Recent adverse publicity

The unfair, detrimental coverage of Chris Chadwell's activities in the past few years has caused him a great deal of distress.  When someone has dedicated their life to the study, conservation and cultivation of Himalayan flora, to be portrayed in such an unfavourable light by ill-informed figures is wrong.  This coincided with a period of serious ill-health, meaning he was not able to defend himself - talk about "kicking someone when they are down" but his circumstances are improving.  He fully intends to put up a strong defence, exposing the truth and wrong-doing which has been going on. Do not believe everything you read in the media - even from supposedly prestigious and trustworthy sources....  Further details to follow!  We certainly live in a world where those who mislead and downright lie are well-paid and enjoy good reputations or perhaps it was ever thus.  Chris, it seems, needs to be a whistle-blower.  Long an unofficial 'freelance' photo-journalist himself, he is investigating and accumulating evidence in support of his position.  He was was unaware that people could behave as "laws unto themselves" to secure a tabloid-standard, sensationalist stories and major institutions employ them to behave like this.....  Those who have never been subjected to such conduct will not understand what Chris is talking about.  Others, much more high-profile, will - since when does the accuracy of content matter to those who write or read it?  It does to Chris. The conduct of frightened hypocrites has contributed to the sorry state of affairs.  Chris has been told on a number of occasions, that he knew too much - well this is true and he fells compelled to expose some of this.  Some of what he is going to reveal is going to make uncomfortable reading for certain well-known figures and organisations.  Why should they damage others and get away with it?  Chris always conducted himself honourably, has never paid a bribe (no dount to his disadvantage) or taken a kick-back - others most certainly have or maybe the explanation is that they are 'intellectually challenged' or extraordinarily naïve, rather than dishonest.... Whatever the explanation, we expect better and the general public, without specialist knowledge or the insights Chris has obtained after decades travelling and exploring in the Indian sub-continent, deserve better - IF they are going to trust these famous names and organisations, these figures MUST take better care before endorsing so extravagantly, what are fraudulent charities. More to follow. See