BY SIMON GRACE
The Packham 3, Nigel Bean, Paul Read and Dominic Wightman, face BBC Presenter Chris Packham in a defamation case brought by Packham in the High Court on May 2nd, 2023. They will be defending various articles about Packham published on Country Squire Magazine. More about the case can be discovered here. In an interview conducted this weekend, countryman Simon Grace asks the Packham 3 how the case is going, how they are getting on with fundraising and whether they are happy with the backing that has come in so far to support them.
SG: I shared a car with Dom on the way and back from the Game Fair so admit I know quite a bit about the inner workings of the case already. How are you guys holding up?
All: Very well thanks, Simon.
SG: Obviously Packham has gone after you as individuals, perhaps to split you up against each other. How’s the unity going after so many months?
Paul: Rock solid.
Nigel: With Paul, no issues. Obviously, Dom’s a difficult person to get on with…. just kidding.
Dom: We’re closer now than before we were sued. Oh, and we’ve met now. Prior to getting sued we had never met in person. Paul and I met Nigel for the first time in a Costa at Waterloo Station on the day of the preliminary hearing on meanings in February – a bearded fellow approached us from behind a plastic plant and I have to say that at first I mistook him for a tramp. Certainly, the case continues to bind us closer together, even if Nigel is an Arsenal supporter.
Nigel: (Unprintable)
SG: And of course, The Daily Mail wrote a similar article about the ‘rescue’ of the tigers and the alleged cruelty. They are still not involved in the legal action? Packham is not suing them?
Dom: No. We were clearly considered the easier target. Major error of judgement. Of course, we do not have the in-house legal team the Mail has and nor do we have a Lord Rothermere behind us, but we have a well-trained army of volunteer researchers, fundraisers, investigators and other superstars alongside us, as well as some brave and awesome whistleblowers and informants, and our legal team is second to none.
SG: Are people feeling sympathy towards you when they understand that Packham could have gone after the Mail as well?
Paul: I believe so.
Dom: Yes, some people see the case as having many of the characteristics of a SLAPP.
Nigel: Being known as ‘The Packham 3’ has evoked a lot of sympathy!
SG: Who came up with that moniker? It certainly turned a few heads.
Dom: I cannot remember, and I know some people have complained about that title. Maybe we should be the Country Squire 3 or the Tiger 3. Either which way people know who we are now and what we stand for, so it has done its job. That is what counts. Someone said we would be mistaken for Wild Justice, which was one of the more insulting comments we have faced among many!
SG: As those of you who are on Facebook know, I am one of the biggest supporters of the case, at least in chivvying the troops in getting to help donate to the Crowd Justice and Kofi fundraising campaigns. I think shooting is on the line and people need to wake up to the fact that your case could be crucial in getting rid of Packham who threatens it. I keep going on about the lack of official Countryside body support. By this I am referring to the Countryside Alliance, BASC and the other large countryside entities. Do you feel let down by their lack of open public backing?
Dom: If I were running one of these bodies, I’d not officially back us. Why? Because then the battle would be between Packham and the official Countryside. It’s not. It’s between Packham and the three of us who could do a massive favour for the British Countryside if we win. We do not want to get bogged down by parochial board meetings and faceless bureaucrats – we can do this ourselves, with the help of the Great British Public. We have mates in these bodies and as individuals we are members of some of them, we talk with them, so there is no animosity or any feeling of being let down.
SG: But they have the same aim. To have Packham exposed terminally for his lies?
Dom: We cannot be drawn into discussing Truth and lies here, Simon. However, what is obvious is that Packham has been a thorn in the side of shooting, hunting, farming, grouse moor management and so many other countryside industries for a long while now. He’s a super-troll doing down the countryside and dissing hard-working farmers. This case is one of those weird and wonderful opportunities that generate themselves every now and again which could have earth-shattering spin-off consequences for the Countryside, field sports and the BBC – the way it treats rural people and workers. In one fell swoop we three could deliver what the Countryside has been desiring for years. We did not ask for our David’s shot at this BBC-inflated Goliath, he came calling for it.
SG: Some have said the case is about tigers so that is not in the bailiwick of the Countryside Alliance or BASC for example?
Dom: The case is about tigers, handwriting and muirburns. If it was about flying saucers or grouse and Packham was involved, it would be just as relevant to their continued existence.
Nigel: Dom’s right. This is right at the heart of what the countryside bodies do because Packham and Wild Justice are gouging at the heart of what they do, day in and day out, thanks to Packham’s purely BBC-derived social currency.
SG: In other words, the countryside bodies have a huge, vested interest and all want Packham erased from the argument.
Dom: We should be careful how we phrase such outcomes. We three all want to win in court and to do so legitimately, purely, peaceably and on the giant shoulders of the justice system of England & Wales. Fairly. Meanwhile let’s dial down the rhetoric. Subjectivity is for those with weak arguments. We want the public to focus on the facts, the nuances of language in the case – what is circumstantial, premeditated and what is linked to Packham’s crowdfunding, which is at the heart of this case – and be all head for the case, not emotional or tribal. We have accused Packham of some very serious and therefore professionally unsurvivable things. The countryside bodies should be all over the facts as it is these facts that shall determine the nature of the current threats to their survivability moving forward.
SG: Fair play. I sometimes get carried away by the emotion of the case. It means so much to those of us who work and live in countryside professions. I mean, you guys could single-handedly save shooting from the unrealistic woke brigade led by Packham. They have no other viable leaders, or should I say spokespeople. You could be on the verge of greatness here. If I was a millionaire with a grouse moor, I’d be knocking on your door!
Paul: We did not ask to be where we are. We are not bothered by anything apart from winning the case. So, fundraising to make sure we do not get out-costed, making sure our researchers dig up every last piece of circumstantial and other forms of evidence, insisting our security advisers take care of us, especially Dom who has had death threats from Packham supporters. We are straightforward, ordinary people and perhaps because of that we have our feet planted firmly on the ground.
SG: Dom, I know you’ve been taking a daily battering from trolls and lowlifes. How has that changed your life?
Dom: I’ve had unwanted interest from anoraks and trolls for years, but I’d not received a death threat for many years, not since I worked in Westminster and I co-authored a counter extremism report in 2008. Since this legal action started, I’ve had to move home, give the police my car registration numbers, set up CCTV, have my kids’ school beef up their security and generally be careful about who I meet with and where. I have also made sure all the facts of the case are spread amongst multiple people so if I get hit then the Truth will still surface. It’s not about us, it’s about the Truth.
SG: That is appalling.
Paul: Some of Packham’s supporters, especially the hunt sabs that he encourages in his tweets, are terrorists. One needs to take precautions.
SG: And Nigel, have you had any threats?
Nigel: No more than usual. They seem to have gone more after Dom, as Dom’s the one who we chose as spokesperson, who has raised his head above the parapet the most. The trolling has been by lowlifes – a failed psychometric profiler, an IT contractor who went bust and the usual suspects from sab-land. Sticks and stones…
SG: I have asked you three how you are doing but this must be affecting your families as well. How are they coping?
Nigel: Our families are mighty proud of us.
Paul: Agreed.
Dom: We are heroes to them already whatever we do. But by not conceding to Packham’s demands their opinion of us has risen. By not listening to the cowards who suggested we settle as it would give us easier lives, their opinion of us has risen still further.
SG: Packham’s lawyers have already asked you to settle?
Paul: Yes.
SG: What was your message back to them?
Nigel: (Unprintable).
SG: So, what happens between now and the trial and are you prepared?
Nigel: From the investigation standpoint, the team continues sifting through the pile of data which will grow further when disclosure happens over coming months.
Paul: Over the next few months expert witness exchanges also happen then there’s another case management conference I believe and then we prep for May ’23 when the main trial is due to take place, which lasts a week, will happen.
Dom: I’m uber-chilled at the moment. We have a brilliant legal team in place. The fundraisers are doing a sterling job, both with the crowdfunding and donors who donate direct to the legal team in confidence behind the scenes. Yes, we need to generate more donations and that is a burden but we share that burden with a great team. As Paul mentioned, we just let the legal eagles do their thing. I’ll do the occasional public interview or event to drum up support and we continue to acquaint ourselves with the facts, which are complex and nuanced – it’s a bit like prepping for finals. I’m also the one interfacing with the police, so I have that aspect to handle, as well as working with the Fundraising Regulator now a slew of new facts have emerged thanks to the investigation team. I counted the other day and we have over twenty people directly or indirectly involved now in the case on our team. It’s a mammoth effort but such an honour to be a part of. Sure, there are sacrifices and opportunity costs, which I will not forget ever, but we are strong, positive and united. Those who have donated so far to the case – we cannot thank you enough. We are touched. Cheers All!
SG: I can see that you are all in fighting spirits and I have seen behind the scenes so know what a force to be reckoned with the various teams are. Is there any message you’d like to get out?
Nigel: Please donate to the Crowd Justice fund or via Kofi. Money goes straight to our lawyers. We need to raise £250k + VAT just to get to court, and that is the brutal part of this. And I’d also like to add my thanks to those who have donated already. Thanks lads and lasses – if we could buy you all a beer we would.
Paul: Yes, a simple and heartfelt message of thanks from me. Every pound hurts Team Packham.
Dom: Yes, think of Packham standing next to Tingay and Avery when you donate. We will reach the target much quicker that way!
Nigel: (Unprintable).
SG: I’ll interview you again nearer the court date. Good luck lads. You know you have an army of supporters behind you, and we are all urging you on!
All: Thanks Simon. Appreciated. Cheers.
SG: The Crowdfunding Links for the Packham 3 can be found below. Please, please give generously. These lads need our help and I know they are up for the fight, not just for themselves but for all of us who enjoy country sports or live and work in the British Countryside. Please contact me if you need any further energising!
This piece first appeared in Country Squire Magazine, which we heartily recommend.
