Lets see how the BBC gets out of this one !!!!!!

[kes]

Chris Packham has announced he is taking Rishi Sunak and his government to court after a number of key climate commitments were scrapped. The TV presenter announced today (Monday, December 4) that he will challenge the u-turn in the High Court.

I cant see how the BBC can escape the effects of this. The next line is typical;

Packham went on to urge his followers to donate to his legal costs which he said would need to see him raise £75,000 in 29 days.

 

[Rake Aboot]

What’s it got to do with the BBC ?

 

[kes]

What’s it got to do with the BBC ?

I am sure you act deliberately dim. When complaints have been made to the BBC about CP's political Bias they say he is a 'contractor' - I am interested to hear whether a contractor can go too far with his political comment and remain an employee of the BBC - satisfy you ?

 

[McKenzie]

I am sure you act deliberately dim. When complaints have been made to the BBC about CP's political Bias they say he is a 'contractor' - I am interested to hear whether a contractor can go too far with his political comment and remain an employee of the BBC - satisfy you ?

The point is that he's not an employee of the BBC.

 

[Deermanagement]

I worked for a large company who always maintained that contractors needed to be treated the same as employees in pretty well all respects especially rules of employment and H&S

Likely discrimination if they did not.

 

[McKenzie]

Well I occasionally work for the BBC, STV & Channel 4 & I've never been asked to sign anything but as with all my clients I would do everything in my power not to offend their sensibilities or do anything that wasn't in what I consider to be their best interest whilst I was working with them. Of course when I'm not working for them I'll do & say whatever I like, with the understanding that there are certain clients that might choose not to commission me again should I be deemed too controversial. I don't care one bit for Packham but in this instance he's perfectly entitled to attempt to take the government to court, as are you or I on anything that takes our fancy.

 

[Rake Aboot]

I am sure you act deliberately dim. When complaints have been made to the BBC about CP's political Bias they say he is a 'contractor' - I am interested to hear whether a contractor can go too far with his political comment and remain an employee of the BBC - satisfy you ?

Not really no

I does show how dim you are regards Packham though.
It’s nothing to do with the BBC

You’ve already stated he is a contractor but ask how long a contractor remains an employee
? Do you need the difference between the two explained ?

How many times do you need to have this pointed out ? I genuinely think people’s anger towards Packham makes the suddenly turn stupid.

 

[Rake Aboot]

I worked for a large company who always maintained that contractors needed to be treated the same as employees in pretty well all respects especially rules of employment and H&S

Likely discrimination if they did not.

Thats maintaining standards in contact staff employment terms

They still aren’t employees.

 

[udderlyoffroad]

Thats maintaining standards in contact staff employment terms

They still aren’t employees.

The precise contractual nature of CP to the BBC is irrelevant.

You can argue he's a contractor till the cows come home, it doesn't matter, he shouldn't be doing it whilst appearing on the BBC. Most of the 'talent' on the BBC are self-employed contractors.

If you don't believe me, look at the social media policy the BBC has issued. Everyone, employees, contractors, suppliers, etc have been required to sign it. The fact it is unequally enforced (see: Linekar) doesn't mean
a) he hasn't signed it
b) is not subject to it as a contractor

This "He's a contractor" excuse is nothing but weak management.

I don't care one bit for Packham but in this instance he's perfectly entitled to attempt to take the government to court, as are you or I on anything that takes our fancy.

In the eyes of the public, he is "BBC Talent", presents flag-ship BBC programmes, therefore he represents the BBC. Who have a duty to remain politically neutral, nominally anyway.

Political campaigning, in this case through the use of 'law-fare' definitely violates this principle, thus his position has become (even more) untenable.

Edited to add: Carol Vorderman, also a contractor, didn't have her contract renewed for her frankly ever-more-obsessive political tweeting.

 

[Klenchblaize]

The BBC are unlikely to do anything, albeit they should be on high alert to such policy breaches after a certain football pundit spoke about other than the game.

They’ve already given into Public pressure and brought back Autumn/Winter/Spring Watch. Guess who will present it after a voluntary short absence form the show.

K

 

[Malxwal]

It seems the BBC like their position of critic. And it's tolerated, like a petulant child, in the knowledge that it can be silenced if needs be. I doubt this will stop them from airing productions involving him. And as for the radio side of the Beeb, this will just endear him even more.

 

[Rake Aboot]

The precise contractual nature of CP to the BBC is irrelevant.

You can argue he's a contractor till the cows come home, it doesn't matter, he shouldn't be doing it whilst appearing on the BBC. Most of the 'talent' on the BBC are self-employed contractors.

If you don't believe me, look at the social media policy the BBC has issued. Everyone, employees, contractors, suppliers, etc have been required to sign it. The fact it is unequally enforced (see: Linekar) doesn't mean
a) he hasn't signed it
b) is not subject to it as a contractor

This "He's a contractor" excuse is nothing but weak management.

In the eyes of the public, he is "BBC Talent", presents flag-ship BBC programmes, therefore he represents the BBC. Who have a duty to remain politically neutral, nominally anyway.

Political campaigning, in this case through the use of 'law-fare' definitely violates this principle, thus his position has become (even more) untenable.

Edited to add: Carol Vorderman, also a contractor, didn't have her contract renewed for her frankly ever-more-obsessive political tweeting.

All of that is just magic
But it misses the point that he is not making apolitical comment, he is undertaking a legal action against the governments failure to fulfill commitments.
( I understand the nuances but there is a difference)

He is completely entitled to take legal action against whoever he likes.
Never mind the fact that a huge portion of the populace would support him.
I think the quicker folk realise that hating CP puts them in the minority the easier life will be for them.

 

[jimmer.13]

All of that is just magic
But it misses the point that he is not making apolitical comment, he is undertaking a legal action against the governments failure to fulfill commitments.
( I understand the nuances but there is a difference)

He is completely entitled to take legal action against whoever he likes.
Never mind the fact that a huge portion of the populace would support him.
I think the quicker folk realise that hating CP puts them in the minority the easier life will be for them.

A huge portion of the populace??

A lot of urbanites haven’t heard of him or don’t really care what he has to say.
The rural community I speak to and work alongside despise him.
Then again Im just guessing what actually 60 odd million people really give a rats ars* about just the same as you chap.
Do people still watch the BBC?
I gather there is some commotion today about the licence fee. Personally haven’t watched or listened to any of their productions since the Saville scandal……… have I missed much?

 

[Kalahari]

All of that is just magic
But it misses the point that he is not making apolitical comment, he is undertaking a legal action against the governments failure to fulfill commitments.
( I understand the nuances but there is a difference)

He is completely entitled to take legal action against whoever he likes.
Never mind the fact that a huge portion of the populace would support him.
I think the quicker folk realise that hating CP puts them in the minority the easier life will be for them.

 

[udderlyoffroad]

All of that is just magic
But it misses the point that he is not making apolitical comment, he is undertaking a legal action against the governments failure to fulfill commitments.
( I understand the nuances but there is a difference)

He is completely entitled to take legal action against whoever he likes.

It really doesn't, he's quite upfront about the 'law fare' aspect of this, it very much *is* political campaigning, albeit not a form of it we're especially used to in the UK.

We are not, for instance, talking about suing someone for defamation or libel. Plenty of BBC talent has done so without it impacting the reputation of the BBC.

There is a difference.

I think the quicker folk realise that hating CP puts them in the minority the easier life will be for them.

On this at least we agree.

Do people still watch the BBC?
I gather there is some commotion today about the licence fee. Personally haven’t watched or listened to any of their productions since the Saville scandal……… have I missed much?

I too have not bothered with the BBC since I moved house back in 2018.

I'm constantly surprised that people into the countryside way of life bother with it all, as the BBC editorial output seemingly actively dislikes them.

 

[RJD]

Good, someone needs to hold these ****tards to account, especially Sunak whose contempt for his subjects is nauseating… go cwiss!

 

[BenBhoy]

I'm by no means a packham fan (my daughter calls him the one daddy doesn't like) but I say good on him this time. Especially the allegations that the Tories made these changes without any consultation. Just make up the rules to suit. Like bunch of spoilt brats.

 

[kes]

So, simply a case of divide and conquer then ?
In my world, the right to criticise government policy is at an election or by protest, properly conducted. Here we have someone who 'works' for someone i.e. sells his services to another who is a 'neutral' and yet is able to mobilise opinion, based on his 'profile' with that employer to challenge anything he chooses which is not neutral but funded by other peoples' money.
This, to me, is buying influence. In politics this is illegal but not apparently in the 'voice of truth and impartiality' as it used to be called, or is it simply 'to make ends meet'.
He is a symptom of another 'elite' who have opinion and little actual fact, but significant prejudice, compared to the population average.
In a world where the truth matters such use of funded private opinion based on 'profile' should result in penalties.

I have noticed in the latest Blue Planet III opinion is important where before Sir DA simply stated the facts - also at the BBC. I dont have the BBC but 'opinion forming' is not its job.

 

[Rake Aboot]

I think you need a lie down mate.

So what you’re saying is no one should be allowed to take legal action against a sitting government?
Seriously ?

The rest is basically a rant. How you think you can stop a public personality from doing what he pleases with his life is beyond me.
As I have said, you disagree with him and dislike him
That puts you firmly in the minority , so in the arena of public opinion, yours is wrong.
Get used to it and give up on the CP rants that are a weekly thread on here. It’s getting to be childlike.

 

[Malxwal]

Packham the influencer. It's a modern occupation. Develop a big enough fanbase and mobilises them (their money) to your ends. Shows what mugs some people are.