“Tory nuclear waste sites revealed”, says the BBC.
A list of 12 sites considered for storing nuclear waste by the last Tory government has been released under the Freedom of Information Act
I’m not one to say the Beeb must always accede to Conservative Central Office’s preference for the official name of their party, but count the number of times the word “Tory” occurs in this piece. Mention is made that “The current government is looking for a definite solution to nuclear waste storage, and will start from scratch” but we don’t discover what party the current government are. Here is more about that Tory list:
It was drawn up in the 1980s, but the plan to bury waste at the sites was abandoned following the landslide defeat of John Major’s government in 1997.
We might forget the size of Tony Blair’s majority in our excitement?
TORY POTENTIAL SITES
Means PLACES TO PUT NUCLEAR WASTE rather than marginal constituencies.
Nirex is emphasising that the released list is purely historical and when a decision is made on where to store nuclear waste, the Tory list would not become the starting point of a new exercise.
…
One of the Tory list sites in Essex, at the former Ministry of Defence facility at Potton island, is just a few kilometres from the centre of Southend.
…
And there has been speculation about Stanford in Norfolk, where the MoD owns land, which is also on the Tory list.
…
Bad Tories. Voting Tory makes you radioactive.
Hat tip – DumbJon.
UPDATE: Some poor innocents claim that the towns to be scorched by nuclear fire are selected by civil servants and scientists by criteria that are scarcely affected by what political party is in power.
No, no, it was Tories I tell you!
Fear them. They seek human women.
Looks to me like a list prepared by civil servants – NOT by Tory Ministers. There always was a need to decide what to do with nuclear waste – it is not a political matter to look for feasible sites. I remember a search for sites going on in the mid-1970s when Wilson and then Callaghan were in power.
So – once again – has some Beeb journalist given this story a good political spin ?
OT
We get endless anti-Bush and anti-US spin from the BBC. What concerns me is that so many BBC staff seem to lack any historical perspective. Maybe they should read this simple “Thank-you” note from an Australian, who remembers that the US saved his country from Japanese invasion in 1942 and has provided protection ever since.
Something not dissimilar would be a more appropriate basic stance for the BBC rather than the endless demonising of the US. I am ashamed that the BBC broadcast their skewed rubbish in our name.
http://antisubjugator.blogspot.com/2005/06/thanks-america.html
OT
In every interview with government ministers and particularly the ‘Welsh wind-bag’ the BBC seems to be awfully keen for us to give up our EU ‘rebate’.
Am I being over sensitive?
John,
That’s ridiculous. I’m with you all the way when you criticise kneejerk anti Bush/republican tendencies at and general patronising but you seem to be suggesting a tone of fawning gratitude should be adopted at all times due to ‘historical perspective’.
If the US government behave like a*seholes that should be the news. If they act selflessly in the cause of all that is right and beautiful that should be the news. If their actions are open to interpretation just give us the facts and let us decide.
Does Fox treat the French and Spanish with unswerving reverence because the b*stards assisted in our unfortunate defeat in the War of Inpendence? No.
Cockney
I don’t want fawning from the BBC. I just wish their staff had the right historical perspective about the West, about the Cold War etc. All too often they seem to think that it is a case of the US versus Europe. It is the US that has been the staunchest ally of Britain, and its de facto protector via NATO for the last 60 years. NOT Europe. That is why the typical anti-US BBC sneer is so sickening, so damn ignorant.
JiL
The BBC regards itself as thoroughly European and from this perspective it IS a case of Europe vs USA. Many Americans have woken up to this fact but not enough. If Washington is aware of Europe’s strategic view it’s hiding it well.
Being British we have no part of the fight. We can watch from the sidelines. Then, at the optimum moment, we can join up with our historic, oldest and greatest ally, Uncle Sam. Bring it on.
mark b yesterday took as proof of the BBC’s commitment to Zimbabwe its reporting of events there on the World at One. Today, I must have sat through at least 7-8 minutes of a feature on the Tory Nuklear Armageddon List before, frankly, becoming bored by it.
We had the report followed by a statement that a BBC reporter is responsible for securing the information via the Freedom of Information Act (hmmm … was he tipped off, me wonders) interviews with shocked(!) people living in a couple of these areas followed by interviews with people working in the industry … zzzzzzzz
Proof, therefore, of the BBC’s commitment to reporting of Tory plans to contaminate the UK for the next 100,000 years.
Pete,
What sinister European strategic view have we been missing?
If you’re talking about the independent foreign policy and military capacity plots being bounced about in Brussels then a) it’s looking like a pipe dream from where I’m standing and b) I thought the yanks wanted us to stope leeching off their military expenditure?
If you’re talking about trade disagreements then I’d be f*cking hoping that we’d stand up for ourselves (whilst pushing against archaic protectionist factions within the EU of course) because Congress will sure as hell stand up for their local special interests.
I’m also not convinced that the US is our oldest ally given that most of the documented history of England occured prior to the USA coming into existence, a colonial relationship can hardly be termed an ‘alliance’, and we weren’t too keen on them around the back end of the 18th century for some reason.
Ranting and historical pedantory aside I basically agree with John that the Beeb turns US/European issues into a playground fight then sides with the Europeans irrespective of the issue at hand, although I could argue all day about the specifics.
Cockney
The tussle over military capacity is not academic. The French have been trying to push the idea that NATO shold not take the planning lead for military aid in Darfur. Even though it is US planes that will do the heavy lifting – as usual. This is the sort of thing that could end up with a weakening of our protection by NATO.
Re. the first comment.
I agree: another disgraceful piece of political spin by the BBC.
Made all the more silly because Nirex, who are/were responsible for such matters, are certainly not close to the “Tory” way of thinking… believe you me!
PublicSectorWorker
Thnks for providing the link to Nirex :
http://www.nirex.co.uk/index/iold_list.htm
This explains clearly the non-political genesis of the list of nuclear waste sites. Compleytely different to the BBC release calling it a “Tory” list.
Natalie –
this is the clearest example I have ever seen of political spinning by the BBC. Someone ought to be severely reprimanded or sacked over this. Not just the writer of the BBC piece – what about the editors ?
Cockney
It sounds like you haven’t heard that the EU is ignoring the apparent death of the constitution and moving ahead with the foreign secretariat, the presidency, Euro ebassies, the European army and the rest of it. All of those things essential to running a free market, Cockney!
The sinister strategic view that you seem to be missing is that the EU is setting itself in opposition to the USA. It doesn’t simply want to promote its own vision, do what it thinks is right regardless of the US view or even offer an alternative to the world. It is setting itself up in direct opposition to the US. France did not oppose the toppling of Saddam Hussein because it thought it wrong to do so, it opposed it because the US promoted it.
In any case, don’t take my frothing right-wing word for it. Have a closer look at the EU psyche with the words of a German Green Party MEP and anti-capitalist:
https://www.ilka.org/index_en.html
Pour yourself a drink, read the second article down: “The War Against Israel and Growing European Nationalism” and let the scales fall from your eyes.
Jeez, they just don’t give it a rest.
On the front page:
‘MUSLIM? CHANGE YOUR NAME LIKE ME’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4079064.stm
The story of how Sheikh Ali Tariq Ahmed, a British muslim changed his name to beat prejudice and get a job. He changed it to … Daniel Jacob.
We have the usual assurances:
“The Muslims in this country are OK. We are not linked to terrorism. We are well educated, we have good jobs. We don’t eat curry all the time and we even have the odd drink now and again,” he says.
“[But] my ‘brand’ is Muslim and for people who don’t know me or see me, but see my name on a CV, they will associate me with being Muslim.”
And the accusation:
“It was amazing because the interest was so much more obvious than before,” he says. “If you want to find a job when you are out of work and a Muslim, then change your name and it will happen more quickly. Believe me, I know.”
But we are left with:
“If people want to achieve their objectives, then they have to understand the more they adapt or the more they can fit in without losing their core identity, the better it will be for them and the better it will be for society.”
I wonder if that applies to everyone.
Join us next week, when the BBC joins David Ben Cohen Yakov as he goes job hunting in Ramallah.
In fairness to them, they only used the word “Tory” six times.
Mind you, I didn’t see any reference to how the reds propose to deal with the issue.
It wont happpen pete, the institutionally racist BBC expect higher standards from the British than they expect from Palestinians.
i.e. we can and must accept multiculturalism but muslim culture cannot and must not be challenged.
pete_london
good ilka article, especially interesting was the often heard desire of a Europe to counter the power of the US. Last night on Question Time, John Redwood was faced with this proposition and said that a counter to US power already exists and its called China.
On the issue of a “Zionist Cabal” controlling Global Finance, lets just see how effective they can be at destroying the Euro and with it the entire Socialist Orgy that is the European Union.
Personally, I wish them luck.
alex, it’s already begun
http://www.internationaljewishconspiracy.com/
‘I’m not one to say the Beeb must always accede to Conservative Central Office’s preference for the official name of their party’
The Conservative party itself uses “Tory” as a synonym for “Conservative Party”
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&client=ig&as_qdr=all&q=site%3Aconservatives.com++tory&btnG=Search
But the BBC often uses Tory as a term of abuse – as in the way it INVENTED a Tory label for the nuclear waste-site list.
And the ‘official name’ is ‘The Conservative and Unionist Party’
John – but the Conservative Party uses the term – presumably not as ‘abuse’ – which rather defeats the claim that using it involves ‘abuse’, no?
The Conservatives use the term interchangeably, whereas the BBC uses Tory far more often than Conservative. But they do not use the alternative word “socialist” to describe Labour.
Steve Jones,
During the election campaign they asked the BBC to use “Conservative” more often and “Tory” less. Actually Tory vs Conservative does not matter that much here. The problem is that the BBC strove so hard to associate the list of places slated to receive the nuclear waste with the Conservatives. Anyone would think the Labour party had campaigned on a platform that it would save them from this fate. That is ridiculous. The stuff will go somewhere whoever is in power.
JohninLondon: Yes John, the word ‘Tory’ is aggresively used by BBC heads as a term of abuse. Rather good piece here:
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s1i7903
Yeah, JohninL. And Tory supporters are the Blue Rinse Brigade. Imagine the shoe on the other foot. You get tired of saying it but it’s worth repeating: No one cares what the Guardian calls Tories, I can choose not to buy…etc., etc.,
If that story had any more spin it could be used as a gyroscope and find true north.
Okay, Cockney. Who is the UK’s oldest ally? Germany? France? Spain? Somehow I don’t think so. I sort of think we’re stuck with each other and have stuck with each other for the last 180 years or so. After the U.S. won some respect in the War of 1812, I think.
Having been at sea aboard HMS Revenge waaaaay back in 1970 for their Polaris missile test firing off of Port Canaveral, I can tell you that half of the equipment in their sonar shack was American. Some of our best stuff, too. Exactly what our boomers had at the time.
While we sell dumbed down fighter aircraft and such to lots of (too many?) other countries, I can’t think of another country that we have shared ICBM or submarine technology with. Even today the U.S. is providing the Titan II missiles that you put your own weapons on for the Vanguard class of ballistic missile submarines.
It’s been a long lasting and very deep alliance and it goes both ways, political and trade disputes notwithstanding. We both know what’s good for us and it’s a good alliance.
Impressive post Natalie. The BBC article reads like something from Private Eye.
Quote:
Senate presses U.N. on anti-Israel bias
U.S. Senate passes bill that would require world body to stop one-sided resolutions, dismantle “duplicative” pro-Palestinian bodies
By Yitzhak Benhorin, Washington
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted Thursday to demand a series of reforms from the United Nations, and threatened to pull U.S. funding for the world organization if the General Assembly does not stop passing one-sided anti-Israel resolutions.
The Senate resolution condemned repeated General Assembly resolutions condemning Israel for defending citizens against Palestinian terrorism, and said Israel is the only country in affect disqualified from sitting on the
Security Council or U.N. human rights bodies because other countries in the region refuse to admit Israel to the regional group.
Calls to expand European group
The 70-page United Nations Reform Act of 2005. The bill also calls for the president to “direct the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nationsto use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States to expand the Western European and Others Group in the United Nations to include Israel as a permanent member with full rights and privileges.”
Once the law is passed, the secretary of state must report to Congress twice yearly to report on progress towards adding Israel to the European group.
Eliminating “duplicative” bodies
If the bill becomes law, it will tie U.S. funding for the organization to U.N. neutrality between Israel and the Palestinians. It will also require the organization to must do away with “duplicative” pro-Palestinian bodies in the U.N., including The United Nations Division for Palestinian Rights, The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, The United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process and Personal Representative to the Palestine Liberation organization and the Palestinian Authority, and The NGO Network on the Question of Palestine.
The bill proposes the United States withhold its annual contribution to the U.N. until all recommendations have been met, to the satisfaction of both American and Israeli government comptrollers.
Consider this: A powerful international organisation, responsible for affecting the way people think and act, is in danger of losing its status and the majority of its funding unless it becomes truly balanced and more responsible. A great solution and strategy.
I don’t think it’s a co-incidence that the BBC and UN have followed similar ideologies, or have similar powers in this respect.
With the BBC, it’s only the method of funding that gives it its status, otherwise its just another media outlet from whatever point of view it wishes to express. Applying the same strategy as the US in relation to the UN makes perfect sense. Stop paying your TV License fees and write your MP.
I think, technically, our longest ally is Portugal. Let’s be honest though, fat lot of good they’ve been.
Come, come, Mark. Remember Torres Vedras!
Teddy Bear
That is an truly awesome post and a long overdue idea. Is it just possible that The West is coming to its senses and shrugging off sixty years of malevolent Socialist tinkering?
It’s interesting to compare the BBC’s article to this one in The Times.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,175-1649479,00.html
I don’t believe they mention Tory, Labour or Conservative once.
Alex, I agree entirely. I wouldn’t categorize it as ‘The West’ though, since I think France, Germany, and Russia prefer the UN in its present state. Look how much money they were able to get out of contracts with Saddam among others, not to mention the ‘Oil for Food’ scandal. If the US can really reform the UN to make it an organisation that its founders visualised instead of the corrupt behemoth it has become, it will be a great step forward for a more moral world.
Bad Tories. Voting Tory makes you radioactive.
ROFL
Cute weblog you have there, Poosh. Bit too leftie for some people’s taste, though.
Natalie,
Re nuclear waste management:
‘The stuff will go somewhere whoever is in power.’
But I would predict that Labour is in the process of kicking this one into the long grass (hence the fabricated ‘story’) and keep kicking it there throughout their tenure in power. That’ll leave their eventual successors to sort out the problem and attract the flak when the whole issue becomes a matter of urgency.
Bit too leftie for some people’s taste, though.
huh!?
It was a joke, Poosh.
And they say we Yanks don’t “get” irony!
I understand the wrath about the Beeb linking “a bad thing” to Tories over and over… typical leftist tactics.
But I’m also concerned about the notion that storing spent nuclear fuel is “a bad thing” in the first place. That’s yet another leftist idea that has to be squashed.
I mean… think about it. An energy source with a radiant half-life measured by the millennia?
Please… this isn’t a “problem”, it’s an answer waiting for someone smart enough to ask the right questions, and when that finally happens there’s going to be a rush to recover all that stuff. I highly recommend a very SAFE place for storage.
Re: the UN senate bill – does the threat to withhold funding from the UN unless it adopts the US’ (and apparently Israel’s) perception of ‘neutrality’ not render pointless the entire concept of having a international organisation which mutually decides on action. How can it be ‘truly balanced’ if it’s existence depends on satisfying ‘US American and Israeli government controllers’ – a contradiction in terms surely!
That’s not to say that the UN decision making process isn’t a crock of sh*t or that its habit of continually passing unenforceable resolutions against Israel isn’t a monumental waste of time. I have absolutely no idea what a solution is. How depressing.
Sorry, that’s not to say that the various pro-Palestinian groups within the UN shouldn’r be rationalised or that Israel shouldn’t be welcomed into the European group (it plays in the European world cup qualifiers and that’s good enough for me). It’s just the unilaterally (or bilaterally) decided concept of ‘neutrality’ or else that seems a bit contrary to the point of the UN.
Anyone wanting to enjoy BBC statistics on nuclear waste should visit http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4407421.stm for some stunning figures. According to the little box on the right the UK currently hosts 5600% of the world’s plutonium taking the density of plutonium at 19800Kg per m3 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium ) and the total world stock at 1500 tonnes ( http://www.isis-online.org/publications/puwatch/puwatch2000.html )
As for Uranium, we seem to have accumulated 1,428,750 tonnes of the stuff, enough to keep the entire world’s nuclear reactors running for the next tweny years or so.
Clever Tories ?