When will the BBC finally wake up to the fact that ‘climate change’ is a scam? When will some light penetrate the thick skulls that inhabit the corridors of the corporation of overspend? When will they start writing balanced journalism instead of agitprop? The evidence of this piece about river flooding is not for a very long time. Lord Smith is a Nu Labour ex-minister who in his new role in charge of floods propaganda has become a latter day Cnut. The picture illustrating the alarmist hogwash is near the King’s Arms riverside pub at York which I know very well. It has been flooded regularly by the Ouse since it was built in medieval times, so often that on the wall is a horizontal bar which charts the level of each incursion. It’s a well-know tourist attraction. The reason for the floods is quite simple: the Ouse has been directed into a man-made narrow channel that can’t cope if there’s heavy rain in the Yorkshire Dales catchment area. For the BBC, of course, that’s not important; it’s proof of Lord Smith’s moonshine.
KING’S ARMS MOONSHINE…
Bookmark the permalink.
They will not alter their stance on climate change while they are being paid by the EU and Gov.
Did you mispell the word “cnut” ?
It has to be said that the Tory stance on the global warming fraud is identical to that of the BBC, they cling to the wreckage of a failed theory as if their lives depended on it.
The Tories must realise that man made global warming dogma is about as popular with the electorate as a case of facial herpes yet still the Tory leadership peddle the AGW narrative with a fanatical and frankly suicidal determination.
The Tory answer to the collapse in public acceptance of the AGW fraud is to urge the peddlers of the fraud to redouble their indoctrination and propaganda efforts which will be generously funded by an incoming Tory regime.
So thoroughly implicated in the AGW fraud I suspect that the Tories are prepared to accept electoral defeat rather than listen to reason, their energy policies are a model of economic suicide, they are designed perfectly to create mass unemployment and industrial collapse, they couldnt have been designed more perfectly by our worst enemies in fact!
We all wait for an election to rid ourselves of the socialist cancer not realising that an incoming Tory regime will be as damaging and crazy as the outgoing crew of morons.
Looking at the Tory policies is truly frightening to behold, they have learned nothing and offer nothing but searing pain and poverty for the many and riches and comort for the few.
Those who choose not to see the real danger of the Tories is living in a fools paradise, if they gain power we will all learn very quickly just how the Tory party has been hijacked and perverted.
Its hard to imagine a worse regime than the one we have now yet that regime is waiting in the form of the so called Tory party, it is a monster waiting to destroy the UK.
That’s why I will be voting UKIP. I’m sick of the flipping between Labour and Conservatives, although the Conservatives are slightly better than Labour I wouldn’t vote for either.
“Its hard to imagine a worse regime than the one we have now yet that regime is waiting in the form of the so called Tory party”
I disagree, but anyway to really shake things up I hope people en masse choose anything but the lib/lab/con trick
After Cameron’s final nail in the coffin of ‘women only shortlists’ the only Party I was inclined to vote for was the UKIP. However, after Nick Farage’s appalling unparliamentary conduct towards the new EU President I am now a lot less inclined.
The UKIP response was that ‘he was rude, but he wasn’t unparliamentary’. They’re insulting electors as much as David Cameron with that one. I’m now a lot less inclined to vote for them without some form of public censure from Lord Pearson.
A word of advice Hippiepooter, a party troll is always recognized on this forum.
We all know that you would never vote for a party you despise and yet you frame your post exactly in the manner of a troll post ‘I am a lifelong long tory voter BUT isnt Brown wonderful and fantastic blah blah’
Come on now, state your political beliefs openly and proudly so we can all judge your posts on their merits, pretending to support another party and/or political belief in order to attack that party/belief is just wasting peoples time.
Nicely dodged by hippiepooter. Still you have to admire his sheep-in-wolves clothing-in-sheeps-clothing. At least he’s protecting his labour and BBC beliefs in a sly and original way.
I always vote UKIP in Euro elections. Not much point in voting for them in general elections in a scottish constituency where I will vote for any party which is likely to defeat Labour, except the SNP,
that is !
I am a great fan of Nigel Farage but , although everything he said was factually correct, including the personal insults, I think he would have been better to have left them out. On the other hand , if he did, he would never have made the BBC news !
Whilst I liked what Nigel Farage said, I don’t think it played well outside the already committed and should have been toned down. Mocking, rather than insulting, would have been better but as you say would probably not have made the news.
I live in Nigel Griffiths’ Edinburgh constituency which is a 3-way marginal and has a reasonable chance of going Tory in the next election. Despite having voted Tory in every General Election since 1997, I can’t do so now as it would legitimise the same deceit over Europe and climate change as exists under Labour. I will not be party to voting for that, even if it hands the seat to Labour or the Lib Dems. I will vote for UKIP if they’re standing even though there’s no chance of them winning as it will at least have made my point.
Roland,
I am in N. Edinburgh and Leith, MP Mark Lazarowicz. Don’t have a problem with him personally. One of the few intelligent Labour MPs in Scotland. But the only chance of getting rid of him is to vote Lib. Dem. What do I do ???
Cassandra the BNP Zionist and Travis Bickle of equal and profound discernment.
http://biasedbbc.tv/search?q=frankenstein
If I was a BBC Gramscian I would be very heartened by the significant amount of nonsense that gets posted on this site.
“Lord Chris Smith called for more action as climate change meant flooding would become more “commonplace”.”
And thats it – all the proof you need. Never mind any science to back this claim up.
“..a first class honours degree in English and a PhD with a thesis on Coleridge and Wordsworth.”
Ah – so the same qualifications as Harrabin.
The more I read that piece the more I see that this is not even “news”. It is one person spouting his opinion. There is no justification for even giving this web space. It is propaganda plain and simple.
The BBC wont start producing “balanced journalism” if they do what you suggest and “wake up to the fact that climate change is a scam”.
You produce some excellent pieces exposing the bias of the BBC as Climate Change advocates, but it seems your mission is that the BBC becomes biased in the opposite direction. It diminishes the credibility of this site.
hippiepooter, that’s not right. The “opposite direction”, as you put it, turns out to be the facts. If you are suggesting that our desire for the BBC to report facts about any issue is some sort of bias, then you couldn’t be more wrong.
Robin is correct that this BBC artilce is an opinion piece written from the perspective that AGW/ACC* is real, and will cause terrible floods. Since the science on which his claim is based has been shown to be flawed, corrupt, and in parts non-existant, asking that the BBC mention this from time to time, and at least noting in articles like this that there’s a lot of real doubt, is not bias on Robin’s part. The “scientific consensus” on which the BBC bases the editorial policy which makes them keep promoting AGW/ACC as fact is falling apart more and more every day. It’s no longer valid for the BBC to report AGW/ACC as a scientific fact, or give a free platform to anyone who claims it is, no matter how much they or you want to believe in it.
Robin is also correct in highlighting the fraudulent use of that photo. If this area has been flooding like this for centuries, it’s actually journalistic fraud to use it as an example of extraordinary, unnatural, historic flooding. This isn’t bias. Unless Robin is lying, it’s a fact that this street has been flooded like this since hundreds of years before the Industrial Revolution. It’s not bias to want the BBC to keep to facts and not actually lie to you to promote an opinion.
*AGW/ACC = Anthropogenic Global Warming/Anthropogenic Climate Change. Once it became obvious that the planet hasn’t been warming for the last decade, they had to change the name to “Climate Change” so they could blame all kinds of weather on it.
The BBC reporting that CC/AGW is a “scam” would be biased. Like you, I just want the facts reported and the pros and cons presented in a balanced way, and let the public draw their conclusions.
“The BBC wont start producing “balanced journalism” if they do what you suggest and “wake up to the fact that climate change is a scam”. “
So the BBC is open to persuasion if only they are met half way? Well I’m all for that – but the BBC is not. There has been a wealth of evidence that the AGW theory is fatally flawed, yet how far has the BBC moved to “balanced journalism”? The same distance as reporting the Middle East or Obama. The BBc is not willing to compromise on its agenda or its culture of the left.
I never suggested they were. Only a Parliamentary purge will restore its impartiality.
Owing to what I quoted above though, its left very open to question whether B-BBC want BBC impartiality restored or they want right wing bias to replace left wing bias.
I want proper balance – I don’t want the BBC skewed in either direction.
But I also want the BBC cut down to size, its budget halved becasue it has inordinate influence and media power. Too many channels, too much dross – and the bias issue makes everything worse.
Hippie
If you follow this blog, I think you will find that most regular contributors simply want objective, impartial coverage of all topics with no discernible bias provided the BBC is to be funded with our money.
Many of us, though, would prefer the abolition of the TV licence, in which case, the BBC would be free to spout any propaganda it wants to.
If it was sold off, I would suggest that the proceeds be distributed among the licence tax payers.
Cheers, Cassie !
Hippie,
I for one am neither tory nor a UKIP supporter. i am one of those strange beasts a dissafected Lib Dem.
I am naturally centrist in outlook and should be in the position of honest broker.
Both Tory and labour have tried to claim ground which used to be Liberal and so the whole political landscape is a bit confusng. However, auntie is consistantly biased to the extreme left of liebour.
I realise being balanced will mean we still have to listen to a percentage of overly left wing crap but I think thats healthy.
I think we are clever enough when given all sides to come up with our own conclusions. The problem at the moment is most of the populous doesnt get over 75% of the poitical points of view. it gets a narrow cast Harriet Harperson view which is never challenged and never held up to scrutiny.
I for one dont want to change a red bbc for a blue one I just want the beeb to live up to its remit. It is supposed to serve the whole UK not just handwiringing Islington socialists.
Isn’t it funny how anything that doesn’t follow the hippy poster’s party line “damages the credibility of this site”. Now that’s you told, Robin. Never mind all that origin research and exposes of what the BBC and their climate pals have been up to. Doesn’t count, you see. Get to it and toe that line!
Millie,
The Hippies of this world give the game away by simply not responding to any question they don’t like !
Too many people on this site are far too sensitive to criticism. Its not just Gramscian BBC bias that makes me worry about the future of British democracy, its the lack of moral fibre there is to oppose it.
What do you think undecided people make of this site when they see such tetchy responses of yourself and Grant below to the type of criticism that I made? You’re a gift horse to the Gramscians at the BBC.