Chris Packham calls it “hate terrorism” and he is fighting it.

I knew about the arson attacks. I did not know about the dead birds.

(Am I, too, “merely” the target of hate terrorism? I have called it “domestic terrorism” a few times.)

Why are people out there going after Chris Packham? Because they’re old-fashioned yet powerful Tories who won’t give up their privileges such as burying a live fox trapped in a bag so that hounds can dig it up and tear it to shreds during a hunt. I can’t think of anything else.

He can pinpoint a hunting publication that whips up hate against him. They’re basically a British version of the NRA in the US. The Guardian wrote the following about it:

This month, it posted a photograph to its Facebook group of a “Trophy room” it had digitally mocked up, featuring Packham’s head mounted on a plaque, as though he were an animal it had killed in a hunting trip.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2023/mar/30/chris-packham-crowdfunds-to-sue-hunting-publisher-for-hate-terrorism

(I’m not a BBC presenter, though, and few Tories will ever have heard of me.)

I quite like Chris Packham. Nobody should have to go through the tremendous fear and upset something like an arson attack causes. Finding dead animals on your doorstep is not particularly reassuring either. That Packham has Asperger’s does not mean that his fear and upset aren’t justified. Anyone would be afraid and upset after something like this. You’d have to be very abnormal, psychologically speaking, not to be.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/support-chris-packhams-libel-action/

The particular challenge Packham faces is that in Britain, it is seen as whiny, weak and feminine – not manly enough – if you stand up against something like this.

That’s why the hunting publication wrote the following under the “Trophy Room” image on Facebook:

“My three demands. I want pocket money. I want Fieldsports Channel to stop being horrid about me. I want more pocket money.”

But of course Packham should stand up against this! Of course he has to. If he doesn’t, it will be taken as implicit consent to abuse.