Really tired of this odious comparison with the behaviour of Chris Packham. The people (by whom I mean the numerous X and Daily Mail commentators) making this apples and oranges comparison are clearly either being disingenuous, or, if they honestly can't see how these two positions are diametrically different, not engaging their critical faculties.
Fox is an agent provocateur. He one day became embroiled in a throwaway argument about white privilege, realized it made him notorious, and saw a wonderful means of propelling himself constantly into the media. Thus, incidentally, finding himself a purpose and staying relevant in the face of a floundering acting and worse singing career.
Fox IS the news. Fox is stirring up controversy for the sake of it. It's all about Fox. He's set his sights on politics but unfortunately lacks the corresponding degree of articulacy with his fellow wind-up merchants, and lunatic conspiracy theorists. No names necessary.
Fox actively incited people to break the law. He told and showed them which criminal acts to commit (whatever your views happen to be on over-surveillance). He told police where he would be and what he'd be doing. (DUR!) He wanted to be arrested so he could employ DARVO and whip his unthinking, mindless followers up into another frenzy of 'THEY' are coming for us, it'll be you next ...
Compare Packham. Packham doesn't want to generate interest in Packham. (And he's not constantly dropping sexist, racist clangers into the mix). He's not out to hurt particular groups of people. He's not an agent provocateur. He's a passionate advocate of one specific issue (and a compassionate awareness raiser of one other; that being autism). He's asking the question as to 'what if', if the government remain particularly deaf to climate change issues, that it's an emergency of our times, to ask what the responsible course of action is, and that what if people feel compelled to break the law because they're in despair over that concern remaining unanswered - of not being taken seriously as the emergency it is. And his also had his own home torched and his relatives threatened for the privilege. (Who are the real, ominous, aggressors here?)
You can raise all sorts of issues with this: one being the generation of electricity to run these vehicles, of the disposal of batteries, of how 'green' they really are. You can engage in arguments for and against. Packham will take them on. He's capable of intelligent discussion, rather than daft conspiracy theories and soundbites. Meantime, he's pursuing a LEGAL recourse (spot the difference from Fox) to compel the issue to be taken seriously.
Like or loathe the guy, the false equivalence with Fox couldn't be more obviously ridiculous. You couldn't get two men who were more poles apart.