Bear Grylis Fired by Discovery

  • Hey Guest, We've had to cancel our 2020 Summer BushMoot PLEASE LOOK HERE for more information.
Status
Not open for further replies.

JonathanD

Ophiological Genius
Sep 3, 2004
11,884
99
49
Stourton,UK
devalbushcrafter.webeden.co.uk
Ray also bit the head off a live witchetty grub purely for the purposes of the programme. Then proceeded to pass more around to Gordon and the rest of the production. Same series, they were eating live ants and catching fish in the Thames using primitive hooks. Purely for the programme. The difference?
 

Adze

Native
Oct 9, 2009
1,874
0
Cumbria
www.adamhughes.net
Ray also bit the head off a live witchetty grub purely for the purposes of the programme. Then proceeded to pass more around to Gordon and the rest of the production. Same series, they were eating live ants and catching fish in the Thames using primitive hooks. Purely for the programme. The difference?
You are the one making this Ray vs Bear Jon, not I. Re read the third paragraph in my reply - I hold no particular allegiance in this other than to common sense. You have claimed that Grylls should be accountable for none of his actions simply because he was contractually obliged to them. I seek only to puncture that very delicate bubble you seek to create.
 

HillBill

Bushcrafter through and through
Oct 1, 2008
8,113
57
W. Yorkshire
You have claimed that Grylls should be accountable for none of his actions simply because he was contractually obliged to them. I seek only to puncture that very delicate bubble you seek to create.
Accountable for what exactly? What he did was legal in the places they were filmed. Its no different than you or me, going out with an airgun and shooting a rabbit on land with permission to do that very thing.

Just because it is on TV and the animals are different to what we generally eat? Protein is protein at the end of the day. :)

We can't condemn him for these things, without being hypocrites ourselves.
 

fluoxetine

Member
Aug 6, 2011
23
2
Wakefield
Just saw the news that his next series will be Bear sat at home looking at a map and his bank account.

Joking.

Although Bear is a TV product, he has done things you would never really do. For me though, it is sad. But at least he is still being shown on Discovery late night.
 

JonathanD

Ophiological Genius
Sep 3, 2004
11,884
99
49
Stourton,UK
devalbushcrafter.webeden.co.uk
You are the one making this Ray vs Bear Jon, not I. Re read the third paragraph in my reply - I hold no particular allegiance in this other than to common sense. You have claimed that Grylls should be accountable for none of his actions simply because he was contractually obliged to them. I seek only to puncture that very delicate bubble you seek to create.
I'm not starting a Ray v Bear argument. Don't turn this discussion into something else. Those examples I stated are valid as it seems some presenters are allowed to do some things whilst one is maligned for doing exactly the same. And don't make this personal, it is a discussion about Grylls. Not me. Address the issue why you think it is OK for Ray to chew the head of a grub, while it isn't for Grylls to do the same with a snake. Don't address my POV, just that simple comparison.

Most people on here know that my allegiances lie very firmly with Ray Mears. In my view Bear could never make anything near the programmes Ray does, or have the knowledge. But I won't victimise him because he can't.
 

Adze

Native
Oct 9, 2009
1,874
0
Cumbria
www.adamhughes.net
I'm not starting a Ray v Bear argument. Don't turn this discussion into something else.
You brought up Ray - not me. I'm distinctly 'platform agnostic' on this. If you wish to retract your Ray comparison be my guest but definitely don't try to imply I'm pushing an agenda as you will fail.

Those examples I stated are valid as it seems some presenters are allowed to do some things whilst one is maligned for doing exactly the same. And don't make this personal, it is a discussion about Grylls. Not me. Address the issue why you think it is OK for Ray to chew the head of a grub, while it isn't for Grylls to do the same with a snake. Don't address my POV, just that simple comparison.
...as I stated above - not my concern or my point, although it's a nice redirect to distract from the "contract" argument. I don't give a monkey's who is whiter than white - I want to burst the "they had no choice it was all the big bad TV executive's fault" bubble you seem to believe excuses more or less anything, not the "this lifeform has more merit than another" agenda you mistakenly believe I'm pushing.

Do you seriously believe that either Ray or Grylls couldn't have walked away from whatever they were doing should their consciences have pricked them thus?

Don't avoid the question again Jon - we already know you're more intelligent than to have misunderstood the question at hand.
 

JonathanD

Ophiological Genius
Sep 3, 2004
11,884
99
49
Stourton,UK
devalbushcrafter.webeden.co.uk
You brought up Ray - not me. I'm distinctly 'platform agnostic' on this. If you wish to retract your Ray comparison be my guest but definitely don't try to imply I'm pushing an agenda as you will fail.
Yes, by comparison for eating live animals. It's a valid point.



...as I stated above - not my concern or my point, although it's a nice redirect to distract from the "contract" argument. I don't give a monkey's who is whiter than white - I want to burst the "they had no choice it was all the big bad TV executive's fault" bubble you seem to believe excuses more or less anything, not the "this lifeform has more merit than another" agenda you mistakenly believe I'm pushing.
I'm not redirecting, my last post was a straight on question which you have not answered. Why is it deemed OK for Ray Mears, Les Stroud, Gordon Ramsay or Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall (personality unimportant, just the act) to eat live animals on TV but Grylls is maligned for it.

Do you seriously believe that either Ray or Grylls couldn't have walked away from whatever they were doing should their consciences have pricked them thus?
No, but they both do it and only Grylls is attacked for it.

Don't avoid the question again Jon - we already know you're more intelligent than to have misunderstood the question at hand.
What question have I avoided? I think I've tackled most points in this thread, including yours in some detail.
 
Last edited:

Adze

Native
Oct 9, 2009
1,874
0
Cumbria
www.adamhughes.net
What question have I avoided? I think I've tackled most points in this thread, including yours in some detail.
You mean apart from the, including this post, thrice stated "Do you really think a contract excuses any behaviour" question?

Unless your answer "No, but they both do it and only Grylls is attacked for it." which implies, does it not, that my original question was in fact about the differences between Ray and Grylls and not in fact about your previous assertions thus: "Discovery make and script the programmes. Not Grylls. He is just paid to present and do what they tell him to do."
 

JonathanD

Ophiological Genius
Sep 3, 2004
11,884
99
49
Stourton,UK
devalbushcrafter.webeden.co.uk
A contract doesn't excuse any behaviour.. NO. There's my answer. Please point me to the original quote where you stated that question. I missed it.

But what behaviour has he shown that is morally or legally unnacceptable? I'm contracted to do things I don't wish to do. Does that make me a phoney, a liar and a cheat? Does that make me a charlatan? Of course not.

And here is the question. What has Grylls done that should make him the object of such hate here, that threads have been locked, members have been banned and posts deleted for the content and vulgar attitudes they presented? What heights of misleading implications in programmes has Grylls attained, that Attenborough, Mears, Stevens et al hasn't that leads to so much hate?
 

Adze

Native
Oct 9, 2009
1,874
0
Cumbria
www.adamhughes.net
A contract doesn't excuse any behaviour.. NO. There's my answer. Please point me to the original quote where you stated that question. I missed it.
As I missed your implied question earlier it seems. Neither of us used a question mark, although we both implied questions - a mistake on both our parts it seems and for which I apologise unreservedly. The error would not have been so obvious face to face, too much is lost in text only form.

But what behaviour has he shown that is morally or legally unnacceptable?
You, yourself stated earlier that "I find the killing of any animal in the making of a TV programme oddly distasteful."

I would argue that Ray's eating of a wichetty grub was in pursuit of a meal, as would the shooting of a rabbit by Hillbill (or myself, I've killed a few and chapped more trout than I care to mention) but the biting the head off of and then consumption of the still wriggling snake was more in the interests of sensationalistic TV than it was gourmet cuisine or desperate need. This is but one tiny example and I'm not going to trawl the repositories of BearTV, or this very thread, to discover more for very obvious and, I believe, good reason.

I'm contracted to do things I don't wish to do. Does that make me a phoney, a liar and a cheat? Does that make me a charlatan? Of course not.
Quite right - and never have I stated or suggested such with respect to Grylls. As I stated earlier, I only sought to pierce the fragile bubble of 'a contract excuses all'

And here is the question. What has Grylls done that should make him the object of such hate here, that threads have been locked, members have been banned and posts deleted for the content and vulgar attitudes they presented? What heights of misleading implications in programmes has Grylls attained, that Attenborough, Mears, Stevens et al hasn't that leads to so much hate?
I have no idea - however, I'll stand by my earlier statement re agnosticism regarding Grylls/Ray etc. and will happily stand by my own morals when it comes to my own actions. I certainly don't hate the man - I'm not a fan of some of his TV shows certainly, but I don't confuse Bear Grylls the TV personality with Edward Grylls* (*should that actually be his real name) any more than I confuse Roger Moore with Simon Templar or James Bond.

It appears then that we agree, after all, that if you are the face associated something then you must assume the responsibility for what is done in your name? Would you say that was accurate?
 

JonathanD

Ophiological Genius
Sep 3, 2004
11,884
99
49
Stourton,UK
devalbushcrafter.webeden.co.uk
As I missed your implied question earlier it seems. Neither of us used a question mark, although we both implied questions - a mistake on both our parts it seems and for which I apologise unreservedly. The error would not have been so obvious face to face, too much is lost in text only form.
What implied question did I ask? I missed that inference too.


You, yourself stated earlier that "I find the killing of any animal in the making of a TV programme oddly distasteful."
Indeed.

I would argue that Ray's eating of a wichetty grub was in pursuit of a meal, as would the shooting of a rabbit by Hillbill (or myself, I've killed a few and chapped more trout than I care to mention) but the biting the head off of and then consumption of the still wriggling snake was more in the interests of sensationalistic TV than it was gourmet cuisine or desperate need. This is but one tiny example and I'm not going to trawl the repositories of BearTV, or this very thread, to discover more for very obvious and, I believe, good reason.
I don't think either Ray or Bear are short of meals on their trips. Equally true of you me and HillBill. But biting a head off a snake (in Bears case), or biting a head off a grub in Rays), is just as effective as cutting it off with a knife, but more gross if you're watching it. Certainly more effective than shooting if you miss and just maim. And let's face it, if you deny we do that once in a while, we are liars. Bunnies move when they don't look like they should and we all get defective pellets and sights out of alignment. Bears programme was about surviving and his pursuit of food in a survival situation was just, if not more valid than Rays attempt at grossing Gordon out (in which case and knowing Gordy, was great viewing for me, but morally not quite right).

Quite right - and never have I stated or suggested such with respect to Grylls. As I stated earlier, I only sought to pierce the fragile bubble of 'a contract excuses all'
I never stated that a contract excuses all. But they make the difference when it comes to being employed or unemployed. So there wasn't that particular bubble to be burst, let alone a fragile one.

I have no idea - however, I'll stand by my earlier statement re agnosticism regarding Grylls/Ray etc. and will happily stand by my own morals when it comes to my own actions. I certainly don't hate the man - I'm not a fan of some of his TV shows certainly, but I don't confuse Bear Grylls the TV personality with Edward Grylls* (*should that actually be his real name) any more than I confuse Roger Moore with Simon Templar or James Bond.
I'm not a fan of Bears shows, but they are on in the background as I have Discovery and all the other 'Natural History' type channels on in my office. And you cannot blame me for starting a Ray V Bear debate. I used Ray as an example as there are very few outdoors bushcraft/survival personalities I could choose from. To imply a deeper seated meaning to my posts in order to call me out on starting that debate is not on. They are both Brits and there are no others to compare in that particular 'head biting off' scenario. Besides, I've eaten witchetty's, and never bitten a head off a snake (or ever intend to do so as an ophiologist), so logically my argument should be in Rays favour rather than Bears.

Don't know why you're now calling into question Grylls' real name. That is grasping at straws in the extreme.

It appears then that we agree, after all, that if you are the face associated something then you must assume the responsibility for what is done in your name? Would you say that was accurate?
Ah, a caveat to an agreement I never made. So if Persil don't wash whites whiter than white, we must all blame Bear Grylls. And if we wear Sure deadorant and someone says we stink. We should blame him also. Me thinks not!
 
Last edited:

Adze

Native
Oct 9, 2009
1,874
0
Cumbria
www.adamhughes.net
If you insist on sitting in the cheap seats Jon, I'll spell it out for you:

What implied question did I ask? I missed that inference too.
I'm not redirecting, my last post was a straight on question which you have not answered.
The 'last post' you allude to in the quote above didn't contain a question mark. By definition that makes it a statement, any question therein must, therefore, be implied.

I never stated that a contract excuses all.
You did, however, state this:

All other programme content criticism should be aimed at the programme makers. He is just the person they pay to do and say what is scripted.
Which amounts to the same thing and is EXACTLY what I was trying to address. "ALL OTHER PROGRAMME CONTENT CRITICISM"... err... no. Sorry... if it wasn't something he wasn't happy with he could have simply said no and gone his own way, as it appears he has now done. We did this bit earlier and, as I recall, you agreed that a contract did not excuse any content.

To imply a deeper seated meaning to my posts in order to call me out on starting that debate is not on.
I'm not implying anything - you most definitely did bring up Ray biting a wichetty grub. Until that point I hadn't mentioned Ray other than a very oblique reference very early on regarding mortality in reply to something not linked to our current discussion.

Don't know why your now calling into question Grylls real name. This is becoming farcicle
Not at all - I don't know Mr. Grylls, but I do know his name isn't BEAR. I did hear it might be to do with Edward, hence Teddy leading to BEAR. To assume anything other than that from my text is incorrect.


(go on pick up on my spelling of farcical to detract from the discussion I dare you)
I'm not that petty Jon - but I will remove your formatting of white text on white background if you like. Why did you think I would pick you up on spelling when there is so much more to pick you up on, namely logic and reason?
 
Nov 29, 2004
7,808
7
Scotland
This thread had a three day head start on Toddy's 'Of potential and baskets' thread but this one has had 3873 views and 173 replies whereas Toddy's has had 364 views and 29 replies.

One thread is about a TV personality losing his job and whether or not that is a good thing because he may or may not be all he presents himself to be.
The other thread is about bushcraft, or what I might call bushcraft.

Its a big of forum, with lots of interesting stuff to read and contribute to, this subject really doesn't deserve the attention it is getting.

I have never met Mr. Grylis, I have perhaps watched ten to twenty minutes of his TV work. He isn't doing anything that I want to watch. However I do know the TV industry, I do know the kind of pressure and the promises that can be made to a young up and coming TV personality and once you have signed that contract it can be awfully difficult to control what is going to be seen on screen afterwards.

All the best to him with whatever the future brings.
 

JonathanD

Ophiological Genius
Sep 3, 2004
11,884
99
49
Stourton,UK
devalbushcrafter.webeden.co.uk
If you insist on sitting in the cheap seats Jon, I'll spell it out for you:
No need to throw derogatory insults. It's just a discussion. Nothing personal

The 'last post' you allude to in the quote above didn't contain a question mark. By definition that makes it a statement, any question therein must, therefore, be implied.
OK, well put a question mark on the end and answer it then. My apologies for missing the ? off.


You did, however, state this: Originally Posted by JonathanD All other programme content criticism should be aimed at the programme makers. He is just the person they pay to do and say what is scripted.

Which amounts to the same thing and is EXACTLY what I was trying to address. "ALL OTHER PROGRAMME CONTENT CRITICISM"... err... no. Sorry... if it wasn't something he wasn't happy with he could have simply said no and gone his own way, as it appears he has now done. We did this bit earlier and, as I recall, you agreed that a contract did not excuse any content.
I'm glad you quoted me, because I certainly didn't say "a contract excuses any behaviour" as you had me saying. Big difference there. But I was talking about fake survival situations and artificial set up in the programming schedule. I already covered his personal acts like the bat tennis incident, as that was down to him and absolutely not on.

As for the snake biting, yes, he did that personally and agreed to it, so if you think it's gross and disgusting for him to do that then fine, blame him. But we are back to the original question I asked, that hasn't been answered, which is - Why is it deemed fine for other TV personalities to do the same thing, but Grylls is always maligned for it? As I've already stated in detail. I find killing an animal in that way gross, and shouldn't be done for sensationalist kicks. But it is a quick death for the animal and just as effective as a machete severing the head. I don't agree with doing it for TV, but I'm not going to malign Grylls for doing it when other people I admire on a much higher level do it too.

I'm not implying anything - you most definitely did bring up Ray biting a wichetty grub. Until that point I hadn't mentioned Ray other than a very oblique reference very early on regarding mortality in reply to something not linked to our current discussion.
Yes I did, there are few other TV personalities that do that kind of thing, but since that post I've included Lest Stroud, H F-W, Ramsay, Les Hiddins. The personality doesn't matter. It's the act. They all do it specifically on TV too.

Not at all - I don't know Mr. Grylls, but I do know his name isn't BEAR. I did hear it might be to do with Edward, hence Teddy leading to BEAR. To assume anything other than that from my text is incorrect.
Bear is his nickname. It's what he was called since he was born. I'm not going to slate him for having a nickname.


I'm not that petty Jon - but I will remove your formatting of white text on white background if you like. Why did you think I would pick you up on spelling when there is so much more to pick you up on, namely logic and reason?
That was removed right after I posted and a good 30 minutes before you repeated it, as it was daft and unnecessary on my part. You've not picked any holes in my logic and reason at all here. I've answered all your questions and addressed every issue you raised with some detail. You just keep changing the meaning of your questions each time I answer them.

So to sum it up. Again. What has Grylls done that should make him the object of such hate here, that threads have been locked, members have been banned and posts deleted for the content and vulgar attitudes they presented? What heights of misleading implications in programmes has Grylls attained, that Attenborough, Mears, Stevens et al hasn't that leads to so much hate for Grylls alone?

That is the crux of the issue and the one that needs answering, because so far, I can't find anything he has done that makes people post GBH threats and other hate filled posts filled with ***** words describing him. In fact, just the opposite, he does so much good for kids, charities and other bodies that are not so heavily discussed. Instead we get people questioning his name, his military career and making things up to perpetuate untruths.
 

EmmaD

Forager
Feb 27, 2011
204
0
South Staffs
LOL. This thread is funny. You do not even like born survivor.

I like Bear. He said I was cute and a fun sized homunculus. I had to look it up.
 

John Fenna

Lifetime Member & Maker
Oct 7, 2006
21,884
1,380
63
Pembrokeshire
Ooh look... it's a blue whale! Is the fluffy white bit blubber?
Sorry - been away... my cover story was /is that I was on a flint knapping course - but of course those who realy know... realy know!
I am afraid for contractual reasons I now will leave this thread knowing that my personal life will no longer be the subject of speculation as all the facts are now in the public domain and my fans (boys and grils) can sleep safe in the knowledge that I am me and that although I have made the odd mistake in the past I realy do regret my trespasses and will never comit any more ... honest ... guv.... :)


I would like to offer my thanks to all my fans who never fail to keep the money flowing in - thanks!
 

Huon

Native
May 12, 2004
1,327
1
Spain
Sorry - been away... my cover story was /is that I was on a flint knapping course - but of course those who realy know... realy know!
I am afraid for contractual reasons I now will leave this thread knowing that my personal life will no longer be the subject of speculation as all the facts are now in the public domain and my fans (boys and grils) can sleep safe in the knowledge that I am me and that although I have made the odd mistake in the past I realy do regret my trespasses and will never comit any more ... honest ... guv.... :)


I would like to offer my thanks to all my fans who never fail to keep the money flowing in - thanks!
Well it takes a truly dedicated entertainer to indulge in the gratuitous slaughter of an intelligent marine mammal and the abuse of of a trained stunt-sheep to keep his fan boys and girls happy. My hat (bush hat not baseball cap) is off to you sir!

I only know you through the internet but in the digital age that is what really counts and you are obviously a decent chap. I just can't understand how deluded individuals (dare I say fan boys?) are prepared to to base their defence of a celebrity on a personal acquaintance with him rather than the far more valuable contact gained through TV, newspaper and forum gossip. What is the world coming to?

;)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.