Biased BBC exists to provide a forum for YOUR view, to allow you to point out the things that bother you about BBC coverage. Here are the views of a reader who is most concerned about how the State Broadcaster is dealing with the Huhne resignation issue;
“I’ve been watching the coverage of Huhne’s resignation – on BBC 24-hour News channel- for the last 90 minutes. At the end of each (30-minute interval) report, there’s been an interview with a Greenie spokesperson – who, of course, calls for Huhne’s successor to be just as robust in pushing the Green agenda and standing up for delusional fantasies such as wind power. Obviously, as far as the Beeb is concerned, the great unwashed can go freeze in the dark, so long as the BBC maintains its ideological purity. Question: why is the BBC (a supposedly ‘impartial’ broadcaster) giving so much prominence to such a non-mainstream point of view? We all know they wouldn’t do so on many other topics we could mention. I don’t claim to be a climatologist. But I do have a decent Cambridge degree in early medieval northern European history – and northern England, Scandinavia, Greenland and Iceland were several degrees hotter in the Medieval Warm Period than they are now. Why do you think the colonising Vikings called ‘Greenland’ just that? Because it was largely free of ice when they first arrived!”
It has been a distasteful spectacle to witness the rent-a-quote AGW zealots queuing up to soliloquise the thoroughly discredited Huhne. Moreso, that the BBC, in it usual ‘unbiased’ fashion, should be right there booking these clueless morons to fill the air time with their utter nonsense.
However, since I long ago abandoned any pretence that the BBC will ever take anything less than a pro-AGW stance (unlike the BBC itself, which still, incredibly, professes to exercise something it quaintly calls ‘impartiality’, lol) I’ve not been at all surprised by the craven, uniformed manner in which the BBC has covered Huhne’s departure from front bench government.
I just hope that with Huhne out of the way some progress can at last be made on sweeping away his intransigence and blatant obfuscation regarding matters such as the best way to ditch the hugely expensive (and wasteful) folly of ‘renewables’ in favour of more intelligent, informed energy policy encompassing new energy finds such as shale gas here in the UK and the possibility of developing thorium power plants alongside new nuclear facilities.
We need cheap, secure, relatively ‘clean’ home-grown energy to see us through the next fifty years – something Huhne and his delusions were intent on denying us – he’d rather tilt at windmills and pour taxpayers’ money down a ‘renewables’ drain to assuage his green friends in the EU. A total disgrace.
The BBC has a lot of its pension funds invested in ‘green’ industries.
I have to wonder about the sanity of the Beeb.
They push all this wind and solar power that is notoriously inefficient seeming to forget that when everyone is suffering blackouts and can’t watch their TV, their not going to pay the license tax for something they can’t use so no more high life for the Beeboids.
Corran unfortunatly I think that you are wrong. We are a country where people cannot watch television legaly without permision from the state. And to get that permision we need to pay the state money. We good little sheep accept this with little protest. A little thing like power cuts will not change that. My excuse is I would lose my job and have problems finding a similar one if I had a conviction for not paying up.
AFAIAA not paying the licence fee – and being hauled into court and found guilty of not paying it – will not, of itself, give you a criminal record. However, not paying the fine will give you a record. Your choice, apparently!
Yes, you would have a criminal conviction but not a criminal record for not paying the licence tax. Some jobs, though, would require you to declare any criminal conviction, recordable or not.