I have had a communication from Richard Black of the BBC (and his lawyer) that in the interests of fairness and debate, I must share with you. Indeed, he is threatening to sue me if I do not. He asserts that a piece I wrote about him on this blog, suggesting that he makes money from chairing climate change conferences, is wrong. He writes:
You draw these various strands together by saying that I and the BBC are “in bed” with “shadowy forces” that “pull the strings of the climate debate”.
I will make three things clear to you:
– I was not paid to facilitate at this meeting
– I do not “make a tidy income” from chairing conferences – I usually do so for free
– journalists are asked to chair conferences precisely because we can be objective, impartial refereesI am asking you to display on your page, prominently, a correction to your assertion that I was paid to chair part of this symposium, and acknowledgment that climate change was not its main focus.
In accordance with his wishes, I have printed his remarks prominently and made it a central part of the blog. I am happy to publicise his response to my story and make sure that Biased BBC readers are aware of it. And I accept his assertion unreservedly that he was not paid to chair this conference, and that, on this occasion, climate change was not the main focus.
At least now we know that Richard is above reproach; it’s perhaps a shame that other BBC presenters are not so candid in the terms of their acceptance of speaker roles, and that they freely advertise their services on the web at 10K a pop.
Update (in response to posts): For the record, Richard’s letters threatening legal action came in two stages; one from himself (from which the extract is lifted), the second, three weeks later in much more formal language, from Nick Alway in the BBC’s own legal department. The missive bears the imprint “investors in people” in the bottom right hand corner.
Robin
Thanks fpr sharing that and I fully accept the thrust of the points made. However I think it is also fair and reasonable for Biased BBC to assert that the alleged “impartiality and objectivity of journalists is a matter of opinion. Richard Black may be the very model of unbiased objectivity, but then again that is a matter of opinion and I presume he accepts we all have a right to express such.
David,
Subtle point. But of course the BBC do not accept that anyone has a right to contrary opinions. Their mindset is basically Totalitarian.
So he reads what we write about him, does he? Has he rebutted any other points made here?
To be fair, he does occasionally reply on his own blog to points made. For instance, he recently blogged that “If you’d added up the numbers of mammals, fish, birds etc in the world in 1970, and done so again in 2006, one-third of them would have disappeared in between times.” That to me seems so preposterous as to be unbelievable, and some commenters took him to task on it. He replied with the list of references used and said “If you know this set of papers and studies, or the synthesis of it, overstates the case, could you elaborate please, for all our benefits?”.
That condescending comment sums up his view of those who criticise. It seems the paper comes from the UN and WWF who are, of course, utterly beyond reproach.
Perhaps he`d like to show that other instances of bias highlighted here are wrong?…thought not.
He cites the WWF! LOL!
Excellent. Well done Biased BBC and the entire team behind it.
To be sued, or threatened to be sued, is to be noticed.
Keep it up. The more you get under their lying, propagandising, Islam loving, Jew hating, foreign loving, English hating, Marxist loving, classical liberal hating treacherous, devious, mendacious skin the better.
We WILL grind the bastards down, and we WILL let them know that one day they will be held to account.
Paul,
Spot on, their mixture of arrogance and ignorance is breath-taking. Why do we have to pay for these wretched people under pain of imprisonment ?
The key point remains. Black is NOT a scientist, yet so often appears to preach at us as if he were. His articles, blog entries and reports on TV and radio preponderantly present the “Warmist” case – yet he had the gall to deny this in his Newswatch interview last year with Ray Snoddy.
Of course he is biased. When, for example, has he ever properly examined the case against the “Hockey Stick” ? When has he fully presented all the sleaze about Patchouri ? When has he properly presented the full range of criticisms of the references used in the IPCC reports ? And when has he explained that the whole IPCC process was established to push a particular point of view – and that its editorial processes have been under lots of criticism for their closed, cliquey nature.
Black’s line is to sweep genuine scientific controversy aside, to sweep uncomfortable facts under the carpet, to present a very one-sided view of the debate on whetther or not there is global warming – and then on what the possible causes may be.
And not only is Black not a scientist. He is not an economist either. Yet he pontificates on economic measures to deal with the alleged AGW, never showing any sign of understanding of the opportunity costs of these economic measures, never presenting the arguments by eminent economists and others that Copenhagen-style prescriptions are unworkable, wide open to fraud, and will do immense harm, especially to the poor of the world.
Mr Horbury, Black has corrected you on a point of detail. Which does not touch on the scientific and economic issues.
But on the wide substance of your criticisms of Black and his colleagues at the BBC – those other non-scientists who fail to present science properly – you are entirely correct to point out example after example of bias. Or if it is not bias – it is sheer ignorance.
Quite right, John. Black has no right to comment on matters he does not understand.
Can someone remind me what his university degree was ?
Being a twat?
Martin,
Ha !
Twat with 1st class honours !
We only have his word that he is not paid and that means nothing coming from a Beeboid.
The idea that journalists are asked because they are “objective” and “impartial” is a joke. The man is a buffoon.
I wonder who paid his lawyer’s fees. Maybe Black can confirm it was not the BBC !
No – he was NOT paid for the specific conference. And he says he is not normally paid for chairing conferences. From which we conclude that sometimes he is paid. How much ?
What is laughable about Black’s statement is his line :
“journalists are asked to chair conferences precisely because we can be impartial, objective referees”.
That is an utter joke. Black has shown himself for years to be overwhelmingly pro the Warmist alarmism case. As have others at the BBC.
That really is
I had been about to make the same points as John Anderson.
Mr Black has begged a very big question there, i.e. that journalists, let alone BBC ones, are even objective and impartial in the first place. (Broadcast journalists, including BBC ones, nowadays don’t appear to know what begging the question means but perhaps Mr Black’s lawyer will be able to explain it to him if necessary.)
Then we get to another sweeping claim without substance. Where is the evidence or proof to substantiate that journalists are asked to chair conferences for the reasons he states?
Just because he asserts something that suits him doesn’t make it true. I think it is rubbish and I believe he is invited for opposite reasons. It looks to me as if journalists are often part of the climate merry-go-round.
When he says:
– I was not paid to facilitate at this meeting
– I do not “make a tidy income” from chairing conferences – I usually do so for free
I am inclined to believe him. I’m sure it’s strictly true. But what about side benefits? Contacts? Stories? Nominations for other, paid, positions? I’m sure he’ll be happy to confirm he gets nothing out of it, other than the pleasure.
Right and proper that facts be taken to task and if found wanting, corrected. Were it always that way in other media.
Grant – ‘I wonder who paid his lawyer’s fees’
Very good point. I will await an answer. Especially if I co-funded it.
Because my next question is whether the non-legal approach was made first? Or in complement? Same result, sans sharks.
Post Simon Singh, vast corporations still need to understand that throwing about money-backed litigation threats by default is an abuse of the system.
Best I can read into this is Mr. Black is ‘above reproach’… in this case. Otherwise… ‘usually’. Which is about as ‘unique’ as his employer’s funding model when it comes to semantics and the foundation of his ‘defence’ of his and his colleagues’ ‘profession’.
I’d say a fairly nifty foot-shot, PR-wise.
Guest, Looks like we did pay for his legal advice , judging by Robin’s update.
Now , if someone defames me in a personal capacity, can I charge my legal fee to the BBC ? They really are the pits !
It’s revealing that Black, in seeking to rebut (successfully) RH’s assertions (that Black was paid to chair this particular meeting and that Black makes a “tidy income” from chairing conferences) chooses to conflate the establishment of such facts with his own unsupported assertion concerning why journalists are sought to chair such conferences. It appears that Black cannot or will not, even when he is – we must assume – rightly aggrieved, distinguish between fact and opinion which is the criterion by which the division between journalism and propaganda is judged.
That’s why he is employed by the BBC !
Whoops a daisy. Are New Labours favourite Beeboids now feeling a tad vulnerable, without the backing of their beloved junta? I do hope for the sake of Comrade Black, he sticks to the truth in all of his future BBC shenanigans on the subject of “Climate change”. As henceforth, I’ll be watching him like the preverbial hawk, for any coming Socialist slip ups from his rattle chucking pram.
“Richard is above reproach”
Is this some kind of joke? Apologise to him but for god’s sake, don’t lick his arse.
Perhaps Richard can now wallow in the frustration of having to listen to something he knows is patently wrong, like we have to all the time when he starts spouting his warmist bullshit. The difference is, we don’t have high paid lawyers to fight back for us, we have to suffer in silence.
But as Black has admitted that he “usually” chairs these alarmist meetings for free, perhaps Robin you should follow up this article with one in which you know for certain he WAS paid.
Either way it’s a conflict of interests and Black should be grown up enough to see that.
I also highly doubt he looks at this blog. Black is hardly the sort of person who pays the remotest attention to anything other than agreement. I should imagine some other over paid suck-up in his over-staffed department came crawling to him with the information.
Travis,
A Beeboid “grown up ” ? That will be the day. They are all still short pants ! No doubt Martin can comment on that !!!!
Still in short pants, I meant !
I do not “make a tidy income” from chairing conferences – I usually (SIC) do so for free
WEASEL WORDS. Note the “usually”. A particularly obfuscating lawyers’ weasel word. This indicates two things could be going on here.
1. That while he “usually” does chair a conference for free, “sometimes” he does charge or will charge a fee for doing so.
2. What, pray, is a tidy income which he denies making. One man’s “tidy sum” is another’s loose change. Even though the sums may be identical. Black needs to define what he considers a “tidy sum” before he can deny that he makes one.
Spot on as usual , Jack ! Keep on posting !
cheers Grant!
No problem ! Don’t say “cheers” . I am still suffering from a hangover from yesterday’s celebrations. Or don’t say ” cheers”, say “Slainte” just to annoy dear Martin, the Hammer of the Jocks !
So will this filthy Beeboid licence fee sucking parasite now provide B-BBC with a full list of his outside earnings for the last two years.
Go on Richard you lying parasitical scumbag, you know you want to.
NRG
Dream on !!!!
Good to see you are starting to get up some noses Robin. Perhaps he would like to elaborate on how he does actually earn a living?
People are sick of the paranoid ravings made by him, CRU, Jo Abess et al being allowed to run roughshod over peer-reviewed research. This has gone on for far too long.
If he was as impartial as he says he is, then why does he never give equal focus on (say) the inaccuracy of climate models, or why 1000 years ago there were dairy farms in Greenland and Vineyards in Scotland and why the planet was warmer then?
I’ll tell you why Richard Black, it is because money bends minds, billions blinds them. What really worries the Richard Blacks of this world, is that once people start taking a cold critical look at eco-propaganda, he and his ilk will be out of a job, Greenpeace becoming an endangered species.
To see what I mean, and if you have the stomach for it, try scrutinizing Black’s articles. His methods are that of the sterotypical eco-nutter. In no place does Black refute any of the valid skeptical consensus arguments. Instead, Black, in long passages of rants and raves, shakes his fist at them.
Notice, too, that Black is not a climate scientist, nor a statistician, nor an economist. Yet he feels qualified to weigh in on these topics.
Richard Black has his beliefs—he cherishes them, gazes upon them with the eyes of a lover. Mere words will never convince him that his darling is ugly. We will always have berserkers in our midst, just don’t let them drive.
The job of a journalist is to find out the facts.
It seems increasingly probable that the real facts are that there is no unprecedented warming going on, that indeed there is now cooling, that the Hockey Stick is arrant fraud, that IPCC procedures and internal processes were entirely skewed in favour of Warmism.
Black has not suggested any of this in his “journalism”. That is – he will have been paid a goodly annual sum by the BBC and failed to do his job properly.
Unfortunately with a Conservative?LibDem government and a LibDem at Enviroment we are less likely to be allowed to see the truth about ‘climate change’
Andy,
Well said.
Black has no expertise in science nor economics . He should either keep his mouth shut or preface any of his comments with the statement that he doesn’t know what he is talking about !
So Black chairs a conference in a personal capacity, feels that he has been defamed on this website and gets the BBC legal department to defend him at our expense.
What a a parasitical little scumbag. Typical BBC vermin.
I think he should be asked why he feels that we, as licence payers (OK, some of us here!), should be obliged to pay for the BBC legal department when he is asking for an apology for something he did in a personal capacity. And how much did it cost us?
Spot on, Roland !
Might be fun to write to DG asking the same question
NRG
Nice thought, but waste of time. The BBC are bombproof. The only way to get rid of them is to remove their money .
As employees of a publicly financed body, BBC staff, like Members of Parliament, should have to declare publicly its financial and political activities.
A report of 2003 indicates the power of trade unions at the BBC:
“BBC accused of intrusion after ordering staff to register political and financial ties”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/bbc-accused-of-intrusion-after-ordering-staff-to-register-political-and-financial-ties-539900.html
Assuming Black will read these comments, I wonder if he has the guts to post here in response. Don’t hold your breath. I suspect he will continue to hide behind his BBC lawyers’ petticoats !
BBC: “Editorial Guidelines – Conflicts of Interest Guidelines”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/advice/conflicts/5commercialbusi.shtml
Speaking generally, the BBC wishes to ‘control’ such matters privately, leaving BBC licencepayers in the dark.
Of course, in practice:
“‘Cover-up’ as BBC staff are allowed to keep deals secret”
(‘Daily Mail’ 2003)
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/'Cover-up'+as+BBc+staff+are+allowed+to+keep+deals+secret%3B+Executives…-a0100757978
George,
You are right , but we all know the “Guidelines” ” BBC Trust” etc are a chimera .
So if the poor mite hadn’t received an apology he would have instructed his (ours really) lawyers to sue for a minor piece of flim-flam which – aw bless – hurt his feelings, from a blog with a few hundred readers and the resultant fees of say £300,000 would be paid by the licence-payer.
I would personally like to ram his P45 down his poor wounded little throat.
Bupendra,
You are too polite. There are worse things I would like to do to Beeboids like Black !
My God, how they hate the freedom of the internet and blogs !
They just can’t control us !
The public should sue the likes of him and the BBC for anything they do or that they inflict on the licence payers that isn’t transparent, straightforward, open, honest, balanced, well-informed, informative and clear of personal interest and conflicts of interest.
We have the right not to be hoodwinked or subjected to hogwash or indoctrination by the BBC and I am sure the ever generous legal aid fund would provide the wherewithal to defend our “human rights” and compensate us for our injury and hurt feelings. Heh. I am sure the Human Rights Act can help. It does seem to lend itself to so many remarkable causes. (Let’s hope Dave hasn’t repealed it yet or abolished legal aid to pay the national debt. We’d better hurry up just in case. )
Millie,
Problem is that the Judges are Labour/ Beeboids !
Ah, yes Grant, good point. The judges, hm… They would no doubt tell us we are the wrong sort of people to have human rights. I mean, if we happen to be Christians, for example, it’s tough cheese and no go.
Congratulations, Robin. Black is aware that he is being watched.
I agree with Travis and Jack.
I suggest this matter be given a wider audience – say via the BishopHill site ? From there it would get picked up by other blogs, people should know that Black and the BBC are uttering legal threats – but admitting that Black picks up conference fees – no doubt all part of the Warmism bandwagon.
They’d have a good chuckle over Black’s suggestion that journalists are impartial and objective !
I have only two questions:
i/ Since Ricky is asked to chair conferences in Fiji thanks to his well-known objectivity and sense of public service, can he he tell us how many anti-AGW conferences he’s appeared at?
ii/ Didn’t multi-billion pound corporations using the legal system to silence grass-roots opposition used to be the kind of thing journalists opposed?
But some nice hotels for Ricky boy to trough in !!!
Ahh, a bottomless pit of license-payers money to take legal action against you. I dont recall Jonathan Aitken funding his legal action againss the Guardian with taxpayer money on the basis of being a Government Minister. Owing to Mr Black’s and the BBC’s squalid misuse of license-payers money I shall believe your original story about him.
Interesting how even with this bottomless pit of cash they dont feel confident enough to intimidate you into silence over all of the other stories you’ve broken on their bias and conflict of interest. Speaks volumes
ck chooses to challenge just ONE item about him posted here,
ONE item on which he is correct, in just ONE respect.
Out of – how many – DOZENS of items posted here about his ignorance or his utter bias.
Black – you are a chicken. Chicken Litle, trying to persuade us that the sky is falling, that we are doomed.
Black – maybe you are ignorant of the counter-case. Why should we be forced to pay fat money for any journalist who is ignorant ? Ignorant of the many scientific arguments that “global warming” is NOT unprecedented, or that it is not man-made. Ignorant of the range of economic arguments against all the Copenhagen/IPCC flatulence.
Or you are biased. Biased. Biased week in, week out. Peddling bloody nonsense, nonsense you know very well is under severe challenge. Why should we be forced to pay for a journalist – a “fact-seeker” – who fails to present any kind of balance ?
Black, y6u or your people are watching this blogsite – watching this post.
You do not have the guts to respond to people here.
Chicken. That is what you are. Chicken.
John, Excellent post. You are right , with people like Black it is breath-taking ignorance, insatiable greed for money and cowardliness. And the rest of us have to suffer because of these scumbags.
Chicken-licken, Hen-len…Aw diddums. We know what happened to poor Chicken Licken and Hen-len, Duck-luck, Drake-lake…no lawyer, you see, and that nasty fox, lying in wait.
http://fairytales4u.com/story/chicken.htm
Richard Black is a cunt.
I agree that it is unlikely that Black reads this blog and likely that one of his warmist groupies at the BBC went running to him with the information. Also good points made about his complete lack of opposition to any of the other observations made by Robin.
Robin should update his post with all of the astute points made in this comments section – minus the insults, of course.