Sharpshooter

Chris Packham continues his posturing, using the platform given by the BBC, but any personal attacks on him could be counterproductive

The Countryside Alliance (CA) is hopping mad about the BBC’S apparent double standards. The corporation recently sanctioned a Radio 4 presenter, Dr Adam Rutherford, for bias in his personal tweets. Yet we all know the Beeb has a history of exonerating another presenter, Chris Packham. The CA makes a good point.

It will be interesting to see whether the BBC continues to defend the indefensible when it gets round to responding to the latest complaints about Mr Packham.

Though, like most of us, I believe Mr Packham’s exploitation of his publicly funded platform is deplorable and a breach of the BBC’S charter obligations, I also think we need to be careful to play the ball and not the man.

I have spoken to two people who claim to know Mr Packham. Both tell me that he is an intelligent, thoughtful person who has a genuine regard for wildlife and considerable knowledge of natural history. I am reminded that he once took considerable flak from the antis for defending the role of shooting in deer management.

That’s all very well, you may say, but some of his public utterances on issues such as badger culling, hunting and grouse shooting have amounted to incitement of fear and loathing of decent communities. He took a leading role in attacking illegal Maltese shooting practices several years ago, and has since transferred his attentions to lawful grouse shooting here, blurring the distinction between legal and illegal activity in the minds of the public.

Certainly, there is a case to be made against Mr Packham — or against the BBC. After all, without our state broadcaster, how many members of the public would even know who Mr Packham is? His profile has been funded by us, the licence fee payers.

But we do have to be careful not to create implacable enemies out of opponents who might, among the sweeping allegations, have one or two legitimate points. We should be wary of turning mere doubters into fanatical campaigners. Above all, we should never stoop to personalised abuse, no matter how great the temptation.

The Guardian — the antis’ house journal and required reading within the BBC — has published material over the past 14 months suggesting that Mr Packham is being targeted by a well-funded, professionally run campaign at the behest of rather shady grouse moor interests. The way the Guardian puts it, a disinterested reader might believe that poor Mr Packham is being bullied and this is what has provoked him into becoming ever more outspoken about the supposed abuses of the driven grouse industry. Every new personal attack on him simply strengthens his resolve. Chris Packham has been goaded into becoming a mainstream anti, is the gist.

I am not saying that I necessarily accept this line. But it is being lapped up by some who, while broadly unsympathetic to fieldsports, are not (yet) particularly motivated against us. If they start to feel sympathy for Mr Packham, that is not helpful to our cause. And some would say that driven grouse shooting is the most politically exposed face of shooting sports.

We need to understand that this nefarious strategy — if that is what it is — in order to counter it. Just be aware that every personally abusive tweet or post about Mr Packham by a frustrated shooter may be counterproductive.

“Without our state broadcaster, how many of us would even know who Chris Packham is?”