Bear and the Bat Incident
- Thread starter JonathanD
- Start date
-
Come along to the amazing Summer Moot (21st July - 2nd August), a festival of bushcrafting and camping in a beautiful woodland PLEASE CLICK HERE for more information.
Personally I don't think anyone has a right to condemn what goes on in another country. What might be a beautiful and protected species here is invariably a plague in other regions.
I can't stand BG and after watching a couple of his programs switched him off permanently.
Despite what folks say, there is a place for such nonsense being shown here. Parents can point out that such behaviour might be acceptable in that country but that here we behave in a more enlightened manner because of the status of the species or that we are perhaps a little more civilised.
I think you are missing the issue being discussed here. It isn't the act that is being condemned, but the way in which it was represented. Natives in that country going about the same method as a source of food is completely different to playing tennis with a live animal in the name of entertainment. There is no place for such acts on TV here, otherwise we'd be showing badger-baiting and indeed, hedghog football.
Don't you mean service
Thought I'd get it over with
Its an interesting point though, the one relating to editing...perhaps they have become immune to his bravado and gave it little or no thought.
He's going to have to do something to calm the fury that is bound to arise.
JD. I wont be watching, as I have little time for his programmes personally, and I guess this is just an example of why i make that choice.
Still stand by him as a good chief scout, and the hard work he is putting into that role...but this just makes it a little more difficult for others to accept...shame really as he is a natural with the youngsters.
I'm not missing the issue at all, just not prepared to ram my own thoughts down others throats.
We are all man enough to make up our own minds and walk our own paths without having others try to censor what I am allowed to see just because it offends them.
[/QUOTE] Its an interesting point though, the one relating to editing...perhaps they have become immune to his bravado and gave it little or no thought.
Still stand by him as a good chief scout, and the hard work he is putting into that role...but this just makes it a little more difficult for others to accept...shame really as he is a natural with the youngsters.[/QUOTE]
I just think that to turn out a TV programme is a team effort. Above Bear there must be loads of people who have more responsibility for the production..
I would also find it suprising if Bear is calling the shots during most of these programes...It may be possible that he is just doing what he is told to do (within reason). Then again I may be wrong... However i certainly wouldnt let him loose with a fiver, let alone a huge TV programme buget combined with the authority to direct himself.
Still stand by him as a good chief scout, and the hard work he is putting into that role...but this just makes it a little more difficult for others to accept...shame really as he is a natural with the youngsters.[/QUOTE]
I just think that to turn out a TV programme is a team effort. Above Bear there must be loads of people who have more responsibility for the production..
I would also find it suprising if Bear is calling the shots during most of these programes...It may be possible that he is just doing what he is told to do (within reason). Then again I may be wrong... However i certainly wouldnt let him loose with a fiver, let alone a huge TV programme buget combined with the authority to direct himself.
I'm not missing the issue at all, just not prepared to ram my own thoughts down others throats.
We are all man enough to make up our own minds and walk our own paths without having others try to censor what I am allowed to see just because it offends them.
Your original post suggested we were condemning acts that take place in other countries. We are not, we are condemning the acts of a high profile individual who is a member of a few organisations which are against these acts. Especially in the form of entertainment. His actions and his influential position have had an adverse reaction and may have led to copy cat idiots out for some ignorant fun.
If we were all allowed to go out and make programmes committing any act we deem appropriate and broadcast it, then there would be little hope for our civilisation. If you don't think it's right to stand up and say 'No that is wrong' when we see something inappropriate on TV that has led to further acts of this nature, then I don't understand you as such a view would allow unhindered acts of cruelty available to those who wish to watch, but that'll be OK, cos we can just turn it off if we don't like it. What an absurd comment.
This isn't about censorship, it's about responsible programme making when you hold a position of responsibility and influence. There is a place for this in such a programme as BGs for showing these methods. But not the way it was shot and broadcast.
I have every right to express my concern and the actions of the BCT. Ramming my view down your throat? Hardly. Just responding to a discussion that I started, where it seems I am not at all alone in my views.
Last edited:
My comments are no more absurd then yours. This is supposed to be an internet forum where people exchange opinions. It seems that you don't allow others to have any without being disrespectful?
No way do I condone what has gone on. No way do I agree with 90% of what BG does. I just want to be allowed to see the topic and make my own mind if if that is allowed?
I love Wawne Rooney as a footballer but I don't agree with what he does off the field and he doesn't influence me to want to emulate him.
Do you really think that BG behaving like a loon batting bats would make my grandkids want to do it? No, they would be disgusted and would switch him off.
No way do I condone what has gone on. No way do I agree with 90% of what BG does. I just want to be allowed to see the topic and make my own mind if if that is allowed?
I love Wawne Rooney as a footballer but I don't agree with what he does off the field and he doesn't influence me to want to emulate him.
Do you really think that BG behaving like a loon batting bats would make my grandkids want to do it? No, they would be disgusted and would switch him off.
OK, so you are saying we should be careful of what messages we give out in case they lead others astray?
Nothing wrong with that.
But on that point, wouldn't it be wise to think how sensible it is for someone to have, for instance, an image of a big knife as one's online signature? After all, using your own logic, it may act as an impetous to look as though some (not bushcrafters, of course!) are glamorising knives to those (not bushcrafters, of course!) who are easily impressed upon.
Two other things. Firstly (and one I am on a back foot on because I haven't watched the clip) is Bear 'playing tennis' (as you asserted in a previous post)? Or merely calling out tennis phrases? Does someone volley it back to him? Or is he just hitting it with a bat and (admittedly stupidly) calling out tennis terms? Which isn't really 'playing tennis', is it? Not that that makes it any better - just giving an example of how you've exaggerated.
And secondly, another exaggeration of yours - you claim that Bear's actions have led to others copying him (you can find it in the passage I quoted above) - is there any evidence to suggest anyone has copied him? Or are you merely making that up?
You're right, it was pretty careless of him. But we are all capable of making decisions for ourselves and do not need moral guardians such as yourself to wring your hands on our behalf, telling us we're all easily-led gullible fools. Give people a bit more credit.
I haven't once been disrespectful to you or anyone. You suggested that we had no right commenting on what people do in other countries. I pointed out that it was not about that issue, more to do with the acts of one person.
The knife in my signature is a bushcraft tool, I'm not showing it being used in an irresponsible manner anywhere and no where do I condone any behaviour that does, so I don't see your point there. It's no different to me being on a DIY forum and having a screwdriver in my signature or avatar.
I'm not exaggerating what he did. He called it bat tennis himself and made quotes to do with tennis. If you are being picky about the use of the word 'tennis' then, he wasn't on a court, didn't have an opposing player, umpire or even use tennis balls, so no, he wasn't literally playing tennis. But I wasn't exaggerating, just using his own words to describe his actions. And yes, the BCT have had cases of people batting bats (to coin Southeys phrase), the original post is not mine, but a direct quote from the BCTs publication. It was talking with a batworker in Dorset this morning about two such incidents he new of over some playing fields. It was that conversation that prompted me to post this thread.
I personally didn't agree with it and have posted why. I personally don't know anyone who would act out BGs moves (well perhaps one) and nor do I suggest the majority of people out there will take up tennis rackets and emulate him. But lets face it, some people will, especially as it all looks a lot of fun and a bit of a lark. In that case, I, the BCT and anyone else who finds it distasteful, has a right to bring it up and/or comment about it.
Animal conservation is my day job, so I do have strong views on people commiting acts of cruelty. I make no apologies for that. It should be considered though, that BG has killed many a snake in his programmes, and I have never spoken out once against them as they were handled very differently to the bat thing.
Last edited:
You said that my comments were absurd - that is being disrespectful. I am allowed to state my opinions just the same as you have done.
It is you that brought up censorship asking that no one post a link to the incident.
Apologies that it came over like that. I diddn't relise that you were referring to censorship of such acts on this site, but on Brit TV as a whole. I brought the subject up so would have no issue personally if the clip was shown here. But to allow uncensored programming as a whole (which is what I thought you meant) is absurd, otherwise there is no limitation on what can be broadcast and to whom. Censorship is a necessary evil. The only reason I asked that no one post a link here was simply due to the fact that it might not go down too well with the boss. That's why I PMd it to ged. Wildlife&Environment Forums had a huge issue with a link being posted and I didn't want that mistake repeated. Animal cruelty and family forums do not go hand in hand, and Discovery are trying to remove the links and cut the scene a little better than it came over originally.
Last edited:
In the time I've been subscribed to BCUK I've seen a few threads about personalities. Perhaps more than I'd expect have mentioned BG. I don't watch TV, and I have very little time for hero worship or knocking down straw men, so I've usually avoided reading them.
Well I've just watched part of this 'bat tennis' footage on Youtube. It's the first time I've seen anything of the guy's shows. In the clip which I saw, the 'tennis' incident is apparently cut very much short but even so there is no mistaking the glee with which BG approaches it. If anything it's worse than I could have imagined, he seems to be looking forward to the game even while making the implement which he uses.
If he were a member of my staff, right about now I'd be showing him the Rules of Employment and in particular the parts which relate to instant dismissal for gross misconduct.
This goes well beyond whether the guy is doing a good job, or taking silly risks, or is any good at the Real Thing whatever that might be. He clearly had a lot of fun on TV killing innocent creatures for no good reason. Whether the species is protected, a pest, endangered, or a danger makes no difference. What he did was one of the worst examples of brutal behaviour that I have ever seen, and before anyone asks I have seen some unspeakable crimes.
After what BG did there I can't see how the scouts nor any animal welfare organization could possibly remain associated with him.
Well I've just watched part of this 'bat tennis' footage on Youtube. It's the first time I've seen anything of the guy's shows. In the clip which I saw, the 'tennis' incident is apparently cut very much short but even so there is no mistaking the glee with which BG approaches it. If anything it's worse than I could have imagined, he seems to be looking forward to the game even while making the implement which he uses.
If he were a member of my staff, right about now I'd be showing him the Rules of Employment and in particular the parts which relate to instant dismissal for gross misconduct.
This goes well beyond whether the guy is doing a good job, or taking silly risks, or is any good at the Real Thing whatever that might be. He clearly had a lot of fun on TV killing innocent creatures for no good reason. Whether the species is protected, a pest, endangered, or a danger makes no difference. What he did was one of the worst examples of brutal behaviour that I have ever seen, and before anyone asks I have seen some unspeakable crimes.
After what BG did there I can't see how the scouts nor any animal welfare organization could possibly remain associated with him.
The site has rules about copyright infringement, we need to be careful about that.
Incidentally, the term 'is absurd' is often used dispassionately in mathematical and logical arguments to mean something like 'obviously false' or 'doesn't hold water'.
Don't take things too personally.
BarryG has a fair point. Before we knock BG for that section of the programme in light of his other roles and duties we should consider just how much of a say he actually has in that programme. I can't remember where I saw it or read it but BG and others wanted to do a programme along the lines of is it survivorman or somethin like that. Anyway the guy's programme who they wanted to emulate is a respected name in US (and other places) and it was the intention that BG's programme as to be similar. Unfortunately the network had a demographic and n image for it that they wanted to portray and that is the way it went. Basically BG is a presenter of a programme that is not really wholly of his making. And do you not think that he has a contract that is most likely tight so he has to do these stunts and sometimes stunts could cause offence.
I just wonder if you should separate the guy BG from the programme he presents. Condemn the programme and the production company and the network but cut the guy BG some slack. He comes across as a genuine guy in interviews and real nice guy. He also does some good work in his otgher fields of activity. This programme and in particular that stunt is not his best work and I do wonder how much of that section of the programme was down to him. As shown in the radio incident with Jonathon Ross and Russel Brand a recorded show has plenty of opportunity to be edited to remove offending bits or not shown at all between the recording and the broadcasting. That responsibility is down to people higher up the food chain. Although anything that is not illegal could be argued as fair game to some. This was not illegal but inappropriate to some on her and others. This was not deemed inappropriate to those broadcasting it though.
I just wonder if you should separate the guy BG from the programme he presents. Condemn the programme and the production company and the network but cut the guy BG some slack. He comes across as a genuine guy in interviews and real nice guy. He also does some good work in his otgher fields of activity. This programme and in particular that stunt is not his best work and I do wonder how much of that section of the programme was down to him. As shown in the radio incident with Jonathon Ross and Russel Brand a recorded show has plenty of opportunity to be edited to remove offending bits or not shown at all between the recording and the broadcasting. That responsibility is down to people higher up the food chain. Although anything that is not illegal could be argued as fair game to some. This was not illegal but inappropriate to some on her and others. This was not deemed inappropriate to those broadcasting it though.
BTW I didn't think it was too bad. Noone returning them, it was a one sided game. Not as offensive as it has been made out IMHO. Didn't seem like he was doing it for fun he was enthusing about the process and the tennis reference was fair in my book. you had to make a tool to hit them with to catch them. He made a kind of net and dispatched them as quick as you can. Plus most of them escaped. The was it "game set and match" comment was possibly slightly wrong but even that in the context and the method of catching the bats was appropriate. Storm in a teacup, sorry but my opinion. I know ppl who have killed rats by a well timed stomp I've seen things left injured to die suffering before now. That is wrong but the rapid dispatch of an animal by the best way you can is not wrong if it is not endangered and being enthusiastic about it is hardly a crime to condemn him over. Fuss! If only everything killed in this country was done quickly.
Hello,
Wondering if I can express my opinion on the matter here without upsetting any BG fans, or BG haters.
Whats the difference between him having fun catching a bat and one of you having fun catching a rabbit? Or fish? or a squirrel? Ive read posts on here of people shooting rabbits and not actually eating them.
I understand he is an icon for young kids, but its down to the parents to approve material before showing it to their kids. He eats a goats eye in one series (i think), is this suitable for kids? Isnt it down to the parents to sit the kids down and say "OK just bcause he eats a eye from a dead goat, dosnt mean you have to try it when you find a corpse" ?
There is far more worse stuff being shown on TV and the internet, the goventment cannot control it, and we should stop being offended if one clip gets through the net, and apply our own net, woudnt y ou say?
Wondering if I can express my opinion on the matter here without upsetting any BG fans, or BG haters.
Whats the difference between him having fun catching a bat and one of you having fun catching a rabbit? Or fish? or a squirrel? Ive read posts on here of people shooting rabbits and not actually eating them.
I understand he is an icon for young kids, but its down to the parents to approve material before showing it to their kids. He eats a goats eye in one series (i think), is this suitable for kids? Isnt it down to the parents to sit the kids down and say "OK just bcause he eats a eye from a dead goat, dosnt mean you have to try it when you find a corpse" ?
There is far more worse stuff being shown on TV and the internet, the goventment cannot control it, and we should stop being offended if one clip gets through the net, and apply our own net, woudnt y ou say?
Similar threads
