Packham ,dead fox

[Saltings]

On 31/12/2019 at 11:28, JohnfromUK said:

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.

+1   presenters    are there to present facts and un bias  given the recent election coverage  I found appalling on every side  

Packham has obviously been out of the country filming some critter so everyone goes awe   bias facts just because he sees one after three weeks they are in decline  

a tip/ no chalone / no spotting tent / no camera crew / no Velcro / no running around to get the best shot /  stealth is key with no aunt rage plenty to see

now he's back drama for publicity  sake  keeps him in the public eye 

no more tv licence in this house  I have been peed for  years her indoors now peed off given xmas programs   about time tv licence scrapped as no longer unbias and have not been for years  other channels have taken over re more factual reporting 

[Bigbob]

The guys a Raving idiot but like all Z list celebrities any  publicity is good publicity 

[Retsdon]

On 31/12/2019 at 18:28, JohnfromUK said:

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. 

 

[JohnfromUK]

There are plenty who are themselves on either the left or the right (Chomsky is known for his 'well left of centre' views) who claim political bias from various presenters.  The very fact that such claims come from both sides speaks volumes.

I am not a big watcher of Andrew Marr, but I have seen him being a tough interviewer against both Labour and Tory politicians.

[JohnfromUK]

Packham stoking the flames again.  I quote " Australia are trying to put the fires out ......... meanwhile, driven grouse moor owners are lighting fires, destroying wildlife ....... so that people can then kill even more animals ......"

He knows how to tap into public sympathy for Australia and twist it round in his manipulative way to play to that sympathy on completely different issues.  He is a very manipulative person.

Thse in the know will explain very cl;early how regular and controlled moorland management by burning to reduce stored fuel load can dramatically reduce the risks of fires becoming severe and unmanageable - and thus be hugely beneficial to wildlife.

[Benthejockey]

Instead of stirring up trouble why doesn't the vile little ***** offer some of his millions as a charitable donation to Australia or better still bigger off over there to help.

[wymberley]

26 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Packham stoking the flames again.  I quote " Australia are trying to put the fires out ......... meanwhile, driven grouse moor owners are lighting fires, destroying wildlife ....... so that people can then kill even more animals ......"

He knows how to tap into public sympathy for Australia and twist it round in his manipulative way to play to that sympathy on completely different issues.  He is a very manipulative person.

Thse in the know will explain very cl;early how regular and controlled moorland management by burning to reduce stored fuel load can dramatically reduce the risks of fires becoming severe and unmanageable - and thus be hugely beneficial to wildlife.

Because this is so easy to prove I think it's a crying shame that none of our organisations - or better still, all of them jointly - have failed to counteract his claim - not in their own publications but in mass media domain. Left to their own devices, the average Joe Public doesn't care what we do unless they're force fed disinformation which is Packham's forte. We need to contradict him forcefully whenever the chance arises before the brain washing becomes ingrained and accepted as fact.

[NatureBoy]

40 minutes ago, wymberley said:

Because this is so easy to prove I think it's a crying shame that none of our organisations - or better still, all of them jointly - have failed to counteract his claim - not in their own publications but in mass media domain. Left to their own devices, the average Joe Public doesn't care what we do unless they're force fed disinformation which is Packham's forte. We need to contradict him forcefully whenever the chance arises before the brain washing becomes ingrained and accepted as fact.

THIS!!!!!!!! Totally Agree! Great Post!     NB

[JohnfromUK]

1 hour ago, wymberley said:

We need to contradict him forcefully whenever the chance arises before the brain washing becomes ingrained and accepted as fact.

To be fair to them, at least one organisation did do a good presentation during the moor fires outside Manchester last(?) year.  They did it well, but the problem was - it didn't get the anything like the coverage Packham gets.  Since he has craftily got himself 'known' as a 'top naturalist and TV presenter' - he gets loads of coverage and Joe Public laps up every word he utters.  He has been very clever manoeuvring himself into that role. 

He has also (with the dead fox matters covered elsewhere in this thread) presented himself as a persecuted 'victim' of vicious bloodsports enthusiasts.  Again he has won the public's support despite very doubtful 'facts'.

The reality is that his very strong and obvious bias, his lack of objectivity, his continual habit of ignoring facts that don't support his ideas and his rigid pre-conceptions (all of which are characteristics of people with Aspergers) make him a poor naturalist and quite unsuited to being a factual presenter on a 'national network', but try telling the BBC that!

I do not wish to be against people with mental illnesses and issues like addictions, but such people in some instances can be very manipulative and clever - and he is a very good example of this. 

[JohnfromUK]

There is a very good and clear post (taken from a shared Facebook link) here written by someone who clearly knows their stuff;

So we've been seeing a lot of posts about heather burning in the national park recently so I thought I'd take some time to explain what it is and why it's done.

Seeing the moor on fire with smoke billowing out can be quite shocking, but there are good reasons behind it.

The main reason is to keep the heather plants themselves young and healthy. If left to do it's thing, heather enters a degenerative stage where it flops open and isn't as good of a habitat for birds or insects. The large amount of woody growth is also a fire risk in hot summers as was seen on Saddleworth moor recently.

A patchwork of heather at different lengths in a small area is also the best habitat for ground nesting birds. The longer heather is good for nesting while the short heather is ideal for feeding (either eating young heather shoots or insects which like young heather). And it's not just good for grouse! It's great for lapwings, curlew, snipe, ring ouzels and many other breeding birds.

When gamekeepers burn the moors they burn small patches (to create the patchwork mosaic of habitats) in "cool" burns. These burns take off the heather stems on the top but don't burn into the litter or peat layers of the soil. This means that they don't damage the peat unlike wild uncontrolled fires which burn much hotter and are extremely damaging.

The moors are only burned in the winter. This is because it's wet, so the fires can be easily controlled and don't damage the peat, and also because no wildlife is nesting. The small area of the individual burns also means any wildlife can easily escape out of the way.

Heather moorlands are an extremely rare habitat of international importance. The peaty soil of the UK uplands also stores as much carbon as the combined forests of Britain and France! Many amber and red listed birds breed on managed moorlands and they have very diverse invertebrate populations. This is why it's important to look after Heather moorland and manage it properly.

The Langholm moor project (http://www.langholmproject.com/) has produced some real independent scientific study results.

[islandgun]

2 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

Packham stoking the flames again.  I quote " Australia are trying to put the fires out ......... meanwhile, driven grouse moor owners are lighting fires, destroying wildlife ....... so that people can then kill even more animals ......"

He knows how to tap into public sympathy for Australia and twist it round in his manipulative way to play to that sympathy on completely different issues.  He is a very manipulative person.

Thse in the know will explain very cl;early how regular and controlled moorland management by burning to reduce stored fuel load can dramatically reduce the risks of fires becoming severe and unmanageable - and thus be hugely beneficial to wildlife.

Spot on,

I have repeatedly said this on the Avery blog but its ignored,  if/when these fools get their way it will result in huge damage to the moors they pretend they want to protect, as wymberly said why are'nt the shooting and moorland orgs all over this

50 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

There is a very good and clear post (taken from a shared Facebook link) here written by someone who clearly knows their stuff;

So we've been seeing a lot of posts about heather burning in the national park recently so I thought I'd take some time to explain what it is and why it's done.

Seeing the moor on fire with smoke billowing out can be quite shocking, but there are good reasons behind it.

The main reason is to keep the heather plants themselves young and healthy. If left to do it's thing, heather enters a degenerative stage where it flops open and isn't as good of a habitat for birds or insects. The large amount of woody growth is also a fire risk in hot summers as was seen on Saddleworth moor recently.

A patchwork of heather at different lengths in a small area is also the best habitat for ground nesting birds. The longer heather is good for nesting while the short heather is ideal for feeding (either eating young heather shoots or insects which like young heather). And it's not just good for grouse! It's great for lapwings, curlew, snipe, ring ouzels and many other breeding birds.

When gamekeepers burn the moors they burn small patches (to create the patchwork mosaic of habitats) in "cool" burns. These burns take off the heather stems on the top but don't burn into the litter or peat layers of the soil. This means that they don't damage the peat unlike wild uncontrolled fires which burn much hotter and are extremely damaging.

The moors are only burned in the winter. This is because it's wet, so the fires can be easily controlled and don't damage the peat, and also because no wildlife is nesting. The small area of the individual burns also means any wildlife can easily escape out of the way.

Heather moorlands are an extremely rare habitat of international importance. The peaty soil of the UK uplands also stores as much carbon as the combined forests of Britain and France! Many amber and red listed birds breed on managed moorlands and they have very diverse invertebrate populations. This is why it's important to look after Heather moorland and manage it properly.

The Langholm moor project (http://www.langholmproject.com/) has produced some real independent scientific study results.

Britan is home to 15% of the WORLDS moorland, a precious resource that must be looked after

[Vince Green]

3 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

 

The Langholm moor project (http://www.langholmproject.com/) has produced some real independent scientific study results.

I know Langholm, my mother's side of the family came from there and until recently I had family there although they have passed away now. What these environmentalists don't realise is the only thing that earns money for the maintenance of moors in any significant way is shooting.

 

Edited January 6, 2020 by Vince Green

[oldypigeonpopper]

hello, he is in the NEWS again !!!!!!!!!!!! not sure on details but it is about some golf courses 

[old man]

5 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

 

So we've been seeing a lot of posts about heather burning in the national park recently so I thought I'd take some time to explain what it is and why it's done.

Seeing the moor on fire with smoke billowing out can be quite shocking, but there are good reasons behind it.

The main reason is to keep the heather plants themselves young and healthy. If left to do it's thing, heather enters a degenerative stage where it flops open and isn't as good of a habitat for birds or insects. The large amount of woody growth is also a fire risk in hot summers as was seen on Saddleworth moor recently.

A patchwork of heather at different lengths in a small area is also the best habitat for ground nesting birds. The longer heather is good for nesting while the short heather is ideal for feeding (either eating young heather shoots or insects which like young heather). And it's not just good for grouse! It's great for lapwings, curlew, snipe, ring ouzels and many other breeding birds.

When gamekeepers burn the moors they burn small patches (to create the patchwork mosaic of habitats) in "cool" burns. These burns take off the heather stems on the top but don't burn into the litter or peat layers of the soil. This means that they don't damage the peat unlike wild uncontrolled fires which burn much hotter and are extremely damaging.

The moors are only burned in the winter. This is because it's wet, so the fires can be easily controlled and don't damage the peat, and also because no wildlife is nesting. The small area of the individual burns also means any wildlife can easily escape out of the way.

Heather moorlands are an extremely rare habitat of international importance. The peaty soil of the UK uplands also stores as much carbon as the combined forests of Britain and France! Many amber and red listed birds breed on managed moorlands and they have very diverse invertebrate populations. This is why it's important to look after Heather moorland and manage it properly.

The Langholm moor project (http://www.langholmproject.com/) has produced some real independent scientific study results.

Far too much common sense here, forgetting for a moment the proven benefit for wildlife, consider the hard facts that what has been burned in a controlled way can't rage out of control in one go causing devastation?

It's probable that Australia may be experiencing the same fiery situation cause by the lack of controlled burning by their first nations?

As for C, Packham, I am of the personal opinion that it suits the overall BBC agenda to continue to foster his employment and views as the Corporation  has been allowed to assume the seemingly unregulated position of agony aunt and educator to the masses?

Some of the direction expressed and promoted as of late under the guise of education I find astounding.

Edited January 6, 2020 by old man

[Vince Green]

7 minutes ago, old man said:

Far too much common sense here, forgetting for a moment the proven benefit for wildlife, consider the hard facts that what has been burned in a controlled way can't rage out of control in one go causing devastation?

It's probable that Australia may be experiencing the same fiery situation cause by the lack of controlled burning by their first nations?

As for C, Packham, I am of the personal opinion that it suits the overall BBC agenda to continue to foster his employment and views as the Corporation  has been allowed to assume the seemingly unregulated position of agony aunt and educator to the masses?

Some of the direction expressed and promoted as of late under the guise of education I find astounding.

Yes there is quite a lot of discussion now regarding the Australian fire situation. Several issues around deliberately allowing, even encouraging, large tracts of land to become more 'forested' because wooded land is considered more fashionable and desirable for settlement than arid dusty scrub land. Its all about the money as usual.

The aborigines burnt back the undergrowth deliberately to prevent this sort of thing but they were seen as stupid and primitive. Not anymore they are not.

[oowee]

5 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

To be fair to them, at least one organisation did do a good presentation during the moor fires outside Manchester last(?) year.  They did it well, but the problem was - it didn't get the anything like the coverage Packham gets.  Since he has craftily got himself 'known' as a 'top naturalist and TV presenter' - he gets loads of coverage and Joe Public laps up every word he utters.  He has been very clever manoeuvring himself into that role. 

Joe public is fed a diet of doe eyed, cuddly animals from birth. Starting with cuddly toys in the pram to endless wildlife programs about the struggle of animals in nature with heart plucking music. Zoo programs about the relationship's of animals in captivity, all given a name, and character depiction. Cartoon films that depict animals more caring and compassionate than humans. Its easy against that backdrop to stir up public passion for anything that is seen as interfering with the 'imaginary' animals joe public has taken to heart.

No wonder that a more realistic interpretation of wildlife and its management gets short shrift in terms of coverage and take up. It does little to register on the 'Disneyfication' measure that Joe public uses to judge viewing value. 

[wymberley]

14 minutes ago, oowee said:

Joe public is fed a diet of doe eyed, cuddly animals from birth. Starting with cuddly toys in the pram to endless wildlife programs about the struggle of animals in nature with heart plucking music. Zoo programs about the relationship's of animals in captivity, all given a name, and character depiction. Cartoon films that depict animals more caring and compassionate than humans. Its easy against that backdrop to stir up public passion for anything that is seen as interfering with the 'imaginary' animals joe public has taken to heart.

No wonder that a more realistic interpretation of wildlife and its management gets short shrift in terms of coverage and take up. It does little to register on the 'Disneyfication' measure that Joe public uses to judge viewing value. 

Just read this, then again and yet once more.

I think the word I'm looking for is sagacious. Very well posted.

[panoma1]

And conveniently, he and his fellow extremist antis, seem to stumble across dead wildlife in very convenient (to their anti agenda) situations and  locations.........with suspicious regularity? 🤔

[oowee]

17 hours ago, wymberley said:

Just read this, then again and yet once more.

I think the word I'm looking for is sagacious. Very well posted.

I had to look up the word but thank you. 

Edited January 7, 2020 by oowee

[lancer425]

14 hours ago, panoma1 said:

And conveniently, he and his fellow extremist antis, seem to stumble across dead wildlife in very convenient (to their anti agenda) situations and  locations.........with suspicious regularity? 🤔

They do seem to it must be said, I never believed the crows last year and i dont believe this either. I think this time they played this hand once too often. the General public can not surely be stupid enough to take this seriously. 

[wymberley]

10 minutes ago, oowee said:

I had to look up the word but than you. 

Never fear, so did I. Another more common word I was going to use had more than one meaning one or two of whch were not what I meant but the one I picked was also there and when I looked it up that one is what I was after.

[WestonSalop]

2 minutes ago, oowee said:

I had to look up the word but than you. 

Wymberley is absolutely right - your post really nails it. Interesting that you use the word "Disneyfication". I've had a theory for a long time that having given up trying to influence the world through the Peace Corps, the U.S. has chosen to use Disney to brainwash the world's population, infecting all our brains with kitch BS.

[Vince Green]

10 minutes ago, WestonSalop said:

Wymberley is absolutely right - your post really nails it. Interesting that you use the word "Disneyfication". I've had a theory for a long time that having given up trying to influence the world through the Peace Corps, the U.S. has chosen to use Disney to brainwash the world's population, infecting all our brains with kitch BS.

It started before Disney though, what about Beatrice Potter for example? Wind in the Willows perhaps is another? The Jungle Book? Alice in Wonderland?

All are giving animals human personalities and human values even though they are not always positive values. It blurs the perception between animals and humans.

Now we are to believe they can sing and dance 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Vince Green