Earlier this week the seedy Daily Mail published a disparaging headline about Chris Packham, this time screaming that Chris ‘faces calls to be sacked‘.
It was published in response to a short video Chris had posted on Twitter about attending a Biodiversity Earth Day rally in London today, which Chris described as “a family-friendly affair” and which the organisers had described as ‘a procession for nature, a parade of reflection and celebration, with masks, costumes and nature based art to honour and respect our natural world and all endangered species‘.
I wondered who it was that was calling for him to be sacked this time – I imagined it would be the usual suspects at the Countryside Alliance or their pro-hunting/shooting associates, who rarely miss an opportunity to launch an attack on Chris and who repeatedly pile on the pressure to the BBC demanding that Chris lose his job (e.g. here, here, here).
But this time it wasn’t them.
Instead, it appears that the justification for this headline was solely based on five words written by an anonymous Twitter user who has just 50 followers:
Little wonder that this so-called ‘news’ paper has been banned as an ‘unreliable’ source by Wikipedia.
Raptor Persecution UK 
The Daily Mail continues on the path it laid out for itself in the 1030s, when it supported Mosley’s Blackshirts.
Beat me to it!
Not in the 1030s, it didn’t, but it did nine hundred or so years later. It was also the first newspaper to identify whom it called the ‘murderers’ of Stephen Lawrence: “If we are wrong, let them sue us”.
Another step in the Countryside Alliance & its allies disastrous campaign to defend shooting. On top of aggressively failing to put right the disastrous practises of super-intensive shooting it takes on one of Britain’s favourite television presenters. As any politician (except many of today’s Conservatives) knows the extremes don’t matter – it is the middle ground you have to win and every time something like this happens people who weren’t even aware of the debate are going to be turned against shooting and fieldsports.
The mail is known to some as the ‘Fail’ or the ‘Heil’
As usual the paper shows its ugly face of false reporting! Such a waste of paper buying this rag. Always got my support Chris. BTW correct me if I’m wrong but I didn’t see much coverage of the rally?
I felt it was under-reported by the Beeb (and accompanied by a slight sense of hysteria about possible action by Just Stop Oil) but more fairly presented by C4.
I worked with the media most of my working life and the Mail was the one read first to see what it had misreported, and last if I wanted to know what was really going on. I never read it now!
It seems that the tweed disease are on yet another propaganda spree, as another disreputable, low-rent rag gives a platform to the “serially inaccurate” Botham, who describes the RSPB as “eco-Left”. Check out this litany of distortions here…
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/rspb-employing-people-kill-foxes-170647164.html
Iolo Williams in his BBC ‘Borderlands’ series suggests the same as the RSPB: kill predators to save Curlews. But there was no discussion of the viability of headstarting.
Mind you, I am no ‘absolutist’ when it comes to conservation, but I do think the RSPB publishing that all lethal controls should be ‘out of view of the public’ is a mistake. I think people are able to tell the difference between doing what might be essential to protect seriously endangered species and doing similar for no good conservation reason.
I agree, predator control – or killing some creatures to benefit others as it really is, shouldn’t be shied away from by RSPB and other conservationist bodies. To me there are three points needed to do it – 1. a genuinely good conservation reason, 2. a genuinely humane ethic informing the tactics of the skilled person(s) doing it, 3. a genuine measurable successful outcome that meets and justifies the stated reason for doing it. If every shooting estate was to apply those criteria then they would end up doing a lot of things differently (and not doing a lot of the bad things at all) and a bit of true middle ground might be found here and there…while high-volume-high-turnover commercial driven shooting would quickly go out of business in the process.
It’s the context that’s important, Keith. The RSPB have never attempted to hide the fact that, in cases where there is a scientific basis for doing so, and where all other methods have failed, it will resort to lethal control measures.
We both know that “out of view of the public” isn’t an attempt to conceal the facts of lethal control, but simply common sense. I’m sure you’d agree that traumatising children on a reserve by killing an animal in front of them isn’t acceptable (though I’m sure xxxxx and his mates would, doubtless revel in the act).
On your final point: Sadly, While Botham’s xxxxx (and breathtaking hypocrisy) is easily pulled apart by those in the know, I think that a significant proportion of the British public wouldn’t see the difference at all; and they’re the very target audience of the article.
It’s the Daily Mail being sensationalist. Again.
However, the Daily Mail did expose the present King of Spain’s father as a trophy shooter, with a photo of that person proudly exposing himself with a shot by him Elephant and other “big game” species, when he was King and Spain’s WWF President. That vile picture lead to appalled members/sponsors of endangered species, dissociating themselves from being supporters of that organisation. Also, the Daily Mail, donated free of charge, a whole daily page for several weeks, of appeals for Tiger conservation causes. A lot of people in the 1930’s supported Oswald Moseley, but later recanted and fought on the side of their country. Others wanted to instal a Soviet style of Government here, which could have been as bad as a fascist one. Can we keep politics of a past era out this very important struggle of the present day?
There are many Conservative Party members who are firmly opposed to the abuses that occur in the UK countryside with regard to pollution, endangered species, animal welfare, deforestation and the marine and freshwater environments. The real argument is the The perverted form of hunting that should not be classed as hunting, but cruel mass killing of birds and supporting an “industry” that has too much power over huge tracts of countryside, and influence within our Governments, Police and Judiciary. Instead of name calling and fighting like Kilkenny Cats, we should be reaching a target of having a determined body of rational conservationists and those practising practical/real hunting. Get the mad and bad brigade off the scene, and hammer them hard for flouting the laws governing protecting wildlife. Get the school bullies out of the playground.
But articles on the king of Spain or Tigers don’t conflict with the interests of those who abuse the natural heritage of the UK, do they?
Furthermore, “power over huge tracts of countryside, and influence within our governments, police and judiciary” is the very raison d’etre of the tory party.
Oh, while we’re on the subject of influencing the judiciary, what was it that the Daily Mosley called them in November 2016?