Thanks to GCooper in the comments who points out this revelation (science writer Maurizio Morabito has unearthed a list – once hosted on the IBT’s website and now stored in the Wayback Machine‘s cache of the internet.) that the BBC tried to hide…and it’s a funny thing…can’t see many of the ‘best scientific experts’ amongst that bunch….lot of environmental pressure groups, businessmen, academics, media and charities….just a shame we don’t have a transcript of what they said:
Full List of Participants to the BBC CMEP Seminar on 26 January 2006
January 26th 2006,
BBC Television Centre, London
Specialists:
Robert May, Oxford University and Imperial College London
Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre, UEA
Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace
Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen
Michael Bravo, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge
Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant
Trevor Evans, US Embassy
Colin Challen MP, Chair, All Party Group on Climate Change
Anuradha Vittachi, Director, Oneworld.net
Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation
Claire Foster, Church of England
Saleemul Huq, IIED
Poshendra Satyal Pravat, Open University
Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China
Tadesse Dadi, Tearfund Ethiopia
Iain Wright, CO2 Project Manager, BP International
Ashok Sinha, Stop Climate Chaos
Andy Atkins, Advocacy Director, Tearfund
Matthew Farrow, CBI
Rafael Hidalgo, TV/multimedia producer
Cheryl Campbell, Executive Director, Television for the Environment
Kevin McCullough, Director, Npower Renewables
Richard D North, Institute of Economic Affairs
Steve Widdicombe, Plymouth Marine Labs
Joe Smith, The Open University
Mark Galloway, Director, IBT
Anita Neville, E3G
Eleni Andreadis, Harvard University
Jos Wheatley, Global Environment Assets Team, DFID
Tessa Tennant, Chair, AsRia
BBC attendees:
Jana Bennett, Director of Television
Sacha Baveystock, Executive Producer, Science
Helen Boaden, Director of News
Andrew Lane, Manager, Weather, TV News
Anne Gilchrist, Executive Editor Indies & Events, CBBC
Dominic Vallely, Executive Editor, Entertainment
Eleanor Moran, Development Executive, Drama Commissioning
Elizabeth McKay, Project Executive, Education
Emma Swain, Commissioning Editor, Specialist Factual
Fergal Keane, (Chair), Foreign Affairs Correspondent
Fran Unsworth, Head of Newsgathering
George Entwistle, Head of TV Current Affairs
Glenwyn Benson, Controller, Factual TV
John Lynch, Creative Director, Specialist Factual
Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy
Jon Williams, TV Editor Newsgathering
Karen O’Connor, Editor, This World, Current Affairs
Catriona McKenzie, Tightrope Pictures catriona@tightropepictures.com
BBC Television Centre, London (cont)
Liz Molyneux, Editorial Executive, Factual Commissioning
Matt Morris, Head of News, Radio Five Live
Neil Nightingale, Head of Natural History Unit
Paul Brannan, Deputy Head of News Interactive
Peter Horrocks, Head of Television News
Peter Rippon, Duty Editor, World at One/PM/The World this Weekend
Phil Harding, Director, English Networks & Nations
Steve Mitchell, Head Of Radio News
Sue Inglish, Head Of Political Programmes
Frances Weil, Editor of News Special Events
This has been such a lovely few days.
Please stop – I’ve laughed so hard this week it really is starting to hurt.
If the bbc has ever had a worse week I really don’t want to know. Check out the points of view message board – the wailing and rending is a joy to behold!
Well as the old saying goes (was it Oscar Wilde?) – you’d have to have a heart of stone not to laugh.
I wondered what role;
Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy
played in the list of attendees. Now I know 🙂
Part of ensuring the warmist agenda permeates all aspects of BBC production and production values.
it has been fun but its not going to change anything – reshuffle a few more beeboids out of the same mould – but the bias will still contine.The project is far to important hence their willingness to sacrifice a few for the greater good
Fucking Hell, its worse than I thought, they told me to wait, but they did not tell me that the seminar had the Head of Comedy but not a single Atmospheric Physicist or Solar Astronomer.
Oh the humanity!
But think of the baybeees.
Watching the Banging and Buggering Corporation running around like a headless chicken shouting “Don’t panic, Don’t panic” is pure comedy genius.
Hmmm……….Alan says “Can’t see many of the ‘best scientific experts’ amongst that bunch”
Er…….Robert May, Oxford University and Imperial College London
Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen
Michael Bravo, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge
Poshendra Satyal Pravat, Open University
Iain Wright, CO2 Project Manager, BP International
Steve Widdicombe, Plymouth Marine Labs
Joe Smith, The Open University
Eleni Andreadis, Harvard University
Jos Wheatley, Global Environment Assets Team, DFID
Ah, of course. They probably don’t speak with the right accent or belong to the right clubs to suit the tastes of Biased BBCers
What makes you think these people are experts?
As pointed out at Bishop-Hill
Eleni Andreadis, Harvard University was actually an undergraduate “specialising in documentary film making.”
The climate alarmist’s test as to whether someone is, or is not, an expert is entirely dependent upon the person’s conclusions.
IE a life-long scientific academic physicist, Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, who has been professor emeritus, had thousands of peer-reviewed papers published, won the highest accolades and was on the board of the American Physical Society for years and was generally acknowledged as a serious, impartial scientist of the very highest calibre can suddenly be considered an old bafoon and not be taken seriously, as soon as he came out with serious reasoned and SCIENTIFIC doubts about “Anthropological Global Warming”,
Yet Al Gore, and handful’s of celebrities with no scientific credentials whatsoever, are taken seriously, because they are believers.
The Alarmist test of credibility has NOTHING to do with the science, and everything to do with getting the conclusion, and only believing those bits of evidence which support the conclusion and rejecting all evidence which is contradictory.
Which shows that the Alarmists are NOT basing their beliefs on anything scientific!
From MikeHaseler at Bishop-Hill blog:
Mr. Josceline WHEATLEY. Team Leader, Global Environmental AssetsTeam. Department for International Development (DFID).
Expert scientist?
“Dr Joe Smith. The Open University. Joe is senior lecturer at The Open University, focussing on environmental policy and politics.”
Expert scientist?
Poshendra Satyal Pravat has a PhD in geography and is interested in conservation and human rights, food security and agriculture, forest politics and policy, environmental and social justice, businesses and corporate social responsibility, and ecosystem services and poverty alleviation.
no conflict of interests there then…
Ironically, presumably because you don’t actually know anything about climate science, you actually missed the one, sort of, climate scientist from your list – Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre, UEA.
This and all my other comments are directed at our new class warrior Stephen (above)
And on the subject of Stephens, I wonder why the bbc’s own pet ‘scientist’, Stephen Jones wasn’t there.
just another, non de plume, a pseudonymn? perhaps ….
amazing
nickedjimscottydezzydand would be proud 😀
“Sort of” – yup, a UEA crony of Phil Jones and no doubt good friends with ex-BBC hack Richard Black. As for his other vested interests –
I am Editor-in-Chief of the journal Wiley’s Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, launched in January 2010. From 2004-2009 I co-edited the journal Global Environmental Change with Neil Adger and Katrina Brown and from 2006-2009 I led the EU Integrated Project ADAM (Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies), which comprised a 26-member European research consortium contributing research to the development of EU climate policy. I have prepared climate scenarios and reports for the UK Government (including the UKCIP98 and UKCIP02 scenarios), the European Commission, UNEP, UNDP, WWF-International and the IPCC. I was co-ordinating Lead Author for the chapter on ‘Climate scenario development’ for the Third Assessment Report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as well as a contributing author for several other chapters.
http://www.mikehulme.org/category/bio-and-cv/
That’s 9 people out of 28, 6 from a University, 1 from a think tank, 1 from Big oil (not exactly the type you Green’s normally admit to liking) and 1 from a government department.
Not exactly a lot of; “best scientific experts” as you put it, but I guess if only 1 had been there you’d still be saying that was all they needed to ignore that bit in the charter and not be impartial? To continue to ignore it now there is evidence that there has been no warming for 15 years, I mean it’s all for the greater good right?
If a few family’s are forced to take their car off the road because they can’t afford to run it after the rises in fuel price because of Co2 related tax, to have to give up a job because they can’t get there, to have to pay higher food prices because it costs the shops more to have the stock delivered, that’s ok because, it’s all for the greater good right?
If the pensioner at the end of my street freeze’s to death because they can’t afford the heating bill this winter due to the price rises because of Co2 related tax, that’s ok because it’s all for the greater good right?
The best way to sum you and the rest of the environMentalists that pollute this planet with their we need to tax the pants off everyone because of Co2 drivel, is to use Lord Monckton’s traffic light analogy; “You’re a Green that’s to Yellow to admit you’re a Red!”
Sir I bid you good day.
Corran I have seldom read a better outline of the thermosexuals mindset especially the excess winter deaths they get all abusive and stropy when they are reminded they are helping to kill people !
Did you not know that killing people IS their plan? I do not mean the plan of the decent, but gullible idiots, who still believe in man-made global warming, (or should that be Mann made?), but it IS the plan of those leaders of the Environmental movement who have selected “global warming” as a vehicle to implement their massive agenda of global genocide.
Some direct quotes from those leaders:
“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
– Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute
“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
– Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
-Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!
“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb
“I don’t claim to have any special interest in natural history, but as a boy I was made aware of the annual fluctuations in the number of game animals and the need to adjust the cull to the size of the surplus population.”
– Prince Philip, preface of Down to Earth
“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
– Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor
“… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.”
– Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind
“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
– Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund
“I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
– John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal.
These people want me, you and 9/10ths of the world’s population DEAD!
Think about it. They want the world’s population brought down to half a billion? Add up the death toll from Hitler, Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, Pinichet, Idi Amin, etc… over the entire 20th century and that figure is a mere bee sting compared to the slaughter that these ECO LUNATICS are desperate to impose upon this planet. They clearly cannot believe the CO2 bollocks they spout, though because ALL of these psychos still FLY all over the planet! They just want a pristine “nature reserve” planet that they can rule over totally, with a skeleton human crew of slaves to serve them.
Wake up!
CO2 is plant food, NOT a polutant!
I think I see the BBC ‘balance’ in operation now.
They kept quiet about scientific evidence from those sceptical about CAGW, and as ‘balance’ they kept quiet about these Genocidal-Green nutcases.
The statements you have listed should be plastered across the MSM.
Now that Caroline Lucas has been overthrown as Green Party leader, expect the beeb to give plenty of airtime to the complete nutter who replaced her –
http://britain-today.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/the-nutters-are-in-town.html
Is it still the greens policy to reduce Britain’s population by 2/3rds?
Steve Widdicombe is a marine ecologist, knowing nothing about climatology, Robert May’s background is in chemical engineering and theoretical physics, but at least Dorthe Dahl-Jensen has a background in ice, so she should know that the Antarctic ice cap is getting bigger.
So that makes 9 and of those so called ‘experts’ you mention how many have struck it rich with government funding? It is the funding stream that determines viewpoint, money talks.
Funnily enough you conveniently ‘forget’ to mention the other participants, one can only assume why. We see Greenpeace fanatic and an insurance industry extortionist and a couple of quango parasites along with other assorted unqualified trash with their fingers in the taxpayers pocket and topped off with government representatives responsible for handing out favours in the form of money.
All very cosy and all of them wanting a slice of the action and padded out with fanatics out to destroy the Wests industrial base, yes its been a long time coming but we finally know why the BBC was desperate to keep the names secret. The majority of those attending had no qualifications to talk about any level of science let alone climate science, but then again science was never on the agenda was it? Money talks to political vested interests and all done in secret with those who ultimately fund the entire Ponzi scheme frozen out. In other words a bunch of vested interest crooks in a conspiracy to defraud the public.
Excellent. One of Alan’s strongest traits is to NEVER research but jump straight in with the abuse and innuendo.
He really doesn’t know who Robert May is. Bless.
What the Australian who is wholly behind the A.G.W. and believes the doctrine of religion can be applied save the world !
‘While referring to what he believes to be a rigid structure of fundamentalist religion, he stated that the co-operational aspects of non-fundamentalist religion may in fact help with climate change. When asked if religious leaders should be doing more to persuade people to combat climate change, he stated that it was absolutely necessary’
As an atheist I find this deeply odd from a man who claims to be non religious?
Robert May is an advocate of a political agenda who dresses up his arguments in the most discredited pseudo-science.
Next.
“He really doesn’t know who Robert May is. Bless”
a patronising troll
how very…………tedious
Prole….As usual you seem somewhat confused…..abuse and innuendo? Where exactly. Point it out…go on.
Where did I single out Robert May? No where.
Any criticism is welcome here…but please try to stick to criticisng what’s actually written not the made up jumbled contents of your own mind.
No attempt by Prole to engage with the arguments here.
Quelle surprise.
Once their ‘the overwhelming majority of the world’s top scientists’ argument has been effortlessly dispatched to the top of the festering climate weirding dungheap, the eco-socialists have no idea how to argue the case for their discredited hypothesis.
Welcome!
And a ‘Hmmnn’ or [sigh] is especially useful to prepare one for the coherence of what is to come.
‘Many’ to the BBC would be subbed as ‘none’, if their managing to get 100:1 trashing of the 10:10 apologia in the Graun (by Graun readers, such that they had to pull the plug to spare further blushes as the mods went into meltdown) as ‘opinions being split’ is any guide.
I have to admire the ‘fighting the good fight’ spirit, but ‘digging the deep hole deeper’ takes special skill. Yet like moths to a flame, it was again irresistable. Or maybe the piecework payment system is hurting during this extended period of bunker-bound ‘stepping aside’. Hugs, is that you killing time on the gardening leave?
If so, while appreciating market rate views on answering questions, any professional input on this one:
‘George Entwistle??? Crumbs! So the DG was in FULL knowledge of the recent court case, and wanted his attendance to be kept secret, and when made DG, didn’t believe it of worth to declare his position as being in direct conflict with the BBC’s legal Charter!’
That kind of thing now coming out really doesn’t help the ‘honour’ and ‘trust’ thing either, does it?
And the accent/club attempt… have to say, given who is… mostly… in the frame… that is really going to play well. ‘innit?
OK for once I will bite. ‘right accent’ – what do you think we on BBBC think is the ‘right accent’?
One that is British, well pronounced, without more than a hint of regional dialect and can be readily understood.
I’m tired of turning on the radio on a Sunday morning and wondering if, somehow, I’ve tuned into Radio Jamaica…
Hear, hear. I’m utterly sick of hearing the completely out-of-place tones of Neil Nunes. His appointment as continunity announcer was made not for the benefit of the listener, but only for socio-political reasons. He should be shunted off air as soon as possible. There has been a huge amount of criticism about that appointment, but the BBC has ignored it all.
It varies depending on the BBC’s current agenda.
The best general description of a “right” accent at the moment is an obvious recent immigrant with a thick accent I can barely understand.
I await the usual slings and arrows calling me racist.
PS – My own accent is still readily identifiable as being from Yorkshire. It was “in” once upon a time. By avoiding saying things such as “put t’wood in t’ole” I am usually able to make myself understood. But I never worked for the BBC.
LoL @ put woodith t’oil
Reminded me of my late Gran and Granddad 🙂
I always thought that the t in t’ole was all but silent… Am I wrong?
I guess more accurate would probably be “wooditht oil” although it would also depend of further local dialects Halifax’ian sounds nothing like bradford’onian LoL.
The science of Henrik Svensmark, Nir Shaviv, Ned Nikolov, Karl Zeller, Gerhard Gerlich, Zbigniew Jaworowski, and Donna Laframboise is more interesting than the accent.
And Stephen was never seen again…..
http://www.zoominfo.com/#!search/profile/person?personId=1221782209&targetid=profile
After starting her career as a strategic management consultant in London, Eleni focused on environmental issues, earning her Master’s in environmental policy and media at Harvard University. As a strategy and environmental consultant she has worked for, among others, Ford Motor Company, the British Home Office, EnergyWatch, presenting to UK Environment Minister Hilary Benn on ways consumers can reduce their carbon footprint at the home, the Participant Productions follow-up documentary to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, Friends of the Earth, and the Ministry of Tourism in Greece on designing an environmental hotel certification scheme. Eleni has worked as a producer and TV presenter for a variety of environmental channels, such as Green TV, New Consumer TV and Current TV, as well as the BBC, in the UK, US and Canada. She is now based in Greece, where alongside running Planet Agents, an environmental non-profit she founded, she is active in the tourism industry and her family business, Sani SA.
Oh yes, really scientific and un-biased.
Stephen, if you are a fool, you would do well not to advertise it. No, you had to wade in with an unresearched list, and made a complete arse of yourself. You must be a BBC staff researcher. It has all the hallmarks…
Stephen – feeble attempt at sarc, comment unresearched and inaccurate at every level, and thought you could get away with it because everyone in your circle agrees with each other. I declare, you must be a BBC staff researcher
In Oxford University and Mensa, We work out the Calibration of Carbon Dioxide warming in a planetary atmosphere by the use of the science of Atmospheric Physics. Not one of the scientists at this seminar has any relevant qualifications for this scientific issue.
In short, they are a bunch of biased ignorant morons with vested interest, chosen because their job is reliant on this scientific fraud
This seminar decided that the real scientists with relevant qualifications where to be censored.
Oxford University? Or a Mensa event there? Which college, which faculty? If it was a Mensa event that happened to be hosted at Oxford you are a self-important ass and I claim my £5. And are you a scientist or a teacher, perhaps you could say? What are your ‘relevant qualifications’?
A yearly event at Wadham College, a three monthly newsletter from the Space special interest group of Mensa. My qualifications are in Maths, Physics and Astronomy. My old faculty at Oxford was at another college, the poor frightened professor at this faculty would know who I am, so I cannot say much more, but I used to work for the Government, but have now achieved my ambition of being able to afford being a semi-retired self-employed type. Fighting the inferior morons at the BBC.
Are you aware that the sentence ‘my old faculty at Oxford was at another college’ is gibberish, colleges and faculties being entirely separate entities? I suspect you aren’t, and that the reason is that you’re making a bad fist of pretending you studied there.
Well you are correct, we did not even call it a faculty. But it would be better if you showed some curiosity about why the Unified Theory of Climate is causing academic turmoil at Oxford.
The Open University? tee hee.
Isn’t that where beeb staff send any of their children who turn out retarded? “It’s a proper university, really!” Pity they can never find the student entrance.
What’s also interesting is to see the members of the IBT – the people who have run the various seminars that the BBC have been attending since 2004
Now how might they have influenced BBC reporting over the years?
IBT is a membership based organisation. Our members determine our strategy, mission and vision. They come from a range of organisations who work in issues related to development, the environment and human rights. IBT is managed by a Board of Trustees who are all elected members.
We are always keen to extend our membership – since one of our principal activities is lobbying, the wider our membership the more effective our voice is. For further information about joining IBT contact IBT Director, Mark Galloway mark@ibt.org.uk
IBT’s current membership includes the following organisations (with links to their home page):
Save the Children
Tearfund
Traidcraft Exchange
TVE
UNICEF
VSO
WaterAid
WWF
ActionAid
Age UK
Amnesty
Anti-Slavery International
Bond
British Red Cross
Buglife
CAFOD
Christian Aid
Comic Relief
Concern
CRIN
DEC
HelpAge International
Human Rights Watch
IDS
Int Rescue Committee UK
International Service
Islamic Relief
Malaria Consortium
Media Trust
MSF
Muslim Aid
ONE
Oxfam
PANOS
Plan
Practical Action
Progressio
Raleigh International
All together they must pull in at least a billion a year plus in government funding, money talks and a billion plus talks very loudly indeed. We have found the reason why the regime has increased foreign aid to truly obscene levels, all these parasites needing to be bought off takes a great deal of money. We dont have a government as such any more we have fingers in the till and their enablers and supporters, its not so much a regime as an orchestrated looting spree.
To quote an old Yorkshire expression,
“They all p**s in the same pot”.
Just one example, when I read this, from the Muslim Aid website, I felt like I was reading a BBC article on the subject.
These member groups and seminars might explain quite a bit about BBC reporting.
I picked this up over at WUWT and wondered if any of our readers in the USA would like to pick up that gauntlet
temp says: November 12, 2012 at 5:19 pm
tallbloke says: November 12, 2012 at 4:48 pm
davidmhoffer says:
“A member of the US embassy was asked to advise on the official broadcast policy of an instrument of the British government?” “It’s charter forbids it from being influenced by foreign political policy.”
Could this be why they were so desperate to keep this list secret? Could someone sue the BBC now claiming that the US government was directly responsible for the BBC’s global warming policy?
It would be interesting if someone in the US FOIA this guy about this event and how he got invited and why he was invited.
Another comment from the WUWT thread:-
richardscourtney says:
November 12, 2012 at 4:42 pm
Friends:
I write to observe that – in the shock at surveying the list – some commentators have missed that there are scientists and climate scientists among the list.
The important points are
1.
The stated purpose of the meeting was to determine policy on broadcasting about AGW so there was no reason according to that purpose to invite any of those I listed in my post at November 12, 2012 at 4:01 pm: they are all advocates of AGW.
2.
The scientists who attended were all of one mind concerning AGW.
Hence, the list of invited specialists demonstrates that the stated purpose of the meeting was a sham because the policy which it was claimed was determined by the meeting had been decided prior to the meeting.
The only discussion which the entire list of “Specialists” would have would be on how best the BBC could “sell” their assertions of AGW and its dire effects. The advocates would say what was wanted and the scientists would caution on the limits of what could be advocated without legal challenge under the BBC Charter.
The adopted policy on ‘balance’ supposedly adopted by expert discussion at the meeting cannot be justified in the light of those invited to attend the meeting. Hence, the adoption of that policy can be demonstrated to be a deliberate breach of the BBC Charter. Therefore, the list is potentially even more serious for the BBC than any of the problems now confronting the BBC.
Richard
BBC Charter Mr Patten?
Hope you all say thank-you to Maurizio Morabito (omnologos) who can be found at
http://omnologos.com/full-list-of-participants-to-the-bbc-cmep-seminar-on-26-january-2006/
Soon you will not be able to do this if the UN has its way.
http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/2012/11/12/internet-kill-switch-urgent-global-action-needed-as-internet-as-we-know-it-comes-under-very-real-threat/
i heard the best title for eco nutters the other day
watermelons
green on the outside,red on the inside
The title of Delingpole’s book…
Bishop Hill/WUWT/B-BBC so far, the MSM will not be running the story for weeks of course. What is the MSM for? Where is the BBC trust in all this I wonder.
Interesting to see those BBC names now at the centre of the current scandal attended the secret seminar and were subsequently promoted way beyond their abilities, seems that promotion was dependent on how willing the individual was to cast off their journalistic principles and toe the party line.
“Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy”
The BBC categorically stated that all attendees were experts, ironic then that the head of comedy was invited, his contribution must have been truly ground breaking, never before has science needed comedy to spread its message.
Actually Cassandra that is the wicked bit. They weave the climate message into ordinary programs like comedy so it goes to the subconscious and most people are not even aware of what is happening. It then over a period of time becomes their reality.
“They weave the climate message into ordinary programs like comedy so it goes to the subconscious and most people are not even aware of what is happening. It then over a period of time becomes their reality.”
Nurse, quick, he’s off the tablets!
lol our little pet chimp is flinging his faeces about !
makes a change from talking faeces like it usually does
Prole you idiot, how do you think advertising works? Why do you think companies spend huge amounts of money keep plugging the same message for weeks on end. It’s certainly not to make the TV companies rich.
he’s a lefty
being an idiot is part of the job description
Maybe you could enlighten us as to why the head of comedy was invited to a climate seminar if it wasn’t anything to do with programme content?
Prole, you clearly know nothing of advertising or the power of subliminals in changing behaviour.
Grow up!
Actually Misterned he is a walking advertisement for it.
You could have stopped after the fifth word, you know.
And that is exactly what they have been/ are doing. Recently, I read on a website I frequent (sorry, I can’t recall which) an extract from a document which set out the bbc plan in those words. Wish I could remember which site it was – that’s the problem with being a grumpy old white man, my memory is failing.
Your memory may be going John but I bet that every time you see a cute meerkat you think of car insurance.
That may be true but these days all kids grow up believing that all meerkats come from Russia.
well, they do don’t they?
You mean they don’t?
Next you’ll be saying they can’t talk *sighs*
Simples!
You might find this thoughtful paper by Dennis Sewell interesting and informative about the BBC’s bias in its general programming.
“A Question of Attitude” available here
Truly evil propagandists, the same kind of ‘ends justify the means’ that gave humanity Soviet socialism/national socialism/Marxist socialism. Hundreds of millions of deaths later our civilisation is still infected with this disease of the human soul.
“They weave the climate message into ordinary programs…”
…and the schools…
…love the groans when George Soros is mentioned. 🙂
Great short film.
She’s right – most kids do want to be on the side of the ‘good guys’.
They need to be given an alternative to the message pushed by ideologically Green teachers and their ilk.
Part of the ‘problem’, if you like, kids will have with people sceptical of CAGW is that sceptics are open to evidence, and so not dogmatically saying that they know everything. And the slow thorough work of real science is not as dramatic as made up stories.
Whereas the followers of the SCAMMER religion just keep pushing the message that they are good and everyone who doesn’t go along with them is evil.
It’s the ongoing issue of ‘religious certainty’ versus the open-minded uncertainty of science and religion. It’s important to make sure the kids know which of these is responsible for progress, and which for suffering and ignorance.
Correction (finger trouble):
…the open-minded uncertainty of science
and religion.I’m sure, Cassie, that most of us will hammer the MSM comments facilities on-line, and that someone will eventually take heed. No doubt Booker and Delingpole will be on to it in the fullness of time.
I wish that were possible… but the likes of the wail are very selective of the posts they allow as comments, or pull the trick of late posting (were they hold your comment in limbo on articles that are marked as “not moderated in advance”) so that its lost in the later pages of comments if it is not in line with their desired message.
Much like the bbc actually. but at least its politics and bias are known before reading it, unlike the beebs which is”officially” is neutral…
Cassandra King asked – “Where is the BBC trust in all this I wonder”.
The Trust would appear to be complicit or too trusting of the BBC (Ho Ho!).
From the Bishop Hill blog, an extract from a comment by AngusPangus pointing to the corrosive effect of the Trust ‘going native’.(my emphasis):
…The effect of this “seminar” is so profound, that it finds its way into “From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel”, a report by the BBC Trust, no less, in 2007. With no trace of irony, the report is subtitled “Safeguarding impartiality in the 21st century”. Let us be reminded what this “Safeguarding impartiality in the 21st centruy” report says on the subject of reporting climate change:
“The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus“.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/11/12/bbc-climate-28-revealed.html?currentPage=4#comments
I wonder if the Trust thought to ask who these “best scientific experts” were, bearing in mind the significance of their statement above (which I boldened).
Well now I just feel silly.
AngusPangus has posted the full comment here as well.
Worth a read.
Nice to hear from you again, Cassie.
i hear from our paragons of impartiality corporation this morning, that insane pally nutjob yasser, is being dug up 😀
as “more suspicions have been raised, arafat widely believed to have been poisoned” … widely believed …. ha ha ha ha
😀 where? … at the bbc? 😀 … ROFL.
panto nikki … is all, on about the rights of abu qatada this morning …
he should have a rough time, if the british public are truly represented, well shouldn t he.
“BBC’s latest excuse: forget Jimmy Savile, blame Nigel Lawson”
By James Delingpole.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100189238/bbcs-latest-excuse-forget-jimmy-savile-blame-nigel-lawson/
Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant
He is also Dr Andrew Dlugolecki, Visiting Research Fellow, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, contributed to the Stern Review and is of course a committed warmist. (pdf)
Prole, you were very late to this thread. What happened? Are you OK?
It seems to me that the public money squandered by Boaden and her gang on fighting Tony Newtoin through the tribunal process (in excess of £100,000 I gather) should now be recoverable from them personally.
If it isn’t, the very least we should expect is that she and her cronies should get the sack for needlessly wasting the Corporation’s money on lawyers’ fees.
I think you might mean Tony Newbery
I did. My apologies.
Well done GC on finding this link and information 🙂
Not only for the names of those attending the seminar in question, but the others listed too by IBF.
With the members of IBF clearly listed we can see just how the BBC merely presents their agenda as news, without any attempt at balance or impartiality.
I think it’s dynamite!
Colin Challen MP
Former Labour MP. Former postman, printer, publisher, Labour Party organiser, Labour councillor and now a Labour councillor again. No sign of any science credentials at all.
In 2009, the Yorkshire Post reports
MINISTERS are being urged to cut the national speed limit to 55mph and dedicate two hours of prime-time television each week to explain the “gravity” of the dangers posed by climate change.
Yorkshire Labour MP Colin Challen, who chairs a Commons group on climate change, says domestic flights should also be phased out by the end of next year alongside a massive expansion of home insulation programmes and investment in public transport.
His proposals, tabled in a House of Commons motion, are intended to be a rallying cry ahead of next month’s Copenhagen conference where world leaders will discuss how to reduce global emissions
[…]
“We have to recognise the importance and critical nature of climate change to the UK. If that requires a change in the BBC Trust’s deeds, or possibly doing something through Ofcom, there’s no barrier to this.”
.
Gee, I wonder what he was lobbying for at the BBC’s seminar of ‘top scientific experts’.
And an expenses fraudster to boot, a real piece of human excreta.
I’m re-posting my comment from Bishop Hills blog:
Harrabin, Harrabin, Harrabin.
Seems he’s the one pulling all the strings on climate policy at the BBC.
As Don Keller reminds us [at Bishop Hill], Harrabin is the one, along with Joe Smith, as far back as 2001, asking Mike Hulme “What should the BBC be doing this time in terms of news, current affairs, drama, documentaries, game shows, music etc” leading up to the Earth Summit in Rio. [see Climategate email #3757.txt]
Then, within 4 years, Harrabin organises a “seminar” at which Hulme is a speaker. Management from across all of the BBC’s output is invited – you might say “news, current affairs, drama, documentaries, game shows, music etc.” and subjected to brainwashing by, basically, a bunch of activists.
The effect of this “seminar” is so profound, that it finds its way into “From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel”, a report by the BBC Trust, no less, in 2007. With no trace of irony, the report is subtitled “Safeguarding impartiality in the 21st century”. Let us be reminded what this “Safeguarding impartiality in the 21st centruy” report says on the subject of reporting climate change:
“The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus”.
Harrabin and Smith’s brainwave from 2001 is now BBC policy, affecting all of its output from news and current affairs to drama, documentaries, comedy “etc”. The most powerful broadcaster in the world pumping out a one-sided message on climate change through everything it does.
By pure serendipitous happenstance, there was a prime example of this on Today on R4 this morning. I only caught the headline report, so don’t know waht was said in the more detailed piece. It was to do with oil production in the US. Apparently, by around 202, the US may well become the largest oil producer in the world. OK, whatever, you may think. On the BBC website, this story can be found in the “Business” section here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20304848
There is nothing (as I write) on the Environment pages.
Now, who did the BBC have speaking about this on R4 this morning? Yup, Harrabin. And what random point did he chuck in at the end? Unbelievably, it was the zombie alarmist argument about fossil fuel “subsidies”. I couldn’t quite believe my ears, so can’t vouch for whether my recollection is entirely accurate, but it went something like: “fossil fuel subsidies will be SIX TIMES [emphasis in the original] greater than for renewables.” and “threat to the planet blah blah”. There a couple of really important points here:
1. The “fossil fuel subsidy” meme is highly deceptive and disingenuous. At a time when the BBC is desperately trying to re-establish TRUST in its output, it seems a particularly stupid point to try to make. Harrabin must surely be aware of the highly spurious nature of this point, yet he makes it anyway. Unless, of course, he employs the Entwistle defence of “I didn’t know, I didn’t look, nobody told me.” Either way it seems he is deceitful or ignorant.
2. How and why has Harrabin got his grubby green paws on a story from the Business news section and been able to leave his nasty, biased, anti-energy fingerprints all over it? And why is he making a spurious point on the radio about “fossil fuel subsidies” that is not covered in the web report, linked to above?
The current BBC “T/trust” reviews need to extended to climate change coverage. And Harrabin, it seems to me, should be joining Boaden and many of the others who attended the brainwashing session in “stepping aside”.
I vote the “BBC Trust” as the oxymoron of the century.
In law a trustee can be personally sued for not managing trust assets properly.
AngusPangus makes an excellent point. In all the post-Saville, post-McAlpine soul-searching, the deeds of Harrabin and his co-conspirators must not get lost in the noise.
These men need bringing to account too, as they are every bit as culpable of biased ‘journalism’ (I hesitate to call it that) as their clueless comrades on Newsnight.
I followed the link sourcing the list of names where it says that it was acquired legally, I followed this link to the IBT document which I am quoting from – this is the first time that I have seen anything that conclusively demonstrates the policy direction of the BBC – It clearly shows that they are an actively campaigning orgainsation, that is very strongly influenced by pressure groups. The International Broadcasting Trust gives us an insight into BBC POLICY development.
“background’
“The International Broadcasting Trust (IBT) has been lobbying the BBC, on behalf of all the major UK aid and development agencies, to improve its coverage of the developing world. One of the aims is to take this coverage out of the box of news and current affairs, so that the lives of people in the rest of the world, and the issues which affect them, become a regular feature of a much wider range of BBC programmes, for example dramas and features. The BBC has agreed to hold a series of seminars with IBT, which are being organized jointly with the Cambridge Media and Environment Programme, to discuss some of these issues. So far, 6 seminars have taken place. They have had a significant impact on the BBC’s output and have also provided a unique opportunity for dialogue between those working in development and broadcasters. As a result of the success of these seminars, further brainstorms are now planned for 2008.”
Cripes – this means that the seminar was organised at the instigation of the IBT, a lobbying entity, rather than by the BBC alone. Nice to see that the IBT announce that the BBC has changed its non-news output to reflect their change agenda
“We continued to have high level participation from the BBC – including the Director of Television, Jana Bennett, and three channel controllers – from BBC2, 3 and 4. Interestingly, we also had representatives from drama, comedy, features and factual entertainment.”
“When she opened the seminar [another one in the series not the AGW one], Jana Bennett acknowledged that the Real World Brainstorms had had a significant impact on the BBC’s thinking and programming.”
Here is the coup de grace – the only reportage of the seminar itself…
“A one day event was held in London on January 26 2006, focusing on climate change and its impact on development. The brainstorm brought together 28 BBC executives and independent producers, this time including several from BBC News, and 28 policy experts. It was chaired by Fergal Keane and looked ahead to the next 10 years, to explore the challenges facing television in covering this issue.”
28 POLICY EXPERTS
“On September 14 and 15 2006, another one and a half day event took place at Sidney Sussex College in Cambridge. The theme was ‘interconnectedness’ and there was also a particular focus on Latin America. Many of the BBC participants were drama and comedy producers, directors and writers. One of the aims of the seminars has been to persuade non factual programme makers to introduce international themes and stories into their programmes.”
Include memes in other programmes eh. Who would have thought it? Hve you ever detected ‘subtle’ messaging on the BBC?
So there we have it, the BBC participates in these seminars apparently co-organised by the IBT and changes its policy of impartiality as a result – but the seminars are the idea of a lobbying entity with a sectional interest in the third world.
HARDLY AN IMPARTIAL FORUM EXAMINING FACTS.
The AGW seminar{and the others?] was not deciding if the evidence was robust and was sufficient to change policy, it was about how they could introduce the ‘facts’ into every aspect of BBC output – including comedy.
“One of the aims of the seminars has been to persuade non factual programme makers to introduce international themes and stories into their programmes.”
So john in cheshire‘s memory is not failing! As I linked above this paper exposes the “product placement” bias at the BBC.
or even here – “A Question of Attitude”.
It must be time for an item on Newsnight in which some BBC journalists talk to some other BBC journalists who will discuss some comments by some ex-BBC journalists to discuss if the BBC gets it just about right on climate change reporting.
Unless of course Tory cuts prevent this, and the discussion about climate change is replaced by a Vote Labour poster for 15 minutes – on the grounds that nobody will notice the difference.
Serious questions:
Was the seminar by invite only?we’re others invited who didn’t attend.
Did the seminar lead to the BBC’s no equal coverage policy?
I thought the latter was done on the back of Steve Jones’s report.
Equal coverage doesn’t equal impartiality. if the balance of science is in one direction ( evolution,mmr) then so should be the coverage. Agm is more moot I know, but the balance is in favour.
‘The balance is in favour’.
Says who, exactly?
Jim, this was noted back in 2009. Nothing new or surprising, just confirmation of which BBC mandarins and thought leaders were in attendance, and which “experts” told them what to think. Remember, the BBC claimed that they had invited “some of the best scientific experts”, which is clearly disingenuous at best. Whenever you see someone here refer to “opponents of the consensus”, it’s a direct quote.
As you can see, Richard North was also in attendance. Presumably, he was invited because he was already a main denier thorn in their side, and they assumed he’d have a Damascene conversion. He didn’t, and was appalled at the ignorance displayed by most of the Beeboids there. What a shock, eh?
This entire issue is more proof that there’s an ideological bias spread throughout the BBC. Look at the names: they represent a broad spectrum of BBC broadcasting. And then you have all the Warmist on-air talent (Bacon, Kay, Maitlis, to name but three obvious ones), and voila: institutional ideological bias from both the very kind of top-down directive they claim is impossible because the BBC is too large and too disorganized, and at the same time evidence that they simply share the approved thoughts and don’t hire for intellectual or ideological diversity.
This is prima facie evidence of the kind of entrenched bias we’ve been talking about for years, and people like you have been denying.
Einstein agreed that in science there is no need for balance. All it needs is one scientific paper to win a scientific argument. It was also true of Darwin. As it will be with Ned Nikolov in climate.
‘Nullius in verba‘ (‘On the word of no-one’).
The motto of The Royal Society.
So consensus conschmensus to you, Jim.
Jim,
read my post above. The seminar is the one referred to in the BBC Trust report *From See Saw to Wagon Wheels”. So yes, it is cited by no less than the Trust itself as leading to the “no equal coverage policy”.
Steve Jones’ report was much later and was merely a buttress.
Thanks. Now read the relevant report. Odd they’d pray in aid this seminar I agree when the state of the science is well known. But the policy drawn from it (balance the majority scientific view with sceptical voices, but don’t give equal coverage) seems reasonable,
I repeat, Jim: who says there is a majority scientific view?
And since when has science been a popularity contest?
‘Nullius in verba‘. Please memorise.
Jim,
I should have added. In the light of that, does it concern you that BBC output on climate change, across drama, documentaries, comedy, children’s programmes etc was influenced and has been influenced for the past nearly 7 years by the likes of the CofE and the US ambassador, not to mention Greenpeace? And that the BBC then sought to keep that fact secret? And ineded misrepresented these people as climate experts or whatever?
Serious questions.
They certainly are serious questions. But it’s unlikely we are going to get serious answers from the BBC because what we are grappling with is the attitude – the mindset – of those who work for the Corporation. They can’t even see there is a problem that needs addressing.
The BBC is in the grip (to use their current favourite word) of the ‘liberal’ ‘progressive’ mindset, which doesn’t see truth as an end in itself.
The more honest AGW proponents have admitted this many times – that it doesn’t actually matter if CO2 causes “climate change” or not. They see the result of energy rationing as valid and politically desirable in itself. They dislike consumerism and Western affluence and this is a perfect vehicle for achieving its destruction It is a political concept, dressed-up with flashing lights and impressive gimmicks, designed to make it look like science.
Almost the entire thrust of the BBC’s policy is driven similarly. The Corporation’s staff see it as their role not just to entertain and inform but to ‘do good’ – ‘good’ as defined by the bien pensant notions of the moment.
Thus the BBC promotes ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ and ‘diversity’ and ‘non-smoking; and ‘alcohol reduction’ and ‘gay rights’ and ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘environmentalism’ and it sees nothing wrong in doing so..
Instead of presenting us with the facts and arguments and leaving us to make up our own minds, it sees its role as being to proselytise and to preach: not so much Auntie as Nanny.
It is no longer a news organisation, it is an advocacy organsation driven by liberal notions of what is good and what is not.
The secrecy is bizarre because the policy is entirely sensible and justifiable. The secrecy has become the story and stoked up this issue. Whereas the policy itself is entirely transparent. Another bizarre management failure,.
Except the policy is not justifiable. The “experts” on hand only make the whole thing even more questionable. The mandarins knew that. The veil of secrecy was, as with Balen, most likely intended to keep key Beeboids’ names out of the picture. It’s one thing for the public to know that they had “experts” conclusively explain to them why it was wrong to provide air time to “opponents of the consensus” – appeal to authority and all that – but it’s quite another to show the public just who was involved. Anonymity is key to successful behind-the-scenes activity.
The seminar is post hoc justification. You can take an editorial view ( and I assume they did) based on a private analysis of the evidence.
“Revealed: who decides the BBC’s climate change policy.”
by Sebastian Payne.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2012/11/revealed-who-decides-the-bbcs-climate-change-policy/?
Next, will Islam Not BBC (INBBC) provide a list of who decides its pro-Islam policy?
CMEP, a Warmist Wankfest.
Oh, the joy!
Seeing the group of “experts” in attendance raises a question: will they be having in the Esperanto Preservation Society next to lecture staff on how to report about how that artificial language is the future of civilization?
I think this fresh evidence requires a rethink of the term “defenders of the indefensible” for those who come here to defend the BBC against our claims of bias. Maybe we should start calling them “bias deniers” instead.
According to Jim Dandy
“the BBC does a good job of meeting its impartiality requirements…[and]..is a trusted source of news and is widely respected and valued by UK citizens.”
What about those who disagree with him and yet are still forced to pay for the BBC?
“Most examples offered up on this site don’t alter my view and are readily disregarded and refutable”
What about the smearing of a prominent “Thatcher era” politician as a child rapist?
“The McAlpine incident is not an example of impartiality slipping”
Over the months I have been reading this site I can count on the fingers of one hand – and that is being very generous – the number of occasions when Jim Dandy has “refuted” a point made by a poster.
Of these I cannot think of a single point he has made that has even come close to “refuting” the problem identified in the main post. I could be wrong – shall we say he “refuted” a point being made in one of the main posts on two occasions.
Again, it seems to me this is being generous, but it is statistically not unlikely, since even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
So in the course of hundreds of comments by Jim Dandy maybe 1% (if we are being generous) have “refuted” the claims made in the headline posts.
Yet notwithstanding the evidence of bias offered by this site he believes that his satisfaction with the BBC is sufficient grounds for everybody being forced to pay for it.
Jim Dandy claims to be a liberal. I see a knee-jerk Guardian reading Leftist (who in the Thirties would be an apologist for Stalin and in the Sixties would be an apologist for Mao). But let us take him at his word.
One of the characteristics of liberalism is encouraging a plurality of views – so that people can make up their own minds.
Or is making up their own minds too right-wing (because it implies some views are correct and others are false) – let us just say plurality.
The question is – does the BBC offer an impartial platform for a plurality of different views. Let us go down a quick checklist of “hot” issues
large (welfare) State or reduced State?
high tax (for rich people) or low tax?
pro-EU or EU withdrawal?
Pro-Democrat politicians or politically neutral?
Warmist advocate or not?
Socially liberal or socially (Christian) conservative?
Balanced reporting on Israel (Zionists)?
Neutral between Sun (Murdoch) and Daily Mail readers and the views of Daily Mirror and Guardian readers?
Are they neutral between Labour Party spin (about cuts in Public Services) and Tory Party Spin (about abuses of the taxpayer by Public Sector) in their news agenda?
Are the journalists (including the presenters) from Newsnight from a broad range of different political perspectives? Are the critics invited on Arts Review programmes from a broad range of political opinions?
Is the BBC being neutral in its reporting of different racist/religious issues (e.g. sexual abuse).
Now you may (and indeed probably do) have different views on all of this, but Jim Dandy thinks there are no issues to be discussed, because the BBC gets it about right, and therefore people should not be offered a choice about whether they want to fund the BBC.
Now how liberal is that? I suggest it is not very liberal at all, unless by liberal you mean what liberal means in the USA i.e. advocacy on behalf on the Left.
But if we are using liberal in this sense where does that leave the claim that BBC is not politically biased?
The most convincing explanation of this farce is given by a poster calling himself Dodgy Geezer, at Guido’s. (post 219 in the ‘list the BBC didn’t want you to see’ thread)
“Dodgy Geezer says:
November 13, 2012 at 12:57 pm
There are lies within lies in this story.
The seminar we are talking about was not originally intended to be a ‘policy-making’ meeting.
What happened is that the BBC unilaterally dropped their Charter requirement to provide balance in reporting Global Warming, purely due to internal activists. This change was noticed by outside bloggers, who started asking questions about why the BBC was in breach of its Charter.
So, to shut them up, the BBC responded that they had duly considered the issue, and received proper scientific advice that there was no real controversy. They picked a recent internal seminar (which had been held to promulgate the Global Warming message to internal BBC staff) and claimed that this comprised ‘the top scientific brains’ who had provided this policy advice. There had been NO minutes – odd, for such a fundamental policy decision.
That was meant to shut up the bloggers, who were crying for more details. The meeting was retrospectively claimed to be under the non-attributable Chatham House Rules, which neatly made it unable to be investigated.
Blogger Tony Newbery submitted a FOI request for the names of these august scientists who had advised the BBC to drop its impartiality position. The BBC fought this tooth and nail, finally spending a 6-figure sum on barristers and packing the Tribunal where, last Friday, the request was rejected on the spurious grounds that the BBC could consider itself to be a private organisation if it wanted to keep secrets from the public.
Now we can see that the meeting which was claimed to be with a policy-defining group of top scientists was, in fact, an activist jolly/propaganda exercise. And trying to hide this has cost the BBC a lot of money and face.
I wonder whether charges of perjury are in order?”
http://order-order.com/2012/11/13/the-list-of-names-the-bbc-did-not-want-you-to-see-scientist-exposed-by-climategate-set-bbc-policy/#comments
So basically the BBC are liars.
They were being creative and imaginative – all is fair when battling against the forces of darkness.
DodgyGeezer explains and amplifies his account in further entries on the same thread – I don’t think he is an insider, but if his interpretation is correct he believes this scandal is even bigger than Savile.
“he believes this scandal is even bigger than Savile.”
In terms of trust in the impartiality of the BBC, he is correct, which is why the BBC will seek to divert attention elsewhere.
The BBC is the broadcasting arm of the Left – it is an abuse of power whose tax funded advocacy profoundly corrupts democracy.
I enjoyed this comment from “Living in 98 percent white Merseyside (with a view towards 99% white N. Wales”
A lot of non anglo-saxon names amongst the scientists but not amongst the BBC attendees.
Davie’s first task must be to increase diversity targets in upper management.
Looking through some of the IBT members websites I am first struck at how many have to do with providing aid in various 3rd world countries, and for various claims. Nearly all of them feature a picture of poverty in an African, Middle Eastern or Asian setting.
Since I am most familiar with the goings on in the Middle East, I look at some of those agencies with connection here, just to see what they are trying to create within and elicit from the reader.
First example – Islamic Relief – Palestine
– 60% of the population live on less than $2 a day
– Nearly 50% of Palestinians suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
– In the last 2 years the numbers of poor have tripled, to around 2 million.
-50% of the population rely on food aid for survival.
The humanitarian crisis in Palestine is deepening. In recent years, thousands of Palestinians have been killed and tens of thousands injured – including many children. Palestinian homes, farmlands and businesses have been destroyed by bulldozers and tanks. Curfews and travel restrictions have resulted in an unemployment rate of over 60%. Without jobs families have no income, and they are left to struggle with crippling poverty.
Mohammed’s Story
Mohammed El Attar lives in Beit Lahia, north of the Gaza Strip. He has ten children and no way to support them after his farming land was bulldozed during recent conflict.
From the International Service Website
Breaking down walls: supporting people with disabilities to fight for equality in Palestine
“There are two separation walls that menace Palestinian society; one is that infamous grey structure that denies every Palestinian the basic human right to live in dignity, and the other is the lesser-known invisible wall that pushes Palestinians with disabilities even further away from this right…
…These may be small chips. But as long as we are breaking down walls in Palestine – not building them – then the possibility of living a dignified life is a step closer to becoming reality.”
So nowhere in this narrative does any Palestinian responsibility for their woes appear. While Israel is not named, it is presented as the cause of Palestinian poverty and problems.
The wall, described in the last article in order to elicit as much sympathy from the reader, doesn’t also focus on the fact that on the other side of the wall are different people who have to face other issues related to it. They didn’t build it because they wanted to, but because they were more afraid of what was happening without it. But for Palestinian actions, the wall would not have been necessary, and they would still be allowed to work freely in Israel, supporting their families, and enjoying a standard of living that was the highest of all surrounding Arab lands.
In the same way these article don’t mention this, neither does the BBC. It sees only one side of the wall, and doesn’t question or reveal truthfully why it was built.
The opening paragraph is an another example.
But who initiated the violence that led to these bulldozers and tanks? Nowhere are the Palestinians made responsible for what has subsequently happened to themselves, and this also doesn’t explain how many Palestinians have become very wealthy as a result of what has happened in recent years.
Clearly these people running these sites want to get money to fund themselves and whatever projects they engage in. They need people reading their stuff not to go too deep, or think too much about why the Palestinians are in this situation.
But should the BBC be aiding them with their similar propaganda under the banner of fair and impartial?
The BBC has to decide whether it wants to devote it’s efforts to being an aid organisation, or reporting the truth, per its charter. It can’t do both.
As it is, instead of helping – it creates further misery.
Great stuff indeed! And this is what the BBC does best, it shapes perceptions with its presentation of a version of reality, it damns one side by presenting the other side in a dramaticesque theatrical light. Its as old as as the theatre itself, the baddies dressed in cloaks with shifty eyes and black hats. This is what the entertainment industry has perfected since classical times the presentation to an audience of who the goodies and baddies are.
Indeed, indeed. But we non’t want to end up with commercials on BBC radio …. that really is the unacceptable danger .
Hey ho, the story looks like it has reached the required critical mass in order for the MSM to pick it up and run with it. With the BBC already reeling from its harbouring and enabling of a child molester and other assorted crimes the MSM is ready to pile in. The BBC finds itself on the receiving end, long may it continue and hopefully instil some humility in their ranks.
The BBC was always going to receive its just desserts, it was only a matter of time after the crazed spite filled Jihad against other parts of the MSM like NI and Murdoch, the Germans have a word for it I think. To see the BBC squirming under the microscope they happily used against others is truly delightful and after a tiring absence due to other duties it is a true restorative for me.
Wasn’t Cassandra the daughter of King Priam who correctly foresaw the destruction of Troy?
Except she was cursed by being given the gift of prophecy – but nobody would ever believe her. She ended up as Agamemnon’s personal slave and was murdered by Clytemnestra. Eveybody, however, thinks of her in a good way. Don’t get me going on Laocoon.
Yes, but she was cursed so that no one would ever believe her
She could have been the next BBC head of news.
She had a similar degree of believability.
Gifted/cursed with the ability to see the a future and not be believed by those around her.
It doesnt take a Cassandra to work out where we are heading if we are not very careful.
Censorship of news of the ongoing Rochdale child sex abuse scandals bubbles under now too … First Nation children abused by incoming peasants ? Censor it.
SCHADENFREUDE
In that Secret list, a shocking lack of names of obvious color or Balkan or mid East origin : what about quotas ? positive discrimination ? Affirmative action ? Just because there has been no islamic Enlightenment doesn’t mean that their seers should be excluded from the wacky debate .
Sign the Balen Report petition
…from about 500 yesterday when I signed to over 800 today!
Make sure you sign, folks!
Tried to, but the bloody e.mail box won’t take an underscore _ for some reason.
The eminent Melanie Phillips has written an article on her blog examining the connection between IBT and the BBC, and believes, as do I, that this might be more damning for the BBC than the Newsnight scandal.
The real BBC scandal
Apols. Duplicated elsewhere.
Can’t hurt I hope.
It seems Pandora’s can of worms has been opened, if the ongoing fallout can be so described.
I thought this comment from one blog dedicated to the issue stood out:
‘Joe Public’ added +++BBC Climate 28 revealed – Oh the sad irony http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15359312
The BBC, MSM, complicit government and bent judicary in the UK…. all enhancing the narrative of ‘win-win’ by lose-lose to suit agendas, ratings, or control of the public by fear.
“Tearfund” had a couple of people at that seminar. The name sounded familiar, so I went to the website and found that it’s president is Elaine Storkey, who used to be a regular on Thought for the Day until even the Beeb found her too boring.
Here’s the link –
http://www.tearfund.org/en/about_us/whos_who/president/
Warning, her photograph’s not suitable for those of a sensitive disposition.
Another dreadful showing by the Trolls, the best they can manage is the tired old ‘consensus’ argument which they (Jim) have failed to support with any evidence.
What a hammering they’ve had over the past week, reduced to vacuous mantras and ad hominem attacks.
“Most examples offered up on this site don’t alter my view and are readily disregarded and refutable.”
You have been reduced to empty mantras, Jim, as this thread alone has proved. A gutless, blinkered performance not worthy of this site.
The Angry Old White Men have prevailed – with ease – and will live long enough to see the whole eco-socialist totalitarian bid for world power binned as the democratic majority wake up to what’s going on.
A great thread, choc-full of damning evidence revealing the BBC in its pivotal role in shadowy leftist pressure groups like CMEP, and a small triumph for democracy.
‘Ow’s about that then, guys and gals!
I think I’ve done rather well in the circumstances!
The climate change seminar is clearly an unnecessary own goal and fodder for the Delingpole herd. But evidence of a conspiracy it is not. Tom Chivers in the Telegraph has it exactly right.
As for Newsnight, a grim and appalling mistake but not evidence it is a result of an anti Tory agenda. That strikes me as pure assertion.
Evasive, incurious, slavishly defending a BBC line which shows no trace of its ‘envy of the world’ investigative journalism (‘nullius in verba’ etc..)
You’ve successfully outed yourself as a Warmist, Jim.
Must come as such relief to you.
Chivers has it “exactly right” only if one is a Warmist. He’s even wrong about everyone only just now finding out that the BBC decided not to give time to “opponents of the consensus”, and that the complaint about the seminar is that the Beeboids who put it together weren’t clairvoyant.