I was listening to a “debate” on the FIFA scandal on the BBC this morning (it was on “Today” close to 9am and Barry Hearn was one of the interviewees but there is no link to share with you) and I heard the BBC presenter Evan Davies make the remarkable suggestion that given the concerns expressed regarding the integrity of FIFA, perhaps the UN or EU should be invited in to run it.

Great idea! After all, the EU is renowned for its financial transparency and we all know that the UN is the world’s highest moral guardian. You can always rely on the BBC to argue for one world governance but this one amused me given just how mad the suggestion is. Maybe Dominique Strauss Kahn could fill the supranational role the BBC suggests, I hear he is going to be at a bit of a  loose end?


Leftist agitprop fake charity Oxfam has been given the run of the BBC this morning to warn us of apocalyptic increases in food prices of up to 50% (odd nicely even statistic, btw) caused by “climate change” (They’ve obviously abandoned the global warming line formulation and are now using the more sophisticated but equally unfounded “climate change”) Who would have guessed that one of the cures for this was “to invest in small farmers, especially women.”? This dreary nonsense which Oxfam recycles with regularity is never robustly challenged on the BBC, instead like so much of its output it is spewed out as an article of toxic tree-hugging eco-lunatic faith.


It’s a consistent theme on the BBC – the demonisation of anyone deemed “posh”. Did you catch THIS discussion on whether or not it is right to be rude to posh people? For a hint on where the BBC may stand on this I direct you to the sarcastic introduction by John Humphyrs “I shall now attempt the impossible; I shall invite you to feel sorry for posh people.” Anyone with a decent command of the Queen’s English is, by BBC definition, “posh” and open to a little class warfare from the comrades.

More Than Meets The Eye

Here’s a tale about the BBC and its conjoined twin The Guardian being taken in by the same bit of Pali propaganda.
It seems Jacoub Odeh has been entertaining the gullible siblings.

“The fact that one Yacoub Odeh is the former Lifta resident guiding the BBC’s Wyre Davies and the Guardian’s Harriet Sherwood separately would suggest that this “tour” was a well-organized effort offered to the international media and eagerly picked up by those outlets sympathetic to the Palestinian narrative from 1948.”

The vindictive Israelis want to pave paradise and put up a parking lot on his former home. The remains of the Palestinian village of Lifta are the subject of a legal planning battle. To conserve or build? The BBC article portrays this as an example of Israel’s desire to obliterate precious Palestinian memories by their deliberately ruthless policy of expansionism.
The BBC reconfigures the 1948 war of intended annihilation of Israel by the Arabs, by using this peculiar phrase:

“It(Lifta’s) 3,000 residents were forced out or fled in fighting that erupted before the creation of Israel in 1948, which Palestinians view as the “nakba” or catastrophe. They were not allowed to move back.”

Fighting just “erupts,” you know, spontaneously, for no apparent reason. The emotive language leaves no-one in doubt about which side the BBC is on. Harriet Sherwood in the Guardian goes further, but then, they have no obligation to be impartial, although one would expect them to make an effort to be accurate.

For a more realistic overview, see here, and read the comments:

“As for the other question – well it is pretty clear that there are plenty of people intent upon making political capital out of places such as Lifta.
It is surely telling that their concern does not appear to extend equally to other sites such as the Jewish quarter in Hevron or the ancient 8th century synagogue in Gaza, let alone the Jewish burial ground in Tripoli which is now covered in concrete.”

There’s more to this story than meets the eye. The BBC’s eye anyway.


One of the key points of the BBC’s agenda about climate change (as David skilfully also points out in his post below) is the enthusiastic backing of the political, liberal elite/ruling class in their determined efforts to foist unwanted energy taxes on those who can’t afford them and in the steps towards world government. The tiresomely self-righteous actress Cate Blanchett, who can afford solar panels on her Sydney mansion (no doubt partly because of extensive government subsidies that benefit the rich) and who has forced Sydney Theatre Company “to go green”, is part of that noisome elite. And so BBC Australia correspondent Nick Bryant – who regularly recycles greenie claptrap with relish – here sees a big story in darling Cate’s fascist call for Australians to commit economic suicide by adopting Gillard’s hated carbon tax. The rest of the world may be seeing a glimmer of sense by finally rejecting renewal of the Kyoto protocol, but not Ms Blanchett. Mr Bryant, it is true, gives prominence to opponents of darling Cate’s elitist stance. But I think that veils his main purpose, which is contained in the carefully chosen words to explain why some Australians are resisting the tax:

The attacks on Cate Blanchett also reveal an instinctive suspicion of people in Australia perceived to be part of a cultural or educational elite – especially by the populist right.

That’s right, it’s those nasty “populist” right-wingers again. How dare they?

Ignorant US People Astonish Katty Kay

Check out Katty Kay – taking over for Matt Frei as alpha Beeboid at BBC World News America since he left for Channel 4 – telling Mayor Bloomberg of New York that she is “astonished” to learn that more and more people in the US are turning away from Warmism.

“What is it with the American public opinion that seems to fly in the face of all the scientific evidence?”

Calm down, dear. Substitute any other political issue and the Beeboids are usually equally astonished by American public opinion. But never mind.

First of all, it’s not that the people don’t believe the climate changes. That’s BS Number One from the Warmists. Of course the climate changes; we all know that and it’s not in dispute. The question is whether or not it’s caused mostly by human activity. The science on that is being debated all the time, yet the BBC acts as if it’s not, and only whackos don’t get it.

The reason I call this BS #1 is that the very euphemism the Warmists have forced into the discussion – “Climate Change” – is disingenuous. What they all really mean is Anthropogenic Global Warming. The “science” of AGW, invented by people whose careers and fortune depend on it becoming fact, is what Katty is talking about, and not about whether or not the earth’s climate changes or was in a warming trend for a while. But because the Warmists have already won the argument – if you’re using their terminology, they’ve already won the argument, even if you’re still talking – Katty and the BBC can get away with saying that people like me don’t believe in “Global Warming” when in fact it’s that we don’t believe that building one more clean coal plant will sink the Maldives. The recent record cold temperatures around the US probably don’t help. But that’s only weather, yeah.

The reason they switched terms is because “Global Warming” can mean all things to all people. There is no cause or effect implied. Yet we know the BBC and all Warmists believe the cause is human activity, as the topic of this discussion between Kay and Bloomberg proves. As the term itself is dishonest, this BBC segment is dishonest and Katty and Mayor Mikey are dishonest for using the term.

Mayor Bloomberg, of course, is a committed Warmist and an über-Nanny Statist. Don’t even get me started on the behavior he’s banned against the wishes of New Yorkers. Hell, even the fact that he’s mayor right now is undemocratic, because he went against the voters – and his own promise – and twisted enough arms to change the term limit rules so he could buy a third election run for mayor a third time (and I speak as someone who happily voted for him the first time, knowing full well that he was a RINO Nanny). So this guy is the perfect example of an elite ruling class forcing his own personal wishes on a helpless public. No wonder the BBC wanted to talk to him. As soon as Bloomberg says “reduce consumption”, you know where he and the BBC stand. All your personal freedoms are belong to us.

I’m not going to bother getting into more details of Katty’s interview with the mayor, because it’s beyond the point. The BBC – as admitted by Jeremy Paxman in the sidebar – long ago took sides in the debate, and actively works to pursue a specific political agenda. Carbon emission regulations, coal plant permits, government subsidy/investment in various technologies, and the regulations for the entire automotive industry are all political issues. Even if we’re talking about seat belts in cars or helmets for motorcycles, creating a law about any of it is a political issue. No matter which side one is on, it’s done in the legislature by – in theory – democratically elected representatives, and these laws can be changed or repealed entirely by the next batch of democratically elected representatives if that’s what the voters want.

It doesn’t matter which side of the Warmism debate one is on. Legislation is political, full stop. The BBC always takes sides in this specific political issue, and deliberately chooses disingenuous language to support it. And as seen here, they do political advocacy posing as news and information.


Whether you prefer the term “ocean acidification” or the less compelling but more accurate “ocean de-alkalisation”, there’s little doubt that the addition of carbon dioxide to the seas threatens to change them fundamentally over the course of the century.

With his customary brilliant scientific insight and knowledge, Richard Black thus begins his latest blog and greenie sermon, which culminates in a cloud-cuckoo land plea that Micronesia climate nuts can force the abandonment of highly-sensible Czech plans to build coal-fired power stations in order to save shellfish from a preceived threat from the said acidification. You could not make it up; he’s hoping that political activism will stop all development of schemes that involve the use of fossil fuels.

Richard, in reaching these Mickey Mouse conclusions, claims that the science involved is “documented” (I think he means actually settled beyond further discussion) because the UN and the Royal Society have decreed it. This is his usual nicely-phrased but vicious two-fingered put-down of hated sceptics and deniers. As usual, too, he pays not one iota of attention to evidence that suggests a) that the science of so-called acidification is not settled and b) that inter-agency panels on climate change issues are invariably stuffed with eco-nuts whose sole aim is to reinforce their own prejudices and speed the manic drive towards world government.

There’s oodles of evidence that “acidification” or “de-alkalisation” is nothing more than yet another eco-nut fantasy, but Mr Black, as usual, prevents it as proven, undisputable fact.


The people of Wales don’t want windfarms and the associated forests of pylons. The economics of windfarms are those of the madhouse. But we now have a ruling class that – in greedy pursuit of their own self interest, energy taxes and subsidies, and driven by eco-potty ideology – are hell-bent on ruining the countryside of Wales. The people protest, the Welsh Assembly, aided an abetted by the Cleggerons, sticks two big fingers up at them. The BBC, as usual, busts a gut to make the protestors seem like unreasonable Luddites. Note the acres given to the government position – basically, that Welsh people have to put up with whatever is decreed in the mad pursuit of “renewables” – and the total absence of the arguments against these monstrosities. Such protests in Wales may not seem mainstream, but the drive to green energy is tyranny at its worst, and the BBC is totally complicit in the erosion of our fundamental rights.

Amnesty Again

Remember that meeting hosted by Amnesty? The one entitled Complicity in Oppression, Does the Media Aid Israel?
I mentioned the speakers, ex BBC Tim Llewellyn and the BBC’s resident Israel-bashing buddy, bulgy-eyed Abdul Bari (call me Barry) Atwan, Greg Philo and Victoria Brittain. Here’s Richard Millett’s review of what sounds like quite a night.
They brought up such tired old clichés – as though the audience hadn’t heard them a million times before. “But Hamas was democratically elected” “All political parties are completely and utterly dominated by the you-know-what lobby” etc. etc.
“The BBC waits in fear of phone calls from the Israelis” – I recall that laughable quote from Peter Oborne’s ridiculous television programme about the Jewish lobby.

Poor old ”Barry” Atwan complains that he’s not on the BBC enough. They seem to have dropped him on one occasion in favour of the likes of PM Netanyahu and Ehud Barak. (Jewish Lobby again.) Tim Llewellyn has gone off his rocker. He feels sorry for poor Jeremy Bowen, who’s obviously so constrained by the Zionists at the BBC. He’s not completely mad though. One thing he said sounds rather sane. “………… the BBC didn’t properly address his complaints. He referred to one response from the BBC as a “tendentious piece of garbage”.
The BBC is busy celebrating Amnesty’s 50th anniversary. BBC News 24 just interviewed one of its representatives, Dr. Champa Patel, most ingratiatingly. Apparently Dr. Patel works within the anti-racism and community development sector.
Physician, heal thyself.