Please use this thread for BBC-related comments and analysis. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not (and never has been) an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or use as a chat forum. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.
Can I find this news on BBC?
Christian Activist Killed in Gaza
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hvmzkvhaaaF_wnZnVdk2Gqy8ATnAD8S4MSD80
Hi
Can anyone help? Someone I know is repeating what they heard on the BBC as fact, that the NorthWest passage is now open “for the first time” due to icemelt caused by MMGW.
I seem to remember this being discussed here and with a link being given which shows that this has been open several times in years gone by. however, for the life of me i can’t find it.
Can anyone help please?
Thanks
The Admiral,
This BBC News page might help. It details a number of times the passage has been navigated.
I wonder if Matt Frei has read it…
Thanks Gareth
Also – have juest realised I am going blind. the story is on the BBBC homepage near the top. Ignore me… doh!
The BBC are making a climate change ‘drama’. Oh goody. Here’s hoping their non existant line on climate change doesn’t make an appearance.
Andrew | Homepage | 09.10.07 – 2:32 pm | #
Ta. No point going on about how such a Clintonian linguistic effort makes me feel… or wonder how the readers of the Sunday Times get served.
Gareth | 09.10.07 – 4:07 pm | #
I too often have trouble hunting back, but does anyone recall on this thread, actually quite recently (look up…!) – Peter | Homepage | 08.10.07 – 1:32 pm | # – about the rather odd disconnect on matters climatic where on the one hand it is served up as a done deal (often along with some rather hairy, expensive.. and potentially poor enviROI but good target/box tick ‘solutions’), but then the next seems to be used in the negative to laud our Dear Leader for avoiding the ‘green trap’.
I was just interested, and asked at the time, if any ‘in the know’ were able to explain that?
Or were there more productive areas of reply to address?
Would it be too much to ask that the BBC properly document government tax and spending changes?
The Pre-Budget Report says “The main rate of corporation tax will be cut by 2p in the pound to 28% by next year.”
But this was already announced in April’s Budget.
WOuld it be too much to ask that they stick to reporting news and that their journalists have some awareness of what’s happened in the past? It must be very confusing for the casual reader, who will read it and think that the government is cutting corporation tax (Labour have not re-announced the concomitant increase in small companies corporation tax incidentally.)
Michael Calwell 09.10.07 – 1:36 pm
Why do we have to have laws preventing people taking our own citizens abroad to have their genitals mutilated?
Well, I’d have thought that was obvious!
at no point is the fact that this is a self-made, domestic problem brought into view.
Self-made? Domestic? Heavens, I thought it was down to Johnnie Foreigner. 🙂
At no point are the ideologies that have brought this situation upon us questioned.
I suspect that you, like Bryan, (and to be honest, me • up until about 10 minutes ago) just assumed that FGM was a Muslim thing.
Seems not.
According to the WHO:
female genital mutilation is practiced by followers of all religious beliefs as well as animists and non believers……
in the countries where it is practised (chiefly 28 African countries).
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/
In Ethiopia • according to the US State Department:
Some Coptic Christian priests refuse to baptize girls who have not undergone one of the {FGM} procedures….
http://www.state.gov/g/wi/rls/rep/crfgm/10098.htm
According to Wikipedia:
FGM was practiced by the Ethiopian Jewish community (Beta Israel), formerly known as Falasha, most of whom now live in Israel, but it is not known if the practice has persisted following their emigration to Israel….
The practice of FGC predates both Islam and Christianity….. Greek papyrus from 163 B.C. mentions girls in Egypt undergoing circumcision and it is widely accepted to have originated in Egypt and the Nile valley at the time of the Pharaohs. Evidence from mummies have shown both Type I and Type III FGC present…
In the United States, as recently as 1938, FGC was advocated by some Christian evangelists as a method of preventing masturbation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting
Most Muslims, it seems, don’t do it. The clergy doesn’t encourage it and most debate in Islamic circles is to do with whether it’s permitted; not whether it’s compulsory.
I suppose the ideology you might have in mind is ‘multiculturalism’. But since pretty well everyone in UK is united in opposition to FGM and it’s against the law anyway •the multiculty ‘everything is equally valid’ brigade sure lost this one (if they ever fought it).
In any case – not a matter that could have been squeezed in to a topical interview on the Today programme.
Another BBC VOTE cock-up, or worse:
” Should there be a referendum on the EU treaty?”
This vote is INOPERATIVE (4.10pm) on the following page:
“EU treaty ‘same as Constitution'”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7034052.stm
George R | 09.10.07 – 4:28 pm
I followed your link and it worked fine.
Here’s the latest tally:
Yes
81.56%
No
15.92%
Not sure
2.52%
4524 Votes Cast
works for me too (not bbc)
More BBC Bias – Global Warming Disinformation
I’ve just watched “Look North”. They had a feature on severe weather, focusing on three events, the floods of 1953, the storm of 1987, and the recent flooding in the midlands this July.
They ended the feature by asking the loaded question “Are floods becoming a regular occurance?”
Three severe events in 50 years constitutes “regular”? Of course they weaseled the question up so as to avoid the accusation of bias.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7034399.stm
“Schools and hospitals will get more cash than expected but growth forecasts for 2008 were downgraded to 2-2.5%.”
This paragraph neatly sums up everything that is wrong with the BBC and the media in the general.
The writer (a) presupposes that schools and hospitals will know how much money they will receive in coming years and (b) that increases in health and education spending mean an increase in money for hospitals and schools. This is government spin passed off as news.
New Labour was the pioneer of spinning increased public spending on health and education as “more cash for hospitals and schools” or, worse still, “investment in hospitals and schools”. It means neither.
If the Chancellor says that hospitals and schools will receive more money, the press should not necessarily repeat this as fact, given that, in reality, only a small percentage of health and education spending ends up in the accounts of hospitals and schools.
Indeed, many hospitals and schools will receive less money than anticipated and will be forced to make cuts – as they have done already.
Worse still, to describe this money as “investment” – which BBC news bulletins is doing – is absurd. An investment implies money spent on an enterprise that will grow and return a profit or similar. ‘Investment’ in this instance is simply a synonym for ‘spending’; here, the word ‘investment’ has a political connotation and broadcasters should avoid using it.
The overwhelming majority of capital funding for schools and hospitals comes through PFIs and private partnerships. This money – which is effectively a huge government debt – does not appear in Treasury accounts and has been conveniently Enroned away by the current prime minister.
Thus the BBC – and other media – is very much couching public spending plans in terms that New Labour wants it to use.
Why can’t journalists simply say that the Chancellor is outlining his government’s proposed health and education budgets – he is not, repeat, not, “investing in” or “giving cash” to schools and hospitals.
Lurker in a Burqua:
……..and some good news
BBC industrial action ‘inevitable’
————-
I wouldn’t get your hopes up LiaB. The BBC lot always threaten to walk out/strike and, like Brownstuff, ‘bottle it’ at the last minute.
From ‘good news’ to bad:
OK to 24-hour BBC Arabic service
http://media.guardian.co.uk/radio/story/0,,2187158,00.html
“The BBC World Service will be able to press ahead with expanding its Arabic TV news service to a 24-hour operation and broadcasting a news channel in Farsi after the chancellor, Alistair Darling, today confirmed funding plans.”
Put me right off my tea that did.
Why am I forking out my own cash for the BBC to start up BBC News24 Iran? Why is it down to the British to not only be forced to pay to own a TV in the UK, but to be forced to pay for the BBC for everyone else in the World? It’s a double TV tax.
Don’t think there’s much chance of Darling getting a ‘robust’ interview from the BBC now, do you? – not when he is holder of the purse strings for Al Beeb Worldwide…….
To be fair Ritter, the BBC World Service is funded by the government – and does serve a dual purpose of getting out British messages to the world – propaganda if you like.
I understand completely that direct funding from the government is still our money, but it’s not funded from licence payers money.
It’s ALL our money and it’s all a tax. Stuff the BBC. If they want Jihad TV then bloody well raise the money from subscriptions, not my taxes.
[The Moderator: Edited to remove some unnecessary accusations.]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7034399.stm
Why does this article begin with the sentence?:
“Chancellor Alistair Darling has doubled the inheritance tax threshold for married couples to £600,000.”
It’s a misleading comment, designed to make it look like the amount has actually increased. All he has done is make it possible – without setting up a relatively straightforward trust – for couples to combine their tax-free portion. It reads as though there was a threshold for married couples before the announcement too; when there wasn’t. Is this the BBC smothering themselves in spin, or not actually understanding what Darling/Brown have proposed?
And most couples I know including my Mum and Dad have already sorted their affairs to combine their allowances so this is yet more spin and even the BBC admit this:
“Analysts say many couples already arrange their tax affairs so that their allowances are combined, meaning the changes may have little effect in practice.”
So why write the article like that to imply that Darling was being kind etc? And still no in depth analysis showing that if schools “get £x billion” then only a tiny part of that actually gets to the chalkface – most goes on the inspectors, the education departments (and all their lovely conferences in the grandest hotels with lunch whilst we have to put up with the school staffroom and some shortbread biscuits!).
BBC: we report – you have to find out the real facts for yourself – this is what we do.
It is very poor reporting, the front-page headline being “The chancellor doubles the inheritance tax threshold for couples, but the Tories say he is “in a panic” over policy.”
He hasn’t
He’s doubled it for widow(er)s.
But if you own a £600k house, in equal shares with your spouse, they can each pass on half when they die anyway.
John Reith | 09.10.07 – 12:37 pm
and
John Reith | 09.10.07 – 4:27 pm
Don’t decide for me what I know and don’t know. I was born and raised in Africa, and I know that FGM is not restricted to Muslims. There are practices on the African continent that would stand a normal person’s hair on end – like black teenage males subjected to primitive circumcision rituals under unhygenic conditions. The point I was making is that the BBC typically tiptoes on eggshells around Muslims when it comes to practises which should be roundly condemned. (And before you reiterate that “the BBC doesn’t do outrage” think back to the outrage it directed at Israel throughout the Israel-Hezbollah war or the outrage it habitually dumps on George Bush.)
Now you can list as many links as you like proving that the BBC has had a look at FGM, but what I’m talking about is the paralysing PC of the BBC when dealing with Muslims. Blacks used to be the favoured group but it looks like Muslims have even usurped Black South Africans in the BBC hierarchy of those who have to be honoured and treated with the utmost respect no matter what they do or how low they sink.
Quite some time ago an impeccably PC BBC reporter (I believe it was Heather Paton but I could be wrong) was in South Africa investigating the horrific practice of the rape of very young children and even babies. She was politely murmuring while listening to one particular tale of horror unfold as it were a weather report.
What I’m getting at here is that there is an extraordinary dissociation among those on the left from normal human instincts when dealing with their favoured groups. And Muslims have now trumped all others in the BBC’s blinkered vision.
And the BBC are not the only ones:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
“Inheritance tax threshold will rise from £300,000 to £600,000 immediately.” (At time of writing)
Yeah but we’re not forced to pay for the Telegraph etc. etc.
However, it is important to note that it’s not just the BBC.
And to be fair to them, if you compare the BBC coverage (“Inheritance taxes cut for couples”) with the Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/10/09/bcniht309.xml)
the BBC actually come out looking quite favourable.
Working link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/10/09/bcniht309.xml
John Reith | 09.10.07 – 4:27 pm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2187263,00.html
Parents and guardians in African immigrant communities are thought to be taking their children abroad for female gential mutilation (FGM), but so called “excisors” are also said to be operating in Britain.
Around 66,000 women and girls in England and Wales may have undergone the procedure, in which part or all of their genitalia is cut off and stitched up, without anaesthetic, the campaigning group Forward said yesterday.
Sunnah 1:8 Um Atiyyat al-Ansariyyah said:
“A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet (pbuh) said to her: Do not cut too severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband’.”
Why is there no serious analysis of the pre-budget report on the BBC, only sound bites? The Inst. for Fiscal studies have stated that the overal tax burden will rise. Not to mention that the IHT uplift to £600k provides little more benefit then what is currently in place. With effective tax planning a married couple aleady have £570k (£285k x 2). The BBC is becoming like the Ministry of Truth as per 1984.
the BBC actually come out looking quite favourable.
MisterMinit | 10.10.07 – 1:34 am | #
I just watched BBC Breakfast. Speaking of telling ‘us’ what ‘we’ think, according to Kate S, ‘we’ the people believe the Conservatives have been cunningly out-foxed by the crafty Chancellor. How did she arrive at that notion? I don’t recall being asked, and am unaware of any credible polls to support such a leading statement. Hence where does the support for it come from?
I know it’s interviewers’ jobs to keep those in the hot seat on their toes but this did seem to be starting less from the point of view of challenging the interviewee and more shoring up the government by any means possible.
And it is only here that I actually get close to some analysis that guides me to an informed view on yesterday’s efforts by Mr. Darling. I had thought a burden had been lifted but now see, thanks to posters above, it is just a rearrangement that makes no difference. And the BBC has pointed this out how? Para 29 in an online text somewhere.
In the ‘fight back’, I have noticed the well-trained..er.. briefed cabinet clones and supporting sympathetic/sycophantic media are spinning this as applicable to a very small number of folk and dependents who don’t deserve ‘it’. Such as Polly Toynbee on the Andrew Marr show, invited, one presumes, to show balance.
I’ll have to leave the reality of that to the lies, damn lies and political number crunchers to fight over.
All I know is that when my Mum hit 75 she could no longer look after herself. So we sold her big house and popped her in a small one next to ours so I could keep an eye on her.
Thing is, at 50, and having worked from home for a decade, with my old CV, any attempt to hit the workforce as a consequence of various downturns, combined with the farce that is the equal opportunity legislation on any practical application (ask anyone over 40 – who admits to it – how a CV gets treated), means I am looking at a very long creek ahead and a very short paddle.
What’s left of Mum’s legacy would go a long way to mitigating that and help me feel a bit better about where my future will be placed without being a burden on the kids or society either.
So to all those well paid and golden pensioned Ministers and media luvvies who can’t see how this might play well with those who do work hard and try and keep things in the family, I have a very short phrase for you: at least I still have my vote.
And for our Kate to say no one will remember who did what at the booth when the time comes, I speak solely for myself in saying ‘Oh yes I will.’
This is strange. Do my eyes deceive me?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
As of 9am, the main news page has nothing about Darling and his Commons report. Yet this is the main headline in the Times, Telegraph, Guardian and Independent.
That The Daily Telegraph should report the inheritance tax swindle in a similar way to the BBC is no surprise if what Stephen Glover says is true — he claims that the DT’s political section is now run by a Brown sympathizer, and an understanding has been reached whereby the DT will be given access to stories in return for the DT dropping its hostile coverage. It is certainly true that the DT has been surprisingly easy on Brown.
I should add that the relevance to this blog of my last comment is that comparing the BBC’s coverage with the DT is not the matter it used to be.
However, I also note that the DT runs a headline critical of Brown today. (And Heffer attacks Brown, but he’s not part of the political news section).
Abandon Ship!
Not only did the 9am news bulletin wipe out the main news today, it also made an entirely bogus announcement about Alistair Darling’s plans to help elderly people in care homes who are forced to sell their houses. I actually listened with amazement to Darling being interviewed as he professed to know nothing about this plan when Humphrys fed it to him – eventually he said something entirely neutral like ‘we will try to be fair’ and ‘we will be looking at it’. Yet this flim flam was hardened up and turned into the 9am top headline. So – it’s not just the Tories writing Darling’s announcement for him – it’s the Today programme as well.
On a lesser note – why exactly is Madeleine Bunting, far left journo for the Grauniad doing Thought for the Day? What exactly are her religious credentials – apart from religiously following BBC orthodoxy on all issues. In this respect she’s most devout.
Peter – I can sympathise with your situation at 50 – I’m in a similar track – years of trying to find / create employment – on the way to penury – and I’ve fairly recently been a successful BBC presenter/writer – not invited back because of – age.
How do these media / governing people square their left / liberal agenda that inflicts failed ideology on ordinary people on the ‘front-line’ – with financial gain and escapes to homes in the country / Europe – the fruits of an economical revolution started by the person they just cannot wait to deride in conversation as a badge of right-on ‘honour’- Thatcher?
Regarding Darling’s pre-budgie statement, The Government were quite soundly found out on Newsnight. The Conservatives didn’t fare a great deal better but at least some of the holes in Darling’s report were pointed out.
Media people thinking the Tories have been outfoxed was a common theme on the news. Yet I would suspect this will quickly diminish, bcause that would be admitting Brown used British soldiers for spin and ramped up the possibility of an election for party gain. The footage from Darling’s statement featuring an unmissable gurning Brown to his left hasn’t helped either.
Given the chance, Conservative spokespeople have been quick to frame it as the Conservatives setting the agenda. Which is just as reasonable a view as the Conservatives being outfoxed.
All the while very few people are asking why a number of important announcements were brought forward and where Gordon got his mandate for change from.
Oscar
I too have noted that “Maddy of the Sorrows” is now an apparent regular on Thought for Today. Up until now, I have found it just too depressing to comment about.
However, her abysmal writings have been given the treatment they deserve in a number of eloquent renderings at both Normblog and Harry’s Place.
It is noteworthy that all Christian (or non-Jewish/Muslim/Hindu/Sikh/Buddhist) contributors to Thought for today are either Marxists, ex-Marxists or Israel-haters.
Bunting
Bell
Fraser
Any more?
Guess who the special guest on Woman’s Hour is? Jacqui Smith – teling us her vision – as it was trailed on the Today programme.
PS Gareth – fair comment. Newsnight did rather savage Andy Burnham. But one small correction – Gordon wasn’t ‘gurning’ during Alistair’s announcement he was grinning and preening.
The BBC keep up their record of desperately not mentioning the religion of a convicted criminal:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7035294.stm
Hah, only joking. He’s a Catholic, so mentions are liberally spread throughout the text. Five mentions of the Church or Catholic Church. You won’t see five mentions of “Islam” in a year of BBC reports about terrorism.
This little item from today’s BBC News UK site seems well up to its biased standards (apologies if its already been posted):
——————-
Palestinian takes on UK in court
Israel has constructed a massive barrier around east Jerusalem
A 60-year-old Palestinian will begin a case against the UK government in the High Court later when he will say that sales of arms to Israel are illegal.
Read the rest here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7036945.stm
——————-
Note the caption to the emotive photo; and note the refs to the the International Court of Justice. I don’t have all the facts to hand, but if memory serves, the ICJ actually had no jurisdiction in the matter of the security fence (thus its ruling has no validity), but it tried the thing anyway – though this is not, of course, mentioned in the news item.
I’m hoping one of the grown-ups who run this site will be able to post a fuller blog on this story.
Cheers.
Current ‘New Statesman’ VOTE:
“Is the BBC in terminal decline?”
Result so far –
YES 72%; NO 28%.
http://www.newstatesman.com/polls/966
I loved this comment I saw on that New Statesman page:
>This is by design, in fact I`d suggest that most of the recent cock-ups are down to “plants”…
Next thing you know these conspiracy nuts will be saying that the “plants” were put there by Biased BBC!
“US Supreme Court’s swing to right”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7021922.stm
Sorry, but this reads like the writer thinks thats a “bad” thing. Where is the “impartiality”?
Rob, there is none.
But then again, “swing” is less pejorative perhaps than “lurch”.
After the most bruising encounter one could imagine Brown experiencing at PMQs at the hands of a deft Cameron Nick Assinder writes a sketch with hardly any detailed description but a lot of personal opinion. He concludes:
They undoubtedly reassured themselves with the hope that Mr Cameron has now fired all his missiles and will not be able to manage any repeat performances like this.
After all, his early promise against Tony Blair didn’t last the distance.
And then, they hope and believe, it will all fade and Gordon Brown can get his project back on course, continue his strategy of denying the Tories any square inch of the centre ground and go on to win that election – eventually.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7037155.stm
When Blair left office Cameron was ahead in the opinon polls and had just gained 900 seats at the local elections. So where does Assinder get the idea that Cameron’s “early promise” didn’t “last the distance” against Blair. The opinion polls changed after Brown came to power (for a while). This kind of inaccuracy is what now passes for BBC commentary – very short on facts. Very long on bias.
According to the BBC, Poland’s principled stance on the oppressive amoral European social and cultural agenda can be described thus:
“But Poland’s conservative, populist government has made something of a speciality of going against EU opinion on issues ranging from homosexuality to environmental protection, our correspondent says.”
Oh, BBC. How very, very dare you.
BBC cuts? What cuts? The BBC World Service has an increase in its annual budget from £246m. this year to £271m. in 2010-11.
” It provides funding for the BBC to extend its planned 12-hour Arabic news channel, to be launched later this year, to 24 hours a day from next year. The extra cash should also mean the BBC can boost the number of journalists the channel will have across the world.
” It will also allow the World Service to fund the creation of a separate BBC news and information channel in Farsi, for Iran…”
John Simpson’s section has done well for itself, so have the Arabs and Iranians. The British taxpayer?
As a mere Brit, my ears are already burning in anticipation of the politically correct, multiculturalist propaganda which Simpson will put out for Ahmadinejad’s regime in Iran, at our expense. Al-Beeb, as Al-Jazeera 2.
” OK for 24-hour BBC Arabic service”
http://media.guardian.co.uk
(scroll down).
BBC World service is direct funded from the Foreign Office if I remember rightly. Mr Brown likes more overseas aid.
Nick Assinder commenting on todays PMQ destruction of GB
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7037155.stm
First para is revealing:
“David Cameron, on the other hand, now has to consider how on earth he can possibly follow his performance without resorting to four letter words or throwing bits of furniture across the chamber.”
Nick is telling us that Cameron was close to violence. He believes DC was unreasonably hostile to our glorious leader perhaps?
Now he pulls this verdict out of the hat. He fails to mention what the effective blows were and I for one didn’t see any.
“It wasn’t so much that Mr Cameron wiped the floor with the prime minister – it fell a little short of that and the great clunking fist landed some pretty effective blows.”
Give Nick some credit – he does go on to say that GB was trounced, but somehow I feel that Nick is empathising and feeling GBs pain.Assinder admitted that the event was “a little bit scary” for him.
As for the tories he has this to say:
“The Tory benches were, by this point, in some sort of ecstatic blue heaven – perhaps St John’s Ambulance crews should have been placed on standby for those overcome by it all.”
That is the paragraph that irks me the most. Its a classic technique of the left. Attack your enemies by name calling.
My verdict : Assinder on the Ropes. Red mist over Blue heaven.
[The Moderator: I agree that that Assinder’s piece of full of dubious opinions, but name-calling? I didn’t see any of that.]
Am I the only one to notice that Alistair Darling (who serves a Scottish seat) was able to get away with the comment that he didn’t think free care for the elderly was realistic, yet in his own Country, this in fact is the case.
So his family and friends can get it but if you happen to be born in England you can’t?
The BBC never brought this up once (I emailed 5 lite and others to try to find out why this has not been questioned) yet to me it’s a fundamental point. If free health care is seen as good by Labour in Scotland, then why not England?
After all the Scots must have found the money from somewhere so presumably a similar pot of money exists in England?
When is some prat at the BBC going ot have the balls to stick one of these Scots on the rack over this.
And I don’t want our Scottish overseer removing this post, it’s very relavant.
Far too much is being passed by Scottish Ministers with no effect on those they represent.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2628899.ece
Jones “That is the paragraph that irks me the most. Its a classic technique of the left. Attack your enemies by name calling.”
Al-Beeb, Beeboid, Toady, Views24 ect ect !
David Gregory (BBC):
Jones “That is the paragraph that irks me the most. Its a classic technique of the left. Attack your enemies by name calling.”
Al-Beeb, Beeboid, Toady, Views24 ect ect !
David,
I agree that there is some heavy name calling on this blog, but we are not pretending to be unbiased.
The Judge in the “inconvenient truth” case has now given his ruling.
I note the BBC originally headed its story “Judge backs Gore film in schools” which is about as misleading as it gets.
Now the story reads
“Judge rules on Gore schools film ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm
For anyone interested this is a link to the judgment in the Dimmock case. A useful resource when faced with the BBC lauding Al Gore.
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html&query=dimmock&method=boolean
Abandon Ship!:
There’s an Irish ex-Catholic priest called Oliver McTernan on Thought for the Day who’s not all that keen on capitalism. After the Islamic terrorist attack on Glasgow airport he came up with a line that it was thwarted career paths that had made the bombers crash their bomb into the terminal, and that we all ought to be more sensitive to their needs.
Anne Atkins talks sense though, and she doesn’t seem to hate anyone. Christina, sort-of.