bit meaningless really unless the ‘employee’ is willing to identify himself. It could be Chris Packhams best mate for all we know. If you’re willing to put your own livelihood in jeopardy why hide your identity? Seems a little strange to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WelshAndy Posted May 14, 2018 Author Report Share Posted May 14, 2018 Doubt he’s a genuine keeper... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Prawn Posted May 14, 2018 Report Share Posted May 14, 2018 I'm staggered you can get away with interviewing an actor playing the part of someone based on a transcript with no provenance whatsoever! that could literally be anyone at all saying whatever they like we should do our own with an actor playing the part of Packham based on transcripts of a conversation we have imagined Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walker570 Posted May 14, 2018 Report Share Posted May 14, 2018 all the above and more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lloyd90 Posted May 14, 2018 Report Share Posted May 14, 2018 56 minutes ago, The Mighty Prawn said: I'm staggered you can get away with interviewing an actor playing the part of someone based on a transcript with no provenance whatsoever! that could literally be anyone at all saying whatever they like we should do our own with an actor playing the part of Packham based on transcripts of a conversation we have imagined I can’t believe there isn’t some level of scrutiny above these idiots saying “is this evidence credible?” I mean really? Someone must be asking that? Which brings the question, perhaps it was actually said? But by whom? Could be a LACS supporter making it all up, wouldn’t be surprised! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted May 14, 2018 Report Share Posted May 14, 2018 Well the CPS quite rightly have major reservations about taking anything to court, based on this sort of anonymous, unreliable 'evidence' provided via a biased source!....because they are merely unsubstantiated allegations! And as such carry no evidential value! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotslad Posted May 14, 2018 Report Share Posted May 14, 2018 Sadly unfortunately that doesn't matter nowadays, esp in trials by internet. While i have no doubt a lot of BS i''m sure i won't do shooting any favours Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lloyd90 Posted May 14, 2018 Report Share Posted May 14, 2018 Well in that case BASC or similar organisation should be challenging the organisations legally for slander etc, if they want to make allegations like that they should provide concrete evidence... without challenging them itll juat get worse and worse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longbower Posted May 14, 2018 Report Share Posted May 14, 2018 Anonymous testimony = not worth the tape it was recorded on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clakk Posted May 15, 2018 Report Share Posted May 15, 2018 Hearsay evidence inaddmissable in court BUT once again super liar can say what he likes the snowflakes lap it up and his NOT employers the BBC put their fingers in their ears and go lah lah lah cant hear anything WRONG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted May 15, 2018 Report Share Posted May 15, 2018 11 hours ago, Scully said: A bit meaningless really unless the ‘employee’ is willing to identify himself. It could be Chris Packhams best mate for all we know. If you’re willing to put your own livelihood in jeopardy why hide your identity? Seems a little strange to me. 11 hours ago, The Mighty Prawn said: I'm staggered you can get away with interviewing an actor playing the part of someone based on a transcript with no provenance whatsoever! that could literally be anyone at all saying whatever they like we should do our own with an actor playing the part of Packham based on transcripts of a conversation we have imagined 10 hours ago, Lloyd90 said: I can’t believe there isn’t some level of scrutiny above these idiots saying “is this evidence credible?” I mean really? Someone must be asking that? Which brings the question, perhaps it was actually said? But by whom? Could be a LACS supporter making it all up, wouldn’t be surprised! 9 hours ago, panoma1 said: Well the CPS quite rightly have major reservations about taking anything to court, based on this sort of anonymous, unreliable 'evidence' provided via a biased source!....because they are merely unsubstantiated allegations! And as such carry no evidential value! 8 hours ago, Lloyd90 said: Well in that case BASC or similar organisation should be challenging the organisations legally for slander etc, if they want to make allegations like that they should provide concrete evidence... without challenging them itll juat get worse and worse Yes indeed, come on BASC. 7 hours ago, Longbower said: Anonymous testimony = not worth the tape it was recorded on. Whilst I agree with all of your points, it is unfortunate that this sort of thing will generate publicity for the anti's and that will just lead to it being believed by those that want to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted May 15, 2018 Report Share Posted May 15, 2018 1 hour ago, TIGHTCHOKE said: Whilst I agree with all of your points, it is unfortunate that this sort of thing will generate publicity for the anti's and that will just lead to it being believed by those that want to. That is the problem, fact versus public emotion driven by deliberate misinformation and lies! Unfortunately ignorance will always choose emotion! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellow Bear Posted May 15, 2018 Report Share Posted May 15, 2018 13 minutes ago, panoma1 said: That is the problem, fact versus public emotion driven by deliberate misinformation and lies! Unfortunately ignorance will always choose emotion! This is a problem in Derbyshire at the moment - our old "friends" the RSPB are calling for licencing of grouse shoots in the dark peaks because persecution of raptors by grouse moor operators there are few peregrines and goshawks in the area whereas they are plentiful in the white peak completely (and I feel deliberately) omitting to mention that these are two completely different habitats. the white peaks being limestone plateau cut with steep sided dales (peregrine country) and wooded shallower dales (goshawk country) The dark peak being high level peat on gritstone moorland completely unsuited to either species, As expected good old auntie beeb omits the facts and gives this prime time coverage in the region. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted May 15, 2018 Report Share Posted May 15, 2018 Why spoil the story with FACTS? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted May 15, 2018 Report Share Posted May 15, 2018 Let me get this straight. Packham has interviewed said individual on tape, then to preserve anonymity for said individual , used an actor to re enact the best bits of the interview? Then blacked out the actor to preserve HIS anonymity, why ? Hes the actor surely ? The fact Packhams probably made it all up in the first place is neither here nor there, I would expect nothing more from him. The problem with our conservationist 'friend' is that people who have no interest, or have rarely set foot in the countryside, lap up his misinformed BS. And the BBC obviously fully support it. The man is several sandwichs short of a packham ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted May 15, 2018 Report Share Posted May 15, 2018 17 hours ago, WelshAndy said: Can I ask where you found this, and on what platform it was aired? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WelshAndy Posted May 15, 2018 Author Report Share Posted May 15, 2018 On YouTube last night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonepark Posted May 15, 2018 Report Share Posted May 15, 2018 (edited) Just click on embedded image in op note. Edited May 15, 2018 by Stonepark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted May 15, 2018 Report Share Posted May 15, 2018 16 minutes ago, WelshAndy said: On YouTube last night. Thanks. Merits a bit of investigation I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mice! Posted May 15, 2018 Report Share Posted May 15, 2018 saw the end of "through the key hole" last week, it was showing a house in France, set in lovely Countryside. Turned out it was packhams, i wonder if he makes as much fuss and noise about shooting and hunting when he's over there given how much more support they have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PPP Posted May 15, 2018 Report Share Posted May 15, 2018 Errr, he opens by saying ‘ we are now going to reenact the conversation and show highlights of the conversation’. ... sadly the ****wits that want to believe this won’t care what the truth is... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man Posted May 16, 2018 Report Share Posted May 16, 2018 On 15/05/2018 at 09:42, Yellow Bear said: This is a problem in Derbyshire at the moment - our old "friends" the RSPB are calling for licencing of grouse shoots in the dark peaks because persecution of raptors by grouse moor operators there are few peregrines and goshawks in the area whereas they are plentiful in the white peak completely (and I feel deliberately) omitting to mention that these are two completely different habitats. the white peaks being limestone plateau cut with steep sided dales (peregrine country) and wooded shallower dales (goshawk country) The dark peak being high level peat on gritstone moorland completely unsuited to either species, As expected good old auntie beeb omits the facts and gives this prime time coverage in the region. Not likely to get the unbridled truth from the BBC, RSPB or RSPCA as they have discovered that bull dung baffles brains nearly every time and keeps the coffers well topped up too? Win, win. Kerching. In respect to the two so called charities It would maybe refocus their objectives if the protective status was removed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted May 16, 2018 Report Share Posted May 16, 2018 18 hours ago, Mice! said: saw the end of "through the key hole" last week, it was showing a house in France, set in lovely Countryside. Turned out it was packhams, i wonder if he makes as much fuss and noise about shooting and hunting when he's over there given how much more support they have. That’s a fair point....I wonder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silver fox 1 Posted May 16, 2018 Report Share Posted May 16, 2018 Just one bit that sticks out about this video to me is right at the end where he says shooting all the rabbits to keep the foxes away, any under keeper would know this wouldn’t work as the fox probably is munching the pheasants or The grouse anyway foxes are opportunists are they not anything for an easy meal, just a thought regards fs1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.