Channel 4 is a television station owned and operated by the British government. Just recently, well known British environmentalist Chris Packham posted an excerpt of a Channel 4 documentary that features him. In it, Packham states what is tantamount to an endorsement of violence in order to combat climate change.

No doubt British taxpayers are enthusiastic about having to subsidize this. After unsuccessfully trying to access Channel 4 to watch the film, I reviewed the thread on X where this segment was posted and someone attempted to fly cover for Packham:

Neither Channel 4 nor Chris Packham condone breaking the law, which was very evident in this programme. Instead, the programme posed a very personal question, urging each of us to consider the morals and ethics carefully. And the changing parameters of our UK law around protest as well as examples from history – such as Emmeline Pankhurst – were also carefully considered.

But, in the video segment Packham clearly states that if someone broke the law and their act did not damage the environment, he’d support them while going on to say doing so was the ethically responsible thing to do. In fairness, Packham may mean efforts like people blocking roads or gluing themselves to works of art, but he doesn’t go into those kind of specifics. He was also interviewed on ITV‘s “Good Morning Britain” and, essentially, stood by what he said nor would he condemn an effort to even blow up a pipeline.

During the interview, Packham tries to equate someone breaking the speed limit with blowing up a pipeline while denying he’s inciting violence. But the law takes into account the seriousness or degrees of infractions and the courts weigh them and sentence violators accordingly.

It makes no sense for Chris Packham to imply that he opposes violence but then touches on the issue of blowing up edifices, like pipelines, in his film much less even consider breaking the law in general if that isn’t his intent. Even the host of “Good Morning Britain” correctly pointed out that there is no guarantee the acts Packham sympathizes with won’t result in people getting hurt or killed.

Packham is obviously being deceitful or attempts to speak snake seeking to have his cake and eat it too. No matter his denials or non-denial denials, even taking into account his sympathies, what it comes down to is Packham is essentially approving of eco-terrorism that involves violence. The next time someone in Great Britain is arrested and jailed for an act of eco-terrorism then Packham should be thrown in jail with them or forced to make restitution.