CASH is cascading into an account set up to fund a legal action launched on behalf of BBC wildlife presenter Chris Packham.
The initial target figure was £20,000, but, as of 5pm today, well over £80,000 had already been pledged.
The fund was set up by the broadcaster's friend, Dr Ruth Tingay, to finance the costs of defamation cases he has chosen to bring against Country Squire Magazine, Fieldsports Channel Ltd and an individual journalist.
The duo's campaign received a shot in the arm when Ruth was given space to publicise the matter on the widely-read website, Rare Bird Alert.
Is the extent of the financial aid for the broadcaster welcome?
Not necessarily so. It could prove embarrassing.
Thanks to his contracts with the BBC, Chris is already handsomely remunerated - indirectly - by public money through the TV licence fee.
Some will look askance that he is ready to accept donations from individuals who probably earn far less than he.
Will any of the money be refunded - particularly if he wins his cases and is awarded substantial damages by the court? Neither he nor Ruth have said.
The Wryneck takes the view that Chris' decision to take legal action :has been unwise and may not end with the outcomes he seeks.
If every celebrity were to sue because of something on social or in other media that they believed to be inaccurate or defamatory, the libel courts would be clogged. The UK's legal action system would grind to a halt.
Over the years, Chris has been a forthright - and courageous - ambassador for Nature. But, in his rush to litigation, is he being unduly 'precious'?
Furthermore, is he not providing the oxygen of publicity to those whom many of his supporters would wish to see brought to their knees?
A further question concerns the readiness of both Chris and Ruth to comment so freely in advance of any court hearings, all the more so as they have both brought unconnected matters, such as an historic arson incident, into the debate.
Seeking to influence proceedings in this way risks putting litigants (or defendants) in contempt of court.
By contrast to Chris and Ruth, the parties defending the actions seem to have recognised that they will have their day before the Bench (on a date to be fixed) when all the evidence, not just that of the litigants, is due to be heard.
Until then, it seems they have (mostly) been wise enough to keep their own counsel.
But cometh that day, and the barristers will make merry. Merry, that is, for them, but not necessarily for those in line for what might prove very uncomfortable cross-examination.
To return to where we started - the donations.
Those donors' monies surely should be placed forthwith in an independent escrow account - not one under the stewardship of the legal team acting for Chris.
And if not to be returned, would it not be much more beneficially spent on a worthy cause such as habitat creation than on financing litigation?
Chris has made his point. He has been heard - many times and by many people.
He should let his litigation cases rest on the table and get back to doing what he does best - promoting conservation and the welfare of wildlife.
It is not a 'legal action launched on behalf of Chris Packham' it is a legal action launched by Chris Packham. By him and only him. It is interesting also to note that he has chosen to go after three individuals posting on a relatively obscure website rather than the Daily Mail who printed pretty much exactly the same stories. Judging by the well-researched and comprehensive articles which provoked the suit, he is going to need a rather better defense than 'I'm not directly employed by the BBC so they can't sack me' and 'I'm autistic' which seems to be his standard ploy.
ReplyDeletePoint noted. It is the fundraising that has been launched on the presenter's behalf - not the legal action. Thanks for the correction.
DeleteEasy to see your 'flexible' view of a targeted attack by three lifelong trolls in the hope of destroying a man who lives by his principles. Those of us more aware of the defamers' backgrounds are unlikely to support their character assassination; the 'meanings' hearing concluded that their articles/posts were defamatory. The defamation is the core of the case, not CP's employment status and your absurd reference to his needing 'a rather better defense' exposes your ignorance of the law and your partisan support of the actual defamers. CP is the victim, not the aggressor.
DeleteSniping about his autism makes you look an arsehole, in case you were wondering. Grow up.
To be honest, it is difficult to see what Mr Packham aims to achieve from this litigation. The people he is suing aren't rich and should he win, his costs will bankrupt them without his seeing a penny out of the action. Indeed, whatever the outcome he is likely to see a net loss on the balance sheet.
ReplyDeleteIt is also worth pointing out that he is a contractor who is paid via a company that he owns. This is entirely legal and entirely sensible on his part, since it minimises his tax bill but it does come with one major downside: he has no security of employment as a salaried individual would have and does not have any legitimate expectation of repeat business. Rather he is reliant on his reputation to garner repeat business.
Reputation is a fickle thing. It is based around emotional responses, something which an autistic individual such as myself perceives differently to most of the world. Perhaps Mr Packham shares my worldview, perhaps not but nevertheless going to law generally means having all of one's dirty laundry and questionable past deeds aired very publicly indeed. Such an airing may destroy one's reputation in the public eye.
Thus I think that he runs the risk of destroying his livelihood by these court actions, and once his reputation is sullied he will find it difficult to recover.
I suggest you google 'defamation' since you're talking rubbish. The unfounded allegation from the Fieldsports idiots was highly defamatory to CP and also had criminal implications as in his deliberately misleading the police, which could have resulted in charges against him.
ReplyDeleteThe allegations were intended to be malicious and to destroy his reputation so this case is absolutely justifiable, and the public agree wholeheartedly hence the speed and amount of the donations.
As to the libellous slanderous idiots at the Fieldsports channel, CP is under NO obligation to consider their financial position and it beggars belief that any sentient adult would even suggest such a thing. They should have considered their own risk before publishing smears as facts. This is not about money, it's about ensuring that no grandstanding gobshite can defame him without penalty, let alone three and then a further idiot following in their footsteps and all hoping for a payday.
Reputation is indeed a fickle thing and, having worked his whole life to build his reputation, I see no reason whatsoever for CP to allow vested-interest venomous trolls to reduce his to dust in order to profit.
Gosh!
Delete'the parties defending the actions recognise they will have their day before the Bench (on a date to be fixed) when all the evidence, not just that of the litigants, is due to be heard.
DeleteUntil then, they have (mostly) been wise enough to keep their own counsel.
But cometh that day, and the barristers will make merry. Merry, that is, for them, but not necessarily for Chris who must prepare for what might prove very uncomfortable cross-examination.
To return to where we started - the donations.
Those donors' monies surely should be placed forthwith in an independent escrow account - not one under the stewardship of the legal team acting for Chris.
And if not to be returned, would it not be much more beneficially spent on a worthy cause such as habitat creation than on financing litigation.
Chris has made his point. He has been heard - many times and by many people.
He should thicken his skin, drop his litigation claims and get back to doing what he does best - promoting conservation and the welfare of wildlife'.
******************************************************************************
I infer that you only know what you have read on the defamers' website and on their linked Facebook and Twitter accounts. I therefore suggest that you avoid passing judgement until the full background is made known during the hearings.
Unsavoury histories are very difficult things to hide.
If I could come back into the discussion, I have great admiration for Chris - not just for his depth of knowledge and communication skills but also for his courage.
DeleteIn many ways, he is putting his head above the parapet while others (perhaps including the RSPB) choose to keep their heads well down and out of the firing line.
The same mega-respect is also due to Dr Ruth Tingay who is obviously breathtakingly brave as well as dedicated and kind-hearted.
But as well as being eye-wateringly expensive, the law is very unpredictable.
Whatever the outcome of any forthcoming proceedings, that may not be the end of the matter. In fact, it could be the springboard for worse to come.
However, that's just my opinion - I could be totally wrong.
(Incidentally, as yet, I am unacquainted with the social media output of the other parties in the dispute.)
Well you see there's courage, and then there's autism. I look at Chris and I see a great deal of myself staring right back at me; same mental difference, same deficits.
DeleteAutism has a curious effect in that all you neurotypical folks seem to have some sort of in-built neurological sat-nav or something that lets you know what the rest of you are thinking. Best way I can put it is a Teams or Zoom meeting; that robs the neurotypicals of the cues they need to know when to talk in a meeting and suddenly everyone's autistic on Zoom; it's very refreshing.
What this means in the real world is that I have to work hard to look for reactions to what I say and act like; what you do automatically I have to remember to do, and Chris is the same. It is very easy to get lost in one's own little world of assumptions and models of how things are and not ever see corrections to this coming in from outside.
The other weird thing about everyone else is this continual social status game you lot all seem to be playing. Take cars, for instance. A car's this thing with a wheel at each corner and gubbins to make it go that gets you from place to place. Some colours are nicer than others, some are easier to use and more comfy than others, but in no case do I look at a car and make any inference from car to person in it.
You lot do. Terribly confusing if you don't have an inkling as to what the game behind it all is. You lot are all locked in this bloody great one-upmanship challenge and you don't seem to realise it.
So, us autistic sorts simply say it as we see it, tell it like it is, and all of a sudden there's all this great kerfuffle about what this implies or what that implies and all sorts of bollocks. We just stated the facts as we saw them, nothing more, nothing less. A great deal of the noise around Chris is just down to this.
So as I see it what's going on now is simple: Chris here has had enough. Enough of the sniping and misrepresenting his position as he sees it, and enough of people disagreeing with what he sees as self-evident facts. So, easiest way to sort it is to appeal to a higher authority and let them decide who's right and who's wrong.
That this only stirs up shite that would never see light of day otherwise and that this is likely to ruin his reputation likely never actually occurred to him. It likely wouldn't occur to me; I don't regard myself as a part of this invisible social status game, so I don't think I have a reputation to uphold or defend.
Anyway, that's how the thing looks as coloured by my mind; you'll likely differ and say so, and that's good on account of everyone being different is good.
Thank you, Dan, for those important insights. You have provided a really valuable and probably under-appreciated perspective.
DeleteBoth outcomes will indeed be the end of the matter, for disparate reasons. I look forward to seeing all facts and motivations play out in the news with unblinking clarity.
ReplyDeleteIt will be delicious.