BBC Real Story:the Mccartneys versus the fur trade

[Guest]

Please register your complaints to the BBC about anticipating programme bias, particularly re the native fur trade at:

 

www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/

 

If they get enough complaints asking them to shelve it as they have no representation from the native peoples of the North (yakut cree inuit sami etc) then they will have to reschedule it after making it balanced.

 

remeber the McCaerneys are outrageously racist roward the Inuit etc and racism is not tolerated by the BBC.

 

PLEASE do this as the consequences aginst fur wearers could be horrendous without balance, and as usual it will be the Native peoples who suffer the most damage, and their wilderness with it.

Representation from native peoples would be most hard hitting should anybody tip off friends in these communities.

 

Miss T; get your sioux friend for a start...I will communicate with my friends too.

[Guest]

http://thefurden.com/bbden/viewtopic.php?t=1394

[Guest]

Yes I know but not everyone will see the BBC complaints bit if I post it there and we ALL should complain. No excuses. If Mccartneys influence isnt shot down in flames NOW then fur , and the wilderness, will become a thing of the past.

[Guest]

I guess I am missing something...are we to complain on the speculation that it could be biased, or that it truly is biased?

[Mr Barguzin]

ToSser

 

Don't shot the messenger until it has been seen. Otherwise we are no better than the PETAphiles and McCartneys of this world.

 

Then and ONLY then would attention be paid if it were indeed Biased, but given the coverage of another side of the PETAphiles activities recently in England, maybe, just maybe it will turn out to be truthfully unbiased.

 

Kneejerk reactions always get crappy results.

[Guest]

There will be no effective balance in this programme. certainly little from the native people he has damaged. You want to wait for more of this:

 

"KISS MY ASS AND ROT IN HELL SEAL KILLERS.HOPE YOU ALL DIE A HORRIBLE DEATH. YOUR LOUSY CHILDREN TOO."

 

That was one messge sent to an Inuit Organisation after last time the world gave mcCrtney a platform in the media. (source: www.stageleft.info/2006/03/17/thank-you-paul-mccartney

 

Apparently much of the focus of the programme is around the dog and cat fur and on that they have a point because the husbandry is awful and as a result so is the fur. But the prinary motive for dog and cat fur in the far east has always been MEAT and I dont see anyone rubbishing the meat industry over it; so the argument is illogical and emotive.

 

To see the Inuit response to PETA and Mccartney go to http://skylarkd.blogspot.com/2006/04/save-baby-veal-avoid-cultural.html

 

and also visit www.greatgreenland.com which is in our links....very informative.

 

I don't wait for fascists to speak sorry. It tends to wind up the brownshirts.

Its a long time since the BBC were unbiased; or even well researched.

 

What is going to happen if this goes out is that it gives people the excuse to have a pop at fur wearers too.

 

This is what happens to mens faces when my girlf enters the room in fur:

 

and this is what happens to most womens faces:

 

But then there always the odd one thats:

 

and the views of Paul Mccartney and others tend to give that evil jealousy an excuse to be abusive or aggressive. It justifies their hatred.

 

Lately its been very quiet, but now we are already getting comments about dogs and cats, and I'm buggered if I am going to wait for more.

[Guest]

thanks for the info touch... i will pass on the word . i don't think unbalanced "informational" shows shouldn't be quelched or made to offer possible opinions of all involved in the topic up for discussion.

[Mr Barguzin]

ToS

 

All that shows is that YOU don't expect the Beeb to iterate YOUR viewpoint *grin*

 

Sorta reminds me of each colour of Govt we get in Oz and how quick they are to say that the ABC is biased against them.

 

To me, that sorta implies that maybe they aren't.

 

 

thanks for your detailed response to my earlier email, it was an interesting read. As you have rightly gathered from the email, I'm keen to speak to fur enthusiasts based in the UK. We also intend to film part of the programme in the US (New York and Los Angeles specifically) so any suggestions you may are extremely welcome. Thanks for your kind offer to help and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

 

So yes, no mention is made of the effects certain laws and actions have made on indigenous folk. BUT even at the start, that was not a primary concern.

 

Your best line of attack would be to hit the website AFTER the story runs and put forward your point of view then, otherwise you appear as no better or wiser than McCartney et al.

[Guest]

without having satellite, just cable, is there a way to see the show here in the states? perhaps on the bbc website? i have never looked so don't know.

[Guest]

 

sorry MissT ...great avatar.

 

Well my point was Peter that someone VIEW the programme in editorial control to make sure that it is balanced. the review of it is that 6 months was spent with "unprecedented access to the mcCartneys in their struggle against the fur trade" so it doesnt sound balanced.

 

So I have warned them of the consequesces of a biased programme having consequences. If it is balanced then fine; but I would say its highly unlikely.

[Guest]

i got on the bbc site and sent my compaint asking how balanced the content of the program was, if it was skewed by one view more than any other. i can't imagine the natives got a proper say, as they rarely do.

 

the avatar... I had to use it, as someone was "getting under my skin and taking liberties," if ya know what I mean. that was my subtle way of saying i didn't like it.

[Guest]

Thankyou miss T

other efforts even if just expressing concern would be appreciated.

 

Often in such circumstances a programme will be rescheduled at a later date when balance has been achieved.

[MrMockle]

Touchofsable and Ms Theresa,

 

Surely, to complain about a programme that hasn't been aired yet and may not even be shown outside the UK is a little premature. I know that the title suggests a more anti-fur opinion (possibly titled to anticipate public sympathy towards the McCartneys) and yes it's on prime-time BBC1 and not a late night BBC2 or Channel 4 show which is more likely to given both sides an even hand. (The 90s BBC2 "40 Minutes" documentary "Adventures in the Skin Trade" gave a surprisingly fair and neutral discussion from both pro-fur and anti-fur positions as well as featuring good interviews from a number of fur wearers and furriers and several good fur scenes.) But at least we should give the producer and programme the benefit of the doubt until it goes live. Unless one of you has seen a preview of the whole show any of your/our arguments are just formed from speculation, assumption and prejudice; who knows what sort of position they will take and what sort of aspects of the fur trade or the McCartney's views they will show (and in what light).

 

In terms of a response, as you will see if you read my related post on this topic and follow the links to my original Den posts last summer, I swapped some emails with the producer and will write to him personally with my view on the show - but only after it is broadcast. I will post my response here and may ask for others to contribute opinions; whether I use them or not depends on whether I agree with those views.

 

Regards,

Mr Mockle

[Guest]

No I don't hold out much hope for a balanced view, simply because of Mc Cartney's clout, mind you I wonder how much bleating it took by his misses to get him involved, you would have thought Mc Cartney would be more interested in champion causes like Euthanasia as that's a little closer to his heart!!!!

 

But Yes I will wait until the show is over before going to print, aftar all to simply complain before the event is something a brainwashed PETA activist would be guity of wouldn't it? At least after the event you can highlight the biases & contradictments that they make? Sorry to be so rational

 

Thx for the heads up though

 

PS Miss T - How did your letter writing go?

[Guest]

I can see I am in a minority position here, but I guess it comes from my

practical involvement in horses.

 

Its no good locking the stable door after the horse has bolted.

 

I may be wrong. It may be balanced.

 

But airing concern in advance is not a bad thing.......just expressing concern for balance is not a bad idea.

[spottyfur]

I don't know if anybody saw the trailer for this program on BBC 1 yesterday and today, but this looks like the program will be very bias towards anti-fur.

 

Mr & Mrs Spottyfur

[auzmink]

I wait with anticipation tonights airing. I suspect a bias towards the McCartney's, unfortunatly. But, its being aired out of Winter, peoples memories can be short, and in the UK we are being overloaded with 'ecological awareness' - (almost to the point of pukeing at another fairtrade eco-friendly climate warming article!!!!)

Anyhow, we can all let the BBC know how eco-friendly we are and not contributing to global warming.

1. We prefer not to wear oil based clothing so preserving future supplies.

2. We will reduce global carbon emissions by turning our central heating down and wearing animal based clothes like wool, fur and leather to keep warm.

After all, despite global warming Winters will always come......

 

Auzmink

[Guest]

On BBC Breakfast this morning there was a pro fur and an anti on the sofa, a guy called Richardf North - written a book Fur and Freedom and Mark Glover an old anti who has been around since the 80's. It was an interesting debate and has prompted a few mails on the web site, mostly pro I have to say which is good.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/breakfast/3342693.stm#fur

[MrMockle]

All,

 

I managed to watch and record the documentary last night although had half an ear on the football so before making any proper comment or sending off any emails, I'll have a more detailed look. However my initial thoughts were this:

 

• I didn't find it as anti-fur as some had predicted. I saw it more as a documentary concentrating on the McCartney's campaign rather than a full debate of the ethics of fur. They did have interviews with furriers and pro- and anti- fur campaigners but it seemed clear that little of Ms Mills-McCartney's efforts had any effect, especially on her attempts to hand leaflets to the fur wearing public.

• The pro- and anti- fur arguments that were raised didn't add anything new to the debate, one way or the other. The exception to this was the rather sensationalist secretly recorded video scenes from China about animal handling. However the documentary did make it clear that the campaign was specifically targeted at the use of dog and cat fur (mentioning China and the Czech Republic).

• There were some lovely scenes of women (and a few men) wearing furs, including members of the public out shopping, models stridding the catwalks and women sampling the range in a couple of US furriers.

• The input of Richard D North, pro-fur campaigner and author of a book called "Fur and Freedom" was pleasing. I think he's someone who we should contact to congratulate and welcome to our forum and the online fur community. I'll contact a couple of the other moderators and see if we can draft up such a letter of introduction.

 

I'd like to hear what others thought of the show.

 

Regards,

Mr Mockle

[auzmink]

Mr M,

I feel a little different. Again the program stereotyped fur-wearers by the silly session at Antonovich in NY with the wealthy ladies mutterings regarding husbands salaries and 'just buy anything' attitude! We needed a more 'regular wearer in the street' approach as the above just adds to peoples impression fur is 'only for the wealthy'.

In respect to TOS concerns, very little was dealt with concerning the ethical choice of fur both by the Inuit and in ordinary day-to-day life. What do we do in -30'C temperatures?

Mr McCartney chose to re-iterate the 'cruel' aspect to fur without ever qualifying the statement. I fail to understand how it can be anymore 'cruel' than the beef from the butcher? Same process, animal effectively euthanased, animal products used properly. Also, it would have been nice to know what the cuddly fluffy sheep on the McCartneys farm do? Die of old age?

In short, I felt it was unbalanced, biased and lacking any useful pro-fur arguments except from Mr North. I will be registering a complaint with the BBC.

Auzmink.

[auzmink]

Dear ALL,

 

This was my complaint to the BBC

 

"The program shown last night was not a balanced perspective.

1. Ms McCartney is shown at a PETA conference. No mention was made of this organisations known financial links to the ALF, a terrorist organisation, nor PETA's stated intention to eliminate all animal use in the World whatever its pupose - even guide dogs!

2. Little reference was made to the ethical farming practices employed by most fur-farmers across the World according to veterinary and government guidelines. Nor was any reference made to the ethical advantages of fur clothing over that of man-made textiles, a majority which use oil to produce. These contribute to greenhouse warming in their manufacture. Most mink farmers in the US utilise food by-products as a means of nutrition for their animals and assist in a form of recycling.

3. Mr McCartney kept referring to the 'cruel' practice of fur farming. No-one can or should condone the shown chinese footage but most fur-farmers adhere to a code similar to an abbatoir. How is it any more 'cruel'? He needed to clarify his statement which I think he cannot. The chinese footage is hopefully old news now, and I hope China does endorse and use Western methods of animal husbandry and ethical farming practices.

4. Ms McCartney invades a NY store and is asked to leave. She does not leave without persuasion. Given that it is a protest, legally she is obliged to leave when first asked to by a store manager or employee. As she does not SHE is technically breaking a law. This does not send a good signal to some of the watching audience and should have been clarified.

4. The Canadian seal hunt is both important historically, and presently financially. Some reference was made to its economic importance but where was their a discussion with an Inuit elder on the subject? None, just the McCartneys offering some sort of pleading into a camera lens. The research into fish stocks in Canada, the research into humane methods of euthanasia of the seals, the Canadian governments input into the process were all ignored.

In short, it was very biased in its 'anti' stance and was not a good advert for balanced reporting or programming. I am disappointed in the BBC for this."

 

Auzmink

[allfurme]

I didn't watch it as rich people like McCartney trying to get cheap publicity by tugging at the heart strings of the 'caring' British public really p*sses me off. McCartney, you and the rest of you ridiculously wealthy people would be better off giving away all that ridiculous amount of money; that might sort some of the problems in this world. It is obvious he know absolutely nothing about the fur trade.

[Guest]

allfurme;

 

I'm in complete agreement over your sentiments.

 

It took another Billionaire, Ted Truner, to shame Bill Gates into giving away a nickle.

 

BIG money makes pikers out of folks you would think would give it away at a drop of a hat.

 

OFF

[Angoramsterdam]

My GOD!!!!

 

I find it hard to believe that many people here try so hard to justify the treatment of those cats and dogs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!....by naming the Inuit??

 

I feel that the Inuit will not be grateful to people who will carry their torch in the name of 40 dogs without ANY space whatsoever cramped up in a metal cage thrown off from the top of a lorry! What a sad and very disturbing sight that was. Once landed the animals were hurt so bad that mayhem starts inside and the cage starts to hump up and down by itself.

 

The inuit will thank any animal with grace and tradition before they kill it, until that time they do not treat animals the way these chinese did.

 

DO WE SUPPORT ANIMAL CRUELTY HERE??

 

OR DO WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW INSTINCT AND TRADITION?

 

Who wants a coat made of these 40 dogs in one little cage?

 

I thought the show was mainly about a not too intelligent blonde shouting on the street. If so true she did get fur out of JCREW (someone suggested there was no accomplishment).

 

So, I am pro fur, but against this type of cruelty. A little more refined than most statements I have read.

 

We're all different people with different opinions. In the past we ourselves might have voted for someone who banished something that someone wanted to do and we thought it was unheard of!! She is the same as we are. I for instance.....I like to smoke much of the Marihuana and Hasjies. (Ya....Amsterdam is where I am).

All over the world smoking hash is made illegal by little miss MacCartneys except here.......go figure.

 

Peace

[Guest]

I don't think anyone here is into dog fur coats. Especially the Chinese style.

 

Since they still don't treat their people much better and our governments do little to nothing about that what makes us think they will treat dogs or anything else much better?

 

What about human rights FIRST!!!

 

OFF