In the first of an occasional series dedicated to BBC-related Christmas gift ideas I would like to take this opportunity to draw our readers’ attention to the following items…
Further Xmas gift recommendations from Biased BBC readers are welcome.
Spot the difference. Richard Black of the BBC leads the way in “sock-puppet journalism”. Jo Nova has a superb post showing how a select band of climate change eco-fanatics round the world have deployed 10 excuses to tell us that the Climategate emails should be ignored, for example, they are old, they were nicked, the timing is suspicious, or, the science is nevertheless valid. Surprise, surprise, Mr Black was the world leader off the blocks within a matter of hours, and deployed an impressive seven out of the ten sock-puppet excuses. I sense a Royal Television Society gong is in the offing for such impressive services to propaganda…
Meanwhile, from his boondoggle climate change guerilla post in sunny Durban, Mr Black continues the incessant campaign to send us back to the stone age. Here, he pushes a report on the evils of coal from Banktrack, an eco-fascist concern bankrolled by the usual suspects – Greenpeace and its ilk.
Fascinating insight into the BBC’s Paul Mason here.
“In what will doubtless be seen as further evidence of a Left-wing agenda at the BBC, Paul Mason, the economics editor of Newsnight, posits the case in a new book that the summer riots were part of a “global revolution”.
Well, the public sector may be closed but we are OPEN and awaiting your comments. Just to let you know that I am going to be away for a few days on holiday so I pass the torch to my fellow writers. I shall return…,..
Here’s an interesting response to;
BBC: World Service Trust
Asked by Lord Laird
“To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the Department for International Development has made a grant of £90 million to the BBC World Service Trust; what proportion of the trust’s income this grant represents; how they have assessed the cost-effectiveness of this grant; and whether they will place copies of the grant application correspondence in the Library of the House.[HL13438]
Baroness Northover: The Department for International Development has made a grant of £90 million to the BBC World Service (WST) in order to increase the scale of its impact on governance, health and humanitarian results. The grant will reach some 200 million people, across 14 countries, most of them fragile, in order to: improve democratic governance by enhancing political accountability and reducing the risk of conflict; improve the health of people living in poverty, particularly maternal and child health;improve communities’ ability to cope with humanitarian crises; and build a stronger evidence base by making sure that the results from the investment are closely monitored and are used to improve the effectiveness of aid spent on support to media and communication. The grant builds on development results already being achieved and delivered effectively by BBC WST. It puts the relationship on a longer-term, more strategic basis so as to increase global reach and impact. It increases efficiency by bringing together existing programmes funded by DfID in one place, and builds on the BBC WST proven track record of contributing to governance, health and humanitarian results through media.
The grant represents one-third of the BBC WST’s projected income over the life of the grant and will not exceed 40 per cent in any one year. The strategic grant was deemed to represent good value for money and be a cost-effective way of reaching a large number of people. The cost-effectiveness was assessed in a number of ways, including looking at the cost per person reached which is £0.45 and the cost of staff time to administer the grant which compares favourably to the cost of managing multiple grants.
The business case for the grant will be published on the DfID website.”
Well, here we are on November 30th – the day the State sector has chosen to hold us all to hostage. With Diversity and Equality co-ordinators off for the day, it’s gonna be a tough one. It’s also been a tough start to the day on the BBC what with the Met Office being out of commission, no sign of Humphyrs or the fragrant Sarah on Today, but Evan Davies and Justin Webb have been doing their best for the comrades on the picker lines. I was entertained by this interview with Trade Unionist Dave Prentice, with Webb claiming the government are “spoiling for a fight”. Really? If the government were any more supine on this they would be horizontal yet through the BBC prism this is Thatcher in 1979 all over again.
Roger Harrabin has responded to the clear evidence that he (and the BBC)were bunged thousands of pounds to work with climate “scientists” at the UEA to indoctrinate BBC journalists about climate alarmism. Sadly I haven’t the time to dissect his “I’m right, you’re wrong” response in full – and commenters at Bishop Hill have already done a magnificent job. I urge you to read his weasel words in full. What I will say is this:
1.Mr Harrabin clearly inhabits a parallel universe, where he still bloody-mindedly refers to a “consensus” among scientists for his authority for peddling propaganda. He seems totally oblivious, still, to the irony that the BBC event that decided there was such a consensus was stuffed full of warmist bigots (invited by him and his eco fascist colleagues)who had only one agenda, namely to spread more alarmism.
2.He tells us, in effect, that the reason he accepted the UEA cash and organised the seminars, and then went on to virtually exclude sceptics from talking on BBC programmes was because his bosses in BBC News (Tony Hall and then Helen Boaden), as well as the trustees, sanctioned it. Well that’s OK then. Bosses at the BBC are always right and don’t have agendas. Do they?
3.Mr Harrabin then tells us that HSBC, Vivendi, WWF, Economic and Social Research Council, Dept of Environment, Shell, as well as the Tyndall Centre for climate research, were all keen to have a “better” public debate about climate change”. Like hell they were. Those that didn’t have a direct axe to grind (eg the eco fascists at WWF) were clearly keen to get their snouts into the climate change subsidy trough and to ensure that the BBC was doing its bit to spread approporiate alarmism.
What’s terrifying about this missive is its total disregard for the obvious. Mr Harrabin still believes he’s done nothing wrong and is not even aware of the stench his actions have generated. And clearly those above him have not moved one iota, either.
Yesterday, As I See It posted a comment in the open thread about how Lyse Doucet gave a report on Radio 5 in which she gently sanitized the Muslim Brotherhood ( I can’t find a link to it right now, but if someone points to it I’ll add it here). At one point, she apparently slipped up and said that Salafists are “extremists….er…..let me say strict….” Oops, nearly tanked the Narrative there. In any case, I was reminded of a post I saw by Jeremy Bowen back in February, where he said that the Muslim Brotherhood are “conservative, moderate and non-violent”.
WTF? I said to myself. How can they be both? By definition one cannot be the other. Any group calling for Shariah Law cannot be moderate. Yet Bowen saw no problem saying it. However, somebody had a problem with it, as he stealth-edited it out quickly. I failed to take a screenshot at the time, assuming News Sniffer would catch it if anything happened, but when I went back the next day, “moderate” had been removed, and News Sniffer had nothing. So I gave up on it.
Fortunately, I’ve just remembered the Wayback Machine. Within a minute, I found this:
Why would he say such a thing? Somebody pointed it out to him, and he or an astute BBC News Online sub-editor sent it down the memory hole. Wake me up when a Beeboid says the same thing about the Tea Party movement.
If anyone still had a modicum of trust in Bowen’s reporting, it’s surely shredded to pieces now. He’s obviously partisan, and not thinking clearly. Defenders of the indefensible may dismiss this simply because it’s 10 months old, but I fail to see how that makes any difference. Bowen truly believed it, and clearly meant to sanitize the Muslim Brotherhood so the license fee payers wouldn’t get too worried about them. He’s not, so why should you be? I’m sure his superiors at the BBC know all about what he really thinks, and simply don’t care. Some of them may even agree with him. It’s irresponsible, not to mention delusional. I’d say it’s impossible to trust his reporting on Egypt any longer.
The BBC seem almost GIDDY with delight that Chancellor Osborne is up against it when it comes to making his update on the UK economy today. Evan Davies and Stephanie “Two Eds” Flanders were chuckling and making all sorts of sarcastic comments about “Plan A” now becoming “Plan B” on Today. It’s truly pathetic stuff butt all we can expect from the BBC. They WANT Labour back.
As the Public Sector strike draws nigh, a Biased BBC reader generously provides us with the sort of insight which the State Broadcaster conspicuously ignores;
“REAL COST OF PUBLIC SECTOR PENSIONS REVEALED AS 40% “
If you want irrefutable evidence of the real cost of public sector pensions a public sector trade union has unwittingly provided a convincing example of the mammoth cost from its annual accounts. An example that is substantive, not speculative.
In Northern Ireland, and in GB (with its Principal Civil Service Superannuation Scheme or PCSPS), civil servants who joined before 2008 contribute nothing toward their pensions which are unfunded, inflation-proofed and based on final salary. NIPSA’s employees are however, like those civil servants, required to pay a contribution of 1.5% (refundable) towards the cost of dependents’ benefits.
In its 2009 valuation, NIPSA’s actuary assessed a shortfall in its pension scheme funding of some £1.9m and recommended the employer contribution rate should be 39.3% from 2010 with a contribution of £210,000 p.a. to recover the funding shortfall. The employer rate, previously 40.8%. (see 2009 accounts) was insufficient to bring the scheme out of deficit!
Presumably other trade unions who match civil service pensions for their staff are experiencing the same shortfalls despite an employer contribution of 40% of staff salaries.
So there you have indisputable evidence-based proof: We pay at least 40% on top of a civil servant’s salary to provide them with their pensions and lump sums (3 x annual pension rate).
And they are on strike because they are being asked to pay 3% more.
In fairness it should be 35% more. “