Will Chris Packham be arrested for his ‘inflammatory’ comments he made last weekend? The 63 year-old BBC presenter made bizarre speech at an Action for Wildlife Day event in Derbyshire in which he told Barclays customers to self-immolate. The Telegraph has more.
The environmental campaigner urged people not to bank with financial institutions that invest in “fossil fuels, weapons and poverty”.
Speaking at the event last weekend at Carsington in the Derbyshire Dales, he said: “But, if anyone here is banking with Barclays, then, I suggest you stick your head in a bucket of fuel and set fire to it because you’re burning our planet down. And, it’s time to put this stuff behind us.”
His comments have been criticised as incitement, amid claims they are inappropriate for a leading BBC broadcaster.
Barclays declined to comment on Friday.
Tim Bonner, the chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, said: “It appears that in an increasingly desperate bid to stay in the media spotlight, Mr Packham is resorting to saying more and more bizarre and outlandish things to get noticed.
“Few are taking much notice, but it does pose serious questions for the RSPB, RSPCA and BBC about how much longer they can justify turning a blind eye to this behaviour, while allowing him to continue playing a significant role in representing them on the national stage and in family-friendly broadcasting.
“The respectability of all three organisations is on the line”.
A complaint about Packham’s comments was also made to Derbyshire Constabulary.
The complainant, a country sports enthusiast who wishes to remain anonymous, wrote to officers asking how the BBC presenter’s comments could be legal “given the recent spate of civil unrest which we have seen across the country” and those “inciting people to take direct action.”
A police spokesman said: “The video has been reviewed and no offences have been committed.
“Each incident that takes place is reviewed based on the language used as well as the specific set of circumstances in which the comments are made.
“In this instance, while there is legislation covering individuals encouraging or assisting a person or persons to cause serious harm to themselves, there is no suggestion that this is a serious attempt to influence anyone to commit any such acts.
“The words used in this instance do not reach the threshold for an offence and no action will be taken in relation to this incident.”
Worth reading in full.
Meanwhile, a 61 year-old man who chanted “Who the f*** is Allah?” at a protest outside Downing Street has been sentenced to 18 months.
Two tier policing?
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
You really cannot have it both ways. Either, so-called cancel culture is bad and people are supposed to be allowed to speak freely. Then, Packham must be allowed to say stuff on air people who don’t share his inane opinons consider really offensive. Or “Everythings fine with that, just depends on who’s targetting whom!” Then, everythings depends on what the people currently in power like or dislike and if the dislike people shouting “Who the fuck is Allah”, say, because it endangers them getting their share of “the muslim vote” but like people using strong, figurative language in support of ‘climate-saving policies’, then, that just that. Win an election, then you’ll hold the Cancel-lever.
Ian Rons, who is involved with both DS and FSU, I think posted a while back that the line FSU takes on speech is in line with the controlling US Supreme Court ruling on the subject:
A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
Brandenburg v. Ohio – Wikipedia
I don’t think they are advocating Packham be sanctioned legally. I don’t think he should be either. You could make an argument that he’s breaking some contract with his employer because BBC employees are not supposed to advocate for political positions or something – but I don’t like that rule and anyway the solution is to privatise the BBC.
The point isn’t that the Quackenham creature should be sanctioned, but that others who have said similarly ‘offensive’ or ‘inflammatory’ language shouldn’t be either.
It’s the Two Tier thing.
The guy who reported this to the police certainly wanted him to be sanctioned. The same goes for the people who likely complained to the BBC about this and that’s despite there’s absolutely no reason for that. Nobody could have misunderstood Packham’s statements as anything but an attempt to shame Barclay’s customers in public because the bank does business with organizations he strongly disapproves of. This could perhaps be a ground for a complaint because BBC employees shouldn’t abuse their license-fee-paid soapbox to harm third-party businesses but it’s certainly not incitement to anything save switching bank accounts.
It would be interesting if someone, in the appropriate circumstances, e.g. let’s say a Christian prayer meeting outdoors, shouted out: “Who the fuck is Jesus?”
How many months’ incarceration would that outburst warrant?
Not just them “getting their share of the Muslim Vote”—–It is deliberate filling up of the western world with young Muslim men so that when the time comes the west can be overthrown. Global Socialism needs the destruction of the wealthy west and it’s freedoms removed. One of the ways of taking away that freedom is climate change politics that wants your freedom , your property and your prosperity, so Packham is not locked up, but if you dare to swear at a Muslim you will be.
I guess context is everything, however, he might use his health as a method of defence. Isn’t he well known to be an Attention Deficit Hyparcativity Disorder (ADHD) patient? But he’s not the first weird one the list on this site today – after Dale. I don’t know what he’s got; over to the rest of you!
Can I add to your list Donnachadh McCarthy of Climate Nedia Coalition. A random repost on his X site was headed “What happens when sea levels rise by 1m which they are likely to do by the end of the century”. Clearly lost any grip on reality.
The Climate Media Coalition does seem to be a Weapon Of Mass Delusion. Doubtless many governments will adopt it. Keep a grip on reality!
Personally I shy away from three- and four-letter acronyms . Instead when people engage in pseudologia fantastica I judge whether they “really” believe what they shout in the streets (in which case they are suffering from delusions, whether paranoid, euphoric, grandiose or Messianic) or are wilfully spreading misinformation for personal or shared gain, be that finanancial, political, military or religious. This distinction sometimes affects one’s response. These days it is getting difficult to determine reality and normality! (PS is it OK to use the word “Messianic”?)
I don’t know or care about the state of his health. To me he’s just another eco socialist/fascist/communist/do gooder/utopianist who wants to dictate to other people how they live their lives. Sadly that seems to be what a lot of people want.
Packham is clearly bonkers. I defend his right to say what he said (it just confirms my diagnosis of his mental state), but I would also defend the right of the man who chanted “Who the fuck is Allah?” to say that.
Not every autistic person holds Packham’s climate views, I certainly do not. Packham is ‘bonkers’ because of his stance on climate change, not because he has Aspergers (autistic spectrum disorder – which encompasses ADHD/ADD symptoms). Yes, we are ‘weird,’ bonkers” and social outcasts but please separate what is an unfortunate neurodevelopmental disorder from fanaticism, ignorance, and catastrophism.
Play the ball, not the man.
I largely agree but not sure I would write off the whole “Autistic Spectrum” as an “unfortunate disorder”. From what I have seen, it can sometimes lead to more suffering than one would wish for, at other times it’s mainly just a different way of looking at the world.
I usually smile at people unless I’m making a conscious effort to avoid that. This must be some kind of horrible offence for a reason I haven’t yet figured out because the usual outcome, given enough time, is that they become seriously unfriendly and abusive, up to the point of physical violence insofar the situation doesn’t rule that out. Because of this, I’m extremely careful to avoid even accidentally staying in the proxmity of someone who isn’t otherwise occupied (ie, bar staff) for long enough to work himself up into a state where he feels like attacking me. Nevertheless, this still occurs with irritating regularity. That’s certainly my idea of ‘unfortunate’.
Yes I suppose it is unfortunate not to be naturally equipped to deal with the fact that the world contains a lot of dickheads. But instinctively I think the solution to that is to learn to deal with the situation rather than wish people didn’t find you annoying. But it’s easy for me to say that.
I use the word ‘unfortunate’ and ‘disorder’ because it’s an unnecessary brain injury that affects neurodevelopment. While it may indeed have its advantages at the higher end of the spectrum, even in these situations there are some unwanted, inconspicuous and troublesome disadvantages. As for the rest, it most definitely is a disorder with many disadvantages.
I have much to say on this topic best left for another day.
Injury implies some external event where the evidence seems to point to different development.
It’s such a wide spectrum that generalisation of it as a “disorder” is not helpful. I know plenty of people on the spectrum who are a good deal less disordered than supposedly “normal” people. Most of us self medicate with something- booze, drugs, food, sport, sex, retail therapy. If you could snap your fingers and abolish the autistic spectrum- by which I mean ensure that no further people with this “disorder” are born – would you?
Who am I to decide what other people should want to be?
I obviously wouldn’t want to abolish myself. But sometimes, I just want to have a pint in peace without having to get rid of 2 – 3 people I don’t want to deal with. I can meanwhile sort-of do that but this has taken almost 50 years of usually gruesome trial-and-error and got me into a lot of tight situations I’d really prefer to have avoided.
On the flip side, I think I’ve just (last couple of months) come up with a very neat way to model complex, asynchronous tasks involving different, unpredictably occuring operations on different file descriptors, specifically, getting a TLS connection established (OpenSSL) starting with having domain name which needs to be turned into a network address. But basically nobody understands what that is, the few people who do usually waste their time on hyperaggressive and rationally bizarre language wars and it’s not going to stop the next idiot from “knowing” that I must certainly be some kind of junkie or similarly disreputional existence.
If a disability is something which stops someone from having the kind of life other people just take for granted, this certainly qualifies.
Just-in-case note to autoresponder: I want neither sympathy nor – heaven forbid – government benefits. I’m just trying to describe the situation. Not that there was any chance of getting either of it.
Appreciate your thoughts.
Packham claims to be an autist because people who certainly aren’t apparenty think that must be somehow cool. But “autist TV celebrity” makes up as much sense as “flying sperm whale” — I don’t even have a TV because this talking box which constantly demands attention is just too annoying.
Two-tier policing without a shadow of doubt. Clearly high-profile public figures are basically being allowed to get away with saying anything. Plod have been instructed to leave them be but to arrest any proles who might have the decency to ask “who the f**k is allah?”
Now why are the police being encouraged to heighten the already febrile public atmosphere ?
Surely Kneel isn’t hoping to spark
more public outrage and perhaps rioting is he?
No news telling us the two Manchester ropers have been charged is there?
To quote you, again: “Off-T”:
Sorry huxleypiggles, must just clear something up; I promise to drop this matter after this post. Three days ago, I posted thus, quoting a curious passage from the Miriam Margolyes article:
“It wasn’t a good sign that she introduced Dickens as the greatest writer in the language. He is, without doubt, a very great writer – perhaps (except for the author of Anna Karenina?) the greatest novelist in the language.”
I commented briefly on the above, saying:
“Good article, but, as a friend has just pointed out to me, the bit quoted above is a bit…odd.”
I thought there might be some slight reaction to my comment, but I tend to see these articles a day after everyone else, so I presume my comments aren’t seen by many. You though huxley did see it, and you responded in a way that suggested you felt that what was needed was an explanation of the relative merits of various English writers. You said:
“Dickens was a fine writer and up with the best in English literature but there are many above.
D H Lawrence
George Elliot
Wilfred Owen
Some bloke called Shakespeare. Andrew Marvell and his contemporaries.
Morris West, Kipling, Auden, Betjeman, Elizabeth Acton, Delia Smith….and on and on…”
I replied, offering you my email address as a way of avoiding the distraction to others of a post exactly like this one, but I imagine that you, like most sensible people, don’t look back at old posts – hence this post today – for which apologies to everyone.
No, my point wasn’t that I thought the suggestion (by the author of the Margolyes piece – that Dickens was the greatest writer in the English language) either fair or unfair; my point was simply that it seemed odd to imply that Tolstoy wrote in English!
That said, while we’re on the subject, I should humbly point out also that Morris West, whom you interestingly informed me was one of “many” writers “above” poor old Charlie Dickens in the great canon of English literature, was Australian.
Two more brief observations, then I’ll leave everyone alone:
Seriously, no more from me on this. Again, huxley, if you want to respond, by all means do so at shersleyken@gmail.com (so as not to distract other readers).
Good job ‘Barclays customers’ isn’t a protected characteristic.
His hypocrisy is what strikes me immediately – how does he think the microphone in his hand, the platform on which he is standing, came into existence? Magicked up by elves?
And then, if people move from banking with Barclays to banking with (say) HSBC, there would be absolutely no impact on greenhouse gas concentrations at all.
When it comes to his freedom to say silly things, I think we can assume that he isn’t literally calling on people to kill themselves. Just as people posting about blowing up mosques aren’t literally calling on anyone to blow up a mosque (unless they are a munitions expert or known terrorist). Still I think we can be reassured that poor Chris P won’t be getting a visit from the police any time soon. It all ends in tiers.
I remember when Barclays used to be yelled at and boycotted for having banks in Soith Africa before Mendella took his long walk to freedom.
They survived.
’It all ends in tiers.’ I love it. It applies to so many issues nowadays. Just a pity you have to see it in writing to appreciate it.
Brilliant last sentence!
““Each incident that takes place is reviewed based on the language used as well as the specific set of circumstances in which the comments are made.”
Also based on who – Tommy Robinson can say ‘Good morning’ and get arrested, and a citizen can recite the Lord’s Prayer in their head and get arrested. Calling for extermination of Jews is reviewed on the basis of Plod not wishing to be called Islamophobic.
The rule of law – equality and equity under the law – is not supposed to be arbitrary. When it is – and clearly it is multi-tier and we no longer have the rule of law.
Not an incitement to self-harm, but a verbal flourish full of hate.
Well, if Chris promises to handcuff himself to me while I do it then point me to the contract.
I say similar things to people all the time. Why don’t you just disappear or commit suicide. Of course they never do and I have no expectation that they will but one hopes. I don’t think urging should be a crime. If it was then a lot of people would be in trouble. I don’t give two hoots if they follow my advice or not. Similarly I wouldn’t be persuaded by them to do the same. People hate each other. I don’t have any problem with anyone belonging to any group urging others to kill themselves.
I think what Mr Packham said was daft, idiotic and no sensible person in their right minds would listen and take notice of what he said. BUT , we are no longer in the world of where people can say stupid things and not expect to pay heavy consequences. There cannot be one rule for the common man who says stupid things, and another rule for a priviliged member of the elite club who also says stupid things. If the common man can lose his freedom because they say something like who the f is All– or passes on a silly suggestion regarding going out and doing a bit of building burning, then the precious, favored ones such as Packham MUST be judged and sentenced by the same rules.
If not all that is happening is the the Police are confirming the suspicion that the common man is treated differently from those in the protected classes, that the Courts have a two tier struture and likewise the politicians. This will lead to further unrest and civil uprising.
packham has to be arrested and charged, if not then why is he treated differently from those of us who are not on the bbc or part of the Westminster club?
The world is talking about britain, and not in a complimentary way. The country’s sudden attack on free speech is considered by many around the world to be satanic. Since when are people not allowed free speech in this country. Wake up folks. You are being bamboozled by a whole bunch of clowns who are not worth a minute of your time.
An analogy from the gutter showing a singular lack of wit, grace and finesse.
Packham works for the BBC, so he’s a protected species ….. just like Saville and Edwards were.
Until it becomes completely impossible to protect them.
And thats a fine example of 2 tier policing, you may argue he has the right to say what he thinks, and correct he does, even if he’s a few slices short of a loaf, and I don’t agree with him, but the same applies to the guy incarcerated, is it because he isn’t well known? or is it so we don’t “upset” a certain portion of the populace?, either way, its hypocrisy.
Don’t cancel him. Broadcast the clip often
Will that include Dr Rhian-Mari Thomas?
The more TPTB deny there is no two tier policing the more they make themselves look like liars!