Packham ,dead fox

[sam triple]

Just read that someone left a dead fix outside the lispering idiots home ,another S storm in the making 

[oowee]

Sometimes people are their own worst enemies. 

[Fuddster]

my sceptical side would suggest he did himself.....but surely not.

[bluesj]

is he after publicity for anything?  

[Vince Green]

3 minutes ago, bluesj said:

is he after publicity for anything?  

Surely not???????

[Zapp]

14 minutes ago, oowee said:

Sometimes people are their own worst enemies. 

This 

[spurs 14]

I’m another one who wouldn’t put it past him for it to be a publicity stunt organised by themselves , can’t think of any one in the shooting world who would think this is a good idea , like the bashing a fox against the antis car !!!?, person unknown by the hunt and no hunt follower is going to do this , problem is as soon as it hits the media it happened and it’s gospel , poor c w wouldn’t lie !!! 

[Westley]

IF you are waiting for retractions, just do NOT hold your breath. As and when most of these staged events are proved to be false, how is it we do not make a fuss and get that splashed all over the media  ?

[Ultrastu]

12 minutes ago, spurs 14 said:

I’m another one who wouldn’t put it past him for it to be a publicity stunt organised by themselves , can’t think of any one in the shooting world who would think this is a good idea , like the bashing a fox against the antis car !!!?, person unknown by the hunt and no hunt follower is going to do this , problem is as soon as it hits the media it happened and it’s gospel , poor c w wouldn’t lie !!! 

I thought it was the antis .chasing a hunt car down the road and bashing a dead fox against their  window .? .

I guess they were upset with the hunt or something .? 

[ShootingEgg]

53 minutes ago, Fuddster said:

my sceptical side would suggest he did himself.....but surely not.

My first words. I would not put it past anti or even himself making this up. He has not been in news or public eye about anything recently. So I smell a rat... Or dead fox.... 

[del.gue]

Strange how these things happen when he is not constrained by the bbc campaigning for his AR agenda while presenting for them... eg, springwatch finished?

[Cheshirelad]

1 hour ago, bluesj said:

is he after publicity for anything?  

Seriously? 

[ShootingEgg]

Only thing is there is no way of shutting him up. I could find a roadkill and say its been dumped in my drive. I'd be lieing but the media would print it. Maybe I should do it then call them out on it.. Shoot one then call them and say its been dumped then go on and say I made it up and they just went with it.. 

[NatureBoy]

Once again! Just like before a very and far to convenient alleged incident  just when they are pushing a new campaign and launching another new org. Wildlife Rebellion. That's not trading on Extinction Rebellion at all then! Much! Fake again i say! Hope the police can see it to. Same mo. Doing his same over acted wooden bit to camera for max publicity before calling them again. Even still handling the evidence. It's laid out very conveniently for the shot if that was where it was found? By the good condition there is no way that fox has been in or died in a snare. No sign of  any mud, blood, damp, dew or matted fur if placed there over night. Surely the police must be asking or thinking the same? Would love to know what other conservationists make of it? But it will mug the general public and his followers off again and make a good fundraser/ publicity for his new org. I hope his lot, the anti orgs and press data harvest off there and realise at least we see through them. Shame we haven't got better ways of informing the public.    NB

[JohnfromUK]

Packam is a high profile individual who one might say 'encourages' these events by his outspoken and divisive attitudes.  As such it is almost inconceivable he doesn't have comprehensive CCTV - in which case this will (should anyway) be available to the police.  If he has chosen not to have CCTV, or won't share the recordings with he police, that in itself is a pointer that he (or his supporters)  may have engineered and stage managed this for publicity.

If you take the confrontational stance on controversial matters that he does, protests and attacks are of course a possibility - which is why he should have CCTV as I'm sure the police and his insurance will have advised.  I'm not supporting, or condoning any action against him, but his own conduct as a high public profile person makes such action highly likely.

That in itself makes him completely unsuitable for a publicly funded (the BBC is in effect publicly funded) role in a broadcaster who is supposed to be 'impartial'.

Edited December 31, 2019 by JohnfromUK

[sportsbob]

I read pacman said that it had a large mark on its body and he thought it had been caught in a snare. 

Maybe QC Jolyon Maugham had another one caught in the chicken wire or perhaps the mark was because it was hit by a car.

At least it doesn't say it was shot.

[hodge911]

Its been done for exactly this reason !

To get people talking about it in different ways be it online ,in pub, in street but it will most certainly be twisted to make MR PACKHAM the a'hole look like a victim again !!! .

And the idiots who take his every word as truth "because the tv says he's a wildlife expert" will all be behind him in slating the shooting fraternity

Well that's what I think .

God forbid that it could of been hit by a car and actually die where it was found ................. no that sounds far to made up to be a possibility

Edited December 31, 2019 by hodge911

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, hodge911 said:

Well that's what I think

I agree - and much of the 'authority' he has comes because he is on the BBC - traditionally unbiased and authoritative - and not giving air time to pressure groups and 'cranks'. 

I wish that was true of the BBC.  It may have been once but now .........

[Vince Green]

Silly season, too much time on his hands

Its a bit like that Greta Thumburg who was photographed sitting on the floor of a train last week in Germany when it turned out she and her entire party had seats in first class.

Or the little girl who allegedly found a message from a Chinese prisoner in her box of Christmas cards. No coincidence her father was a human rights activist??? 

Social media allows anybody to put anything up, no guarantee its true 

[oowee]

3 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

Silly season, too much time on his hands

Its a bit like that Greta Thumburg who was photographed sitting on the floor of a train last week in Germany when it turned out she and her entire party had seats in first class.

Or the little girl who allegedly found a message from a Chinese prisoner in her box of Christmas cards. No coincidence her father was a human rights activist??? 

Social media allows anybody to put anything up, no guarantee its true 

I would not want to defend Packham in the least but we do ourselves no favour adding 2 and 2 to make 5. Lets stick to the facts rather than conflating other fairy stories and creating a lynch mob based on fantasy and make believe. In this case we have very little knowledge of the facts other than as reported. 

[old man]

48 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Packam is a high profile individual who one might say 'encourages' these events by his outspoken and divisive attitudes.  As such it is almost inconceivable he doesn't have comprehensive CCTV - in which case this will (should anyway) be available to the police.  If he has chosen not to have CCTV, or won't share the recordings with he police, that in itself is a pointer that he (or his supporters)  may have engineered and stage managed this for publicity.

If you take the confrontational stance on controversial matters that he does, protests and attacks are of course a possibility - which is why he should have CCTV as I'm sure the police and his insurance will have advised.  I'm not supporting, or condoning any action against him, but his own conduct as a high public profile person makes such action highly likely.

That in itself makes him completely unsuitable for a publicly funded (the BBC is in effect publicly funded) role in a broadcaster who is supposed to be 'impartial'.

Packham and the BBC, unbiased? Just choked on my Cornflakes.

He and they are extremely good at manipulation to further their agendas, The damage has been done again and we have no defence as trying to disprove a lie afterwards is impossible.

[Dasher]

Apparently this was reported to the police yet Hampshire constabulary have no record...……..

[JohnfromUK]

1 hour ago, old man said:

Packham and the BBC, unbiased? Just choked on my Cornflakes.

Apologies for choking you.  Serves you right for eating cornflakes - should be BACON.  🤣

I did say "supposed to be impartial".  My point is that Packham should not be employed/given air time by the BBC - who are supposed to be impartial.  As we know - they are far from it.

[old man]

2 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Apologies for choking you.  Serves you right for eating cornflakes - should be BACON.  🤣

I did say "supposed to be impartial".  My point is that Packham should not be employed/given air time by the BBC - who are supposed to be impartial.  As we know - they are far from it.

Sorry John I was too busy trying not to choke and misread the "supposed"

I would personally like to see the BBC stripped of its protected status and put to the market, Would not receive any financial support from me.

A bit off topic but I wonder how the BBC and ITV collaboration BritBox will be funded, some media clowns thinking to rival Netflix with recycling all of their old tat on a pay view basis? Licence Fee Increase?

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, old man said:

I would personally like to see the BBC stripped of its protected status

I don't disagree there.  The major complaint I have is that those who are 'presenters', such as Andrew Neil, John Humphreys, Jeremy Paxman etc. have to be above politics/issues.  Their job is to present facts not opinions, and to draw opinions from their interviewees.  The interviewees do have opinions - and as such it is the duty of the presenter to ensure that the opinions are presented on both sides in equal measure.  We saw in the recent election the presenters trying to control (with limited success) politicians and make sure everyone got their views heard - but crucially no views were expressed or supported by the presenters themselves.  This is absolutely critical to keeping a neutral stance.  If the presenters have views - they must keep them strictly to themselves and not express them - either in the broadcast, or in their outside lives.  That is why they are paid high salaries.

Packham has strong views on one side - and does not keep them to himself.  That should totally rule him out as a presenter.  In my view he has no place as a presenter.