But it’s different when I make money out of it

For example, Packham has acted as a guide for holidaymakers on a £14,000 per person trip to Papua New Guinea, an 11-day cruise on the “exceptional True North Boat”, run by Steppes Travel, a specialist company that “carefully creates pioneering journeys in the world’s far-flung places”.

The present and environmental campaigner has also travelled with Steppes to Alaska in November 2019 producing a photo diary reproduced on its website and in its magazine.

The company acknowledges the ‘climate emergency’ and says it is working “to reduce our carbon footprint”.

Packham also admits to having done “lots of trips tour guiding” for another firm Spencer Scott Travel in Cuba, Peru, South Africa, Botswana and Uganda. “Check them out if you want something special,” says Packham on Spencer Scott Travel’s website that includes a link to his own personal homepage.

Packham, of course, gets paid well for being the guide – for which read shill – for these trips. For the business model is that the name, Packham, sells the tours in the first place. But that’s different, right?

11 thoughts on “But it’s different when I make money out of it”

  1. Bloke in North Korea (Germany province)

    This kind of travel is just fine, and is good for the environment, putting good carbons in the atmosphere. Travel, for the travellers, at £14k a pop is fine. How can we have a reset if the elite don’t get to see what needs to be reset? Or take plenty of leisure time to ensure that they direct us correctly to build back better?

    What’s not fine is hordes of millions of unwashed virus-infected goblins descending annually on the Plaza Del Whatever, spewing their filthy carbons by the gigaton. Tourists, in other words. Tourists are bad. Mind-broadening wealthy travellers are good.

  2. Horses for courses I suppose.
    The name Packham prompts me to switch off whenever it is mentioned.

    And I’ve never fancied Michaela Strachan either.

    There I’ve said it ! Ha !

  3. Packham is an utter cunt who needs the full on Ecks treatment. He is, of course, indulged by the BBC whatever he does. Michaela Strachan, on the other hand, is lovely.

  4. You can see why celebs love the BBC when it lets people do this sort of thing. Any sane entertainment company that builds household names would have a total package. You rent your name and brand to the BBC. If you write books or do tours, the BBC gets a cut. It’s not like any of the are irreplaceable. I’m sure there’s thousands of nature nerds who would do the job.

    Or you do the Atomic Kitten/Cookery show business model: do Springwatch for fuck all money and collect on the merch.

  5. “Packham is an utter cunt who needs the full on Ecks treatment”

    Indeed, since the little shit is involved with David Attenborough’s population reduction “Fake Charity”:

    https://populationmatters.org/our-patrons

    It’s more than a bit rich for the pair of them to lecture us about sustainability, while jetting & cruising all over the planet. And how does being a Race Driver” (fellow patron Leilani Munter) fit in with that ethos? If they are so concerned about the numbers of people on this planet why don’t they all set an example, and fuck off to Mars?

  6. My wife’s gardening group – women no longer young – loathe him with a passion. I suppose his ability to conjure up a deep-felt dislike might be without peer since Jimmy Saville died.

  7. I thought the BBC had a policy of people on their payroll not advertising private companies? I suppose it’s different when you’re an Attenborough clone.

  8. Packham is a good bloke who cares about the environment. He has my full support. You cannot hate someone for caring about wildlife.

  9. Packham is a good bloke who cares about the environment. He has my full support. You cannot hate someone for caring about wildlife.

    You start a good (relative to the usual!) troll on another thread, then go and spoil it with that obvious spoof.

    3/10 must try harder.

  10. @Dave Ward
    After hearing a program on the BBC about how evil limiting child benefit to 2 children is.
    I am pleased that some BBC people presumably think it is a good thing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *