advertisement


Chris Packham Crowdfunder

Public Service Announcement.

Your local hunt sabs do an unfortunately necessary job at great personal risk. Attacks by hunt security are common as is the vandalisation of property, vehicles etc. Supporting them financially is a really useful thing to do.

If you can't bring yourself to donate to a bunch of anonymous weirdos in balaclavas the League Against Cruel Sports also do fantastic work, are endorsed by nice people like Bill Oddie and Michaela Strachan and will put your cash to really good use.
 
Public Service Announcement.

Your local hunt sabs do an unfortunately necessary job at great personal risk. Attacks by hunt security are common as is the vandalisation of property, vehicles etc. Supporting them financially is a really useful thing to do.

If you can't bring yourself to donate to a bunch of anonymous weirdos in balaclavas the League Against Cruel Sports also do fantastic work, are endorsed by nice people like Bill Oddie and Michaela Strachan and will put your cash to really good use.

Yes, hopefully people are aware that the reason that sabs wear balaclavas is not because they're involved in illegal activity, as they are not, it's to protect themselves from being identified and subject to the very same threats that Chris Packham receives. The other people you might see wearing balaclavas or with their faces covered by scarfs are hunt thugs on quad bikes and terrier men, who are involved in illegal activity.
We know someone who, having been previously 'outed' as being involved with the sabs, have already been so terrified by threats that they've had to close down all their social media profiles and withdrawn from the anti-hunt movement. All the people involved in these 'country pursuits' in any way are weird and cruel bastards imo, and some their supporters and 'hangers on' can be even worse.



From the raptorpersecutionuk website:

"Here is a photo of how Fieldsports Channel Ltd chose to decorate their stand at this national gun show. It’s a mocked up ‘trophy room’ where various distorted images of Chris’s head were displayed as trophy mounts, presumably to resemble souvenirs of a kill"

fstv-trophywall-fb2march2023.jpg
 
Chris Packham is also a supporter of Revive, the grouse-moor reform campaign. I've heard him speak against this madness up here in Scotland. In a country where almost a fifth of the land area is set aside as private sporting estates and 500 people own half the private land, voices like his are essential.

Packham could safely enjoy a comfortable, lucrative TV career doing fluffy-bunny wildlife shows, but taking risks with his career and personal safety to highlight burning issues like this shows real grit and integrity.
 
According to the crowd funder page the original target was £20k, but they're using a 'stretch target' which seems to equate to 'if people keep donating and the target will be met then raise the target'. I'm sure it's legit, but it seems a bit off tbh. Hopefully if there's surplus then it'll go to a wildlife charity.
 
According to the crowd funder page the original target was £20k, but they're using a 'stretch target' which seems to equate to 'if people keep donating and the target will be met then raise the target'. I'm sure it's legit, but it seems a bit off tbh. Hopefully if there's surplus then it'll go to a wildlife charity.

I doubt there will be much spare change - legal cases like this tend to drag on ... and the 'defendants' will most certainly try to extend paying any costs as long as possible (if required to as a result of their defeat, should that arise).
 
According to the crowd funder page the original target was £20k, but they're using a 'stretch target' which seems to equate to 'if people keep donating and the target will be met then raise the target'. I'm sure it's legit, but it seems a bit off tbh. Hopefully if there's surplus then it'll go to a wildlife charity.

The last such crowd-funder I donated to was for land reform campaigner Andy Wightman to defend himself agains a defamation suit brought against him by wealthy landowners, in an attempt to silence his work. He won, and all those who donated were offered a pro-rata refund.

I'm sure a guy like Packham will keep a record of his legitimate expenses. Going over the target is a useful message to his opponents that the man has good public support.
 
ISTR the crowdfunding page makes clear that the target rises as the case progresses, because the costs will rise. And crowdfunding pages can and do exceed the target, so it seems like a non-issue to me.
 
Sure and don't get me wrong I'm not suggesting for a minute that there's anything untoward going on with Chris Packham or any suspicion of financial dodginess, I made a donation and I'm 100% behind his action. I'd be delighted if his legal action forced the FieldSports channel out of business tbh.

I think that I don't really like the 'stretch target' concept as it looks like a method to always present the target as 'not having been met', to encourage people to continue to donate. I'd rather see a realistic fixed target in the first place, and you either meet it or you don't.
 
I take your point, but sometimes a stretch target is probably more appropriate, ie if the likely costs are unknown, and apt to be a bit on the elastic side themselves. Medical and legal expenses are two pretty obvious examples of that.
 
It's also his birthday today, apparently. Sent his crowdfunder a bit more, partly because birthday, but mainly because that testimony is compelling.

My fear is that these bastards will lose the case and just go bankrupt, or otherwise avoid making the recompense Packham seems so clearly entitled to.
 
Last edited:


advertisement


Back
Top