BBC attack on fishing

I know that fishing with rod and line is not seen as the most pc thing to do by some sections of thepublic but I was amazed to hear a debate on the Richard Bacon show 5 live in the early hours of this morning. Don't get me wrong there is nothing wrong with debate but the way Bacon conducted the show it was plain to hear that he was obviously biased against the sport of fishing from the word go.

Greg Whitehead from the AT was in debate with a Peta representative, Bacon was prepared to listen to the anti point of view but poured scorn on everything that Whitehead had to say. Surely this is just another indication if one were needed of just how anti angling the BBC actually is.

You can hear the show here and make your own mind up, http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00d0mk3

scoll the show to 2:11 to miss the first 2 hours of tripe.

is it the same Richard Bacon who was sacked by the BBC when he was exposed as a coke-head whilst fronting kids TV shows ?

I believe so but everyone deserves a second chance.

This is going to be Interesting.

I haven't heard thedebate but fair play to Greg for going on R5 andputting the case forward.

When the agenda is pre-set (as it always is with the bbc) it's a no win situation. I suppose they'll be showing a repeat of 'The Dying Swan' sometime soon as well.

I think every sensible person knows just how left wing and radical most presenters are when it comes to anything to do with angling. I say most, because of course some actually fish themselves. By and large I would say the majority do not fish, and score points in debates such as the one you mention by being biased, instead of unbiased.

Maybe the answer is to ask people like Chris Tarrant, who can ridicule anyone, to represent the angler's pont of view in such debates. Presenters don't like to be ridiculed.

Listened to the Iplayer this morning from 5Live../forum/smilies/surprised_smiley.gif

Typical BBC trash research and presentation.. however, shame that the people who spoke for angling did not do a bit more research and really hit the twats from PxTA where it hurts.. perhaps Richard did not have time, but the argument could have been much stronger if a bit more thought had gone into the subject...

I did like it when the question was asked about the amount of animals they destroy, however, the kick ass retort would have been to have asked why do they fund extreme animal liberation groups (PROVEN FACT) that have killed PEOPLE? Why are these same people calling for a ban on pet ownership, cuddly wudlly dogs, cats, horses etc.. get the heart strings pulled in reverse and their support will dimimish.

Why are we not using bigger names and publicly heard of figures for this kind of stuff? No doubt down to the fact that their is still no unity between all factions of our sport/hobby/pastime (call it what you like) and we leave ourselves open to attack.

How come it is always PxTA that are called? what's up with getting someone from the UK pisces anti angling group on the radio.. oh, that would be right, they've only got a handful of supporters..

Still believe that there will not be a time in mine or my childrens life when angling is banned, however, we need to be much more able to deal with these attacks from the highly funded, celebrity (blinkered morons) backed group from across the 'pond'..

They will NEVER achieve an angling ban in the USA, so the UK with its lilly livered liberal think tanks and oh so PC attitude is an easy target.. let's not make it that easy for them though!

ive just emailed the bbc to complain. the show was annouced as a why people go fishing but was just an attack by p**a and the host on angling.

Alan any chance of putting the 'complain'link up.

Here is the BBC complaints website!

I've just had a pop regarding allowingPETA on the show.

Allowing on a group with links to terrorism is a bigger club to hit them with thanan unbalanced debate about angling.

Richard Bacon is the guy that stands in for Matthew Wright on The Wright Stuff when Matthew's on his jollies.

Strangely, Matthew is a dead keen angler.

Often Richard gets the balance of debate wrong, but that doesn't imply that he himself is anti-angling. There have been many times in the past when Matthew Wright has also got the balance of a debate wrong and he's even cut people off (the line) when they say something he thinks is stupid because it conflicts with his belief. The point is - no-one is perfect at this, even Robin Day could get it wrong.

On the whole, I though the debate wasn't bad, but OUR spokesmen aught to be able to speak with more authority. That doesn't mean that like Greg, they just need to know the facts and figures, they need to be taught to speak and mention the figures in tones that carry more authority in the voice. They also need to challenge the opposition in more assertive ways and not let them put forward points that are whimsical challenges and should they try, ridcule the point (not the speaker) straight away.

The trouble is, who do we have that's a great orrator, who can speak with such great authority, and has the knowledge of marine species to put across our case?

David Bellamy is our best hope, but the BBC won't entertain him now simply because he ridicules (justifiably) just about anyone who disagrees with him.

I'm still listening to it though.

Safe to point out the Richard Bacon has confessed a couple of times now that HE goes fishing and has enjoyed it.

So far I've not heard anyone bring up the matter of fishing satisfying the 'hunter/gatherer' part of the human psyche. It is important that everyone enjoys the hunt.

This can be expressed in many ways, a salesman chasing a sale, a shooter shooting a bird/deer, or a PETA member hunting down and banning angling. Yes, he is gaining satisfaction from hunting anglers. It's all in the human psychology - needs and drives.

It's over. Could have been better, but no-one at the Beeb will take any notice.

Don't you think that it is like the dripping tap effect though? Some sections of the public can be pretty easily swayed, and while groups like PETA are allowed free air space by the Beeb without the listener being made aware of the rest of their radical views on animal welfare and the lengths that they are willing to go to achieve them. Then the constant drip drip drip may well undermine the public’s perception of the sport of that which it is, an innocent pastime.

The debate wasset up at thelast-minute to replace one about holiday travel which would have been a faux pas in the aftermath of the Madrid disaster.

PETA are the ones who always appear because they're the only anti-anglingorganisation left that has well-paid employees who are willing to go on air. The PETA guy basically only had a load of shaky pseudo-science to fall back on. And most of that was full of half-truths and spin.

Myself, I did it because AT was approached and, having had previous radio and TV experience, I was considered to be the best last-minute option. You've got to start somewhere haven't you? I had done some research with the help of Dr Bruno Broughton.

After attacking the PETA rep for killing animals given into their care and discrediting him somewhat, the presenter Bacon seemed to take offence and went on the offensive. Basically, the 'fish feel pain' argument is an easy, provocative subject for mainstream journos to choose. And a lazy one.When they appear toknow bugger all about fishing, biology or the environment then it's no surprise theyrevert to the 'fish feel pain' attack.

Igot the impression that Bacon isn't that sharp. While I admit I could have been more concise and clearwith my argument, how difficult is it to understand that,on the scaleof evolution, fishhave always beenat the bottom of the ladder? They have abasic bodymodel that can suffer traumas and damage that would kill any land-based mammal or bird outright. How can havinghooks intheir mouth be detrimental to fish when they often survive being chewed up by otters or almost sliced in half by a cormorant? Ifthey felt pain like mammals dothen fish would spend half the spawning season incapacitated by the injuriesthey cause one another!!!!

Bacon also poured scorn on the hunter-gatherer point of view (like he did nearly everything else I mentioned), suggesting that modern society is so much better than when we were 'cavemen'. However, I never noticed cavemen causing global warming and species extinctions at a rate only exceeded during global catastrophes like comet impacts and supervolcanoes! He is just as conceited as the rest of modern societyin seeming tobelieve that humankindsits at the pinnacle of evolution and that, by default, the planet and everything on it belongs to us. He has obviously neverconsidered that, as far as the planet and all the other species on it are concerned,modern humans arenothing short of a destructive plague.

IfBacon was as concerned about the natural world as most serious anglers are then maybe he would be more sympathetic to the sport of angling instead of jumping on the tired and shallow argument that anglers are cruel because they must be causing fish pain. Sometimes I just wish these media types and scientific paper-writingboffins would get out of their pre-fabricated environment and go and find out for themselves exactly what the natural world is really like by appreciating itin the waymostanglers do.... by becoming a part of it!

We can live in hope. Rant over!

No callers were anti-angling, they were all anglers. The drip affect is not a concern. Angling isn't banned in any country worldwide. We only need to worry if politicians become anti-angling. Even then they tend to ban catch and release, not angling per se....

Well done on the job, that late night slot on R5 has been dire since Fi Glover left...there was serious, well chaired, debate then on a range of topics....mind you comparing Fi Glover to Richard Bacon is a bit like comparing Martin Johnson to me in terms of a class second row in Rugby!!

Don't know what you did to him Greg but he looked wrecked covering the Matthew Wright Show

(Greg Wallace - masterchef bloke - knocked him into a cocked hat in terms of presence on the box)

that would almost certainly be your fault then /forum/smilies/wink_smiley.gif

Good effort Greg but imo you got battered in the argument.

Having said that I wouldn't have swapped places with you, it's easy to sit behind a keyboard and criticise but it takes more confidence than I've got to argue the case for fishing against a well prepared opponent on live radio.

I wholeheartedly agree with what you were saying but tbh your delivery of the facts was abysmal and was lost on the majority of the audience and the presenter who was right in his case when he said he was at the same point on the evolutionary scale as a fish.

I thought the guy who was fishing the Thames saved your bacon, (pun intended).

If you intend taking up the cudgel against these people you need to develop a much more concise style of delivery and answer questions with questions.

Next time remember your training and marmalise em.