The BBC is at the heart of the corrupt political scheming that fills the pockets of politicians and their landowning friends with millions of pounds and the Green industries they back whilst those whose pockets have been rifled by greedy, duplicitous or ignorant politicians have to turn down the heating and switch off the lights.
The BBC has backed the Green lobby and ignores the corrupt politicians….when your fuel bill arrives you can be assured that not only are you paying £145 for the privilege of watching the BBC you are also paying through the nose for fuel because of that self same BBC.
Labour’s Ed Miliband started it all off with his industrial suicide policy committing Britain to cuts in CO2 of 80%.
It should be remembered that under Labour far more industry was destroyed than under the long Tory reign but you’d never guess from the BBC’s coverage of that era.
The massive political attack on industry and the Public’s wage packet conducted through corrupt energy policies is gathering pace as rich landowner’s bank accounts bulge with subsidised payments for allowing wind turbines on their land.
Politicians ride the wave of money themselves...corrupt morally, intellectually and financially, working simultaneously for Green industry pocketing large payments whilst pushing through legislation that is favourable to these industries.
Britain is teetering on the verge of industrial and social collapse as blackouts loom due to the increasingly onerous, ‘unbelievably aggressive CO2 reduction targets’ that will plunge us into a new dark Ages where industry flees the Country and the Public cannot afford to heat their homes or drive to work.
The Green lobby is set on destroying industry in the UK whilst China and India pump out vast and increasing quantities of CO2 that make our own emissions look insignificant.
MPs are ignorant or corrupt and sign up to these policies out of misguided and ignorant good intentions or a malevolent disregard for the common good as they fill their own pockets as they help themselves to the Public’s money voting in ever increasing payments to energy companies.
At the heart of all this is the BBC and its huge, powerful, one sided backing for the Green lobbyists.
The capture of the BBC and its enormous and influential propaganda platform by the Greens was a victory without compare. It has meant practically no opposition to the green steamroller as the BBC is the most powerful, respected and trusted broadcaster with enormous ability to define the narrative.
‘The “capacity to define potential risks and hazards is broadly aligned with the distribution of power among ‘credible,’ ‘authoritative,’ and ‘legitimate’ definers of ‘reality’ across the media field.” ‘
‘….the BBC [is] widely seen as an international leader in terms of balance, independence, and clarity. It is viewed as hegemonic within British broadcasting, helping to dictate the limits of what might be considered “news” in mainstream reporting.‘ Dr Joe Smith
The BBC decided that CO2 is a problem and has relentlessly pumped out propaganda to persuade or batter the Public into accepting that and the consequent measures needed to tackle the ‘problem’.
The BBC has brought into the fold many in academia, the arts and industry as they fall victim to the ‘consensus’, the manufactured consent that the BBC works so hard to enforce, people with doubts unwilling to stand out and be labelled as ‘deniers’.
Many I’m certain are not actual believers in man made global warming but are forced into acceptance by the ‘moral obligation’, the guilt that is placed upon them by the likes of the BBC which is an expert at manipulating images and perceptions linking man’s actions to natural disasters which in reality have extremely tenuous links.
Had the BBC done its job properly and not become an active propagandist for the Green lobby we might not now have MPs so willing and able to vote for the ‘consensus’ too afraid or too self interested to stand up and oppose this lunacy.
The BBC, ever ready to highlight ‘Big Business’ funding of climate sceptics, has refused pointblank to be similarly rigorous when it involves those who support the Cause.
Is it any wonder that they feel free to sit on committees that decide energy policy whilst pocketing green industry cash? They can dismiss newspaper reports as a ‘rightwing’ agenda…because of course the leftwing papers won’t report the corruption as they support the policies and the BBC looks the other way.
How to change the BBC and make it return to ethical journalism not green activism?
Write to your MP.
Maybe not!
That illustrates the problem with the BBC, it is unaccountable. Even now after ‘Savile’ it rides on essentially unaffected. A few bad headlines, a few waves at the top as there is a shuffle of jobs to make it look like something is being done but this time next year it will be more of the same, the innate leftwing biased reporting, the support for climate change and a disregard for any complaints.
The BBC are confident that they are unassailable as politicians are either in tune with the BBC ethos or are too scared to attempt to change it…or hopeful of getting a job there when falling on hard times. If ever there was an opportunity you might think it is now in the wake of ‘Savile’ but that was a failure of internal corporate procedure not of its political values and activities…..the BBC knows that and sails on regardless pumping out anti-government information and pro climate change hype recognisng no politician dare speak out, let alone act against it in any meaningful way.
And don’t forget that the BBC pension funds invest in wind and other alternative generation. Whenever the BBC big up green energy their pension pots benefit.
“Ethical Investment” they call it.
I believe Cameron’s father in law has windmills on his land.
Say no more.
Which he pockets £1000 a day from!
The next time you hear a socialist ranting about ‘regressive taxes’, you may wish to remind them of this, the thousands of old folk dying of cold, and the millions struggling to pay their fuel bills, of which greedy rich landowners get a healthy cut.
I can’t wait for the blackouts, a few years of them and the greens will get wiped off the map. Bring them on. Hopefully the plebs will also attack the nobs at the bBC who support these luddites.
Actually it makes you wonder that if the BBBc had been around in the 19th Century would they have supported the Luddites?
Judging by their usual historical perspective,
most definitely.
“Had the BBC done its job properly and not become an active propagandist ”
—
Ah well, zero out of two. What to do?
Lucky they have moved that editor chappie to archive duty to help with the redactions when some start looking back at their role.
Even if you don’t subscribe to the climate change industry (and I don’t), then there can be little doubt that fossil fuels are finited, and will sometime in the future run out. Therefore anything which slows down the rate of consumption has to be a good thing, and a few rolling black outs might just be the wake up call some organisations need.
Why are our street lights left on all night? Plenty of places manage to switch them off between midnight and 5am, and provide devices which people are given which turn them on as they near.
Public buildings lit by high intensity lights – just so we can appreciate how wonderful the ministry of love is when all the staff have gone home!
There is wastage on a colossal scale, even if folks have no investment in energy useage, they surely must recognise the monetary wastage?
On to another bugbear! This government & the previous one are treating gas & electric as they treat petrol, loading it with so much tax and levies they force the poor into ‘fuel poverty’ they then have the barefaced cheek to blame the energy companies!
It’s time someone challenged the politicos on this and forced them to face their actions.
‘anything which slows down the rate of consumption has to be a good thing,’
Agreed.
However, that is not being served by politicians, or the BBC.
They are gunning for some mystery economic/population growth stick to beat the current loons with without being too clear on how you get more people buying more stuff without a bit of a consequence.
Also while the search for alternatives is rational, if the main claim to the current crop is AGW gas reductions, most heavily subsidised public investments range from poor to actually worse.
thoughtful – fossil fuels will not in the future ‘run out’, the geological forces which create them have not and will not stop. For example, oil wells in the US that were capped in the 1920s and thought to be dry have been re-opened and found to be full and productive again.The idea of coal, oil and gas being finite is just what the energy industry wants us to believe.
Who’s gonna “challenge the politicos on this and forced them to face their actions.”
Thats the problem, they are all playing the same game.
So what do we do?….Strike?….that plays right into Labours hands, and of course, the Beeb can spin the reasons for the strike to suit their agenda, and blame the evilz of torycutz ™
They have us by the balls on this one.
The only tax should be personal income tax, out in the open, politicians accountable for how much and what they spend it on, at the ballot box, to tax-payers. Even if its 70 or 80%, its the truth of it.Everything else is sneaky hiding social engineering this is for your own good bollox. Politicians are scared to face us with how much they take off people in all these regressive hidden taxes (VAT, Excise duties, Corporation taxes, the whole greedy bagful)
“Eco-tastrophe! How MPs in the pay of subsidised eco-firms set insane new carbon targets that send your bills sky-rocketing… and drag us to a new Dark Age”
By David Rose.
[Excerpt]:
“Environmental groups, such as Greenpeace and Friends Of The Earth, and renewable-energy firms were invited to meetings with the Secretary of State – first Chris Huhne then Ed Davey – no fewer than 23 times in the two years from the 2010 Election until last June.
“Yet the big fossil fuel firms, BP and Shell, and the Oil And Gas Trade Association, saw him just 11 times.
“Cuadrilla – the company still trying to get approval to start ‘fracking’ for the vast reserves of natural gas that lie beneath Lancashire – did not meet Huhne or Davey at all. It had to make do with a single meeting with DECC’s most junior Minister, the parliamentary under secretary Jonathan Marland.
“No doubt MPs’ enthusiasm for low-carbon power stems from belief, but it also happens to suit the business interests of former Ministers who have become green advisers.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2283558/How-MPs-pay-subsidised-eco-firms-set-insane-new-carbon-targets-send-heating-bills-sky-rocketing.html
Lets not forget one Tony Blair currently being paid £1/2m a year by Zurich Insurance Group to advise them on Climate Change. You have to wonder what he tells them that is worth such a lot of money. Does Tony know something we don’t? Don’t Zurich know there hasn’t been any significant change in global mean temperature in the the last seventeen years? Would you trust your insuranace to a company so easily mis-sold advice by The Perma-tanned One?
“The capture of the BBC and its enormous and influential propaganda platform by the Greens was a victory without compare.”
True enough, but to describe it as a victory presupposes that the BBC was offering resistance which the Greens overcame. I’ve seen no evidence of that. I see it as an uncontentious meeting of political minds.
I tried writing to my (Lib Dem) MP about the tens of billions being wasted on ‘combating climate change’ when there was more than just uncertainty about the ‘science’.
In his reply he agreed that there may be doubts about it but we needed to do something for the sake of our children and grandchildren ‘just in case’. At the moment you won’t win against these people because of the surreal party consensus, but rolling blackouts and enforced pay cuts resulting from short working weeks a la 70s might just help turn the tide.
Why not the blood sacrifice of 640 MPs “just in case”?
The Precautionary Principle appears to block out logical thought. There is nothing to take precautions against and there is no precautions capable of changing the planet’s weather. Its just a bloody stupid pat answer that appears to deal with your question, but doesn’t. You asked me a question and I have given you an answer, conversation over. It’ll take the sky falling in before they wake up, sleepwalking into disaster, lead by the benevolent hand of Green Marxists mistaken for planet-savers.
“…The BBC, ever ready to highlight ‘Big Business’ funding of climate sceptics, has refused pointblank to be similarly rigorous when it involves those who support the Cause.”
Alan, it’s a valid point. Lefty warmists like the BBC never seem to recognise the inherent folly of making (always unfounded) claims of ‘millions’ going to climate sceptic organisations. Somehow, they fail to ask where all the money comes from to support their own favourite pro-CAGW organisations, such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Oxfam and Save The Children, etc. Funny that, isn’t it? They never ask where all the funding for pro-CAGW ‘research’ in the education sector comes from, either. Nor do they ask how much of this pro-CAGW funding comes from taxpayers via the EU and the UNs’ Marxist ‘wealth-redistribution’ policies . Most odd.
The BBC has never asked such questions. It would take all of a minute for any researcher drone to log into Jo Nova’s site and download her ‘climate money’ PDF for free – a document which meticulously follows the CAGW money trail (on both sides) and concludes that for every $1 of alleged climate sceptic funding more than $3000 goes to pro-CAGW organisations via taxpayers. So that’s 3000-to-1 in favour of the ‘poor’ pro-CAGW zealots – but still they claim sceptics are somehow being funded ‘in the millions’ as if, even if true, it would be anything at all to worry about in the face of their own unimaginably gargantuan funding mountain of ‘free’ money.
The simple truth, for any who care find it, is that most hard-up climate sceptic organisations, financially reliant as they are on the generosity of private donors (no tax payer hand-outs for them), would dearly love to receive even a fraction of the ‘dirty’ fossil fuel funding they are so consistently (and entirely erroneously) accused of taking.
But the BBC won’t tell you any of this. Ever. That’s not how this works. You don’t need to know.
You can find Jo Nova’s ‘Climate Money’ PDF for free download here: http://joannenova.com.au/ (look in the left-hand column on the page and you save the PDF from there).
At Oxford University, the Astronomy and Atmospheric Physics is funded by the taxpayer. But because its results support what you would call the most extreme Climate Sceptics. The mainstream media is not interested.
“The BBC is at the heart of the corrupt political scheming that fills the pockets of politicians and their landowning friends with millions of pounds and the Green industries they back whilst those whose pockets have been rifled by greedy, duplicitous or ignorant politicians have to turn down the heating and switch off the lights.”
Alan, you really need an award for utter absurdity.
You constantly defend multinationals like News Int and Amazon leaching millions out of the country and on absolutely no evidence make the sort of claims that reduce this blog to a laughing stock. There is no evidence or basis for any of your claims. And to claim that the BBC for some reason (no doubt to foster the caliphate I assume) is in some green conspiracy is really in the realm of nutjob fantasies.
To say that the green lobby (one MP) is to going to destroy the economy is so utterly preposterous that it renders the whole article a meaningless joke.
Where’s the evidence to back it?
I prefer your long blogs with lots of links that nobody reads.
I realise you’re a troll, but I’m feeling charitable. If you require evidence of the BBC’s inglorious ‘conspiracy’ with it’s friends in the climate industry:
Here
And here
See it’s very easy to find – that took no time at all. You just have to want to look. Then again, you don’t really want to, do you?
Define “leaching”, please. Presumably it means something else on your planet.
‘long blogs with lots of links that nobody reads’
Well, bar you, presumably, as you couldn’t really weigh in on critiques or rebuttals without doing so.
Could you?
And it’s a bit odd criticising the provision of information in one breath and then demanding more evidence the next.
And if you were the only one, that would be a nifty irony, on par with the odd poster who seems to be trying to make endless ‘ism/’ist/’zi/’inger points to provoke, so far, no one, by making endless ‘ism/’ist/’zi/’inger posts.
I quite like lots of info, especially if backed by cited sources. And do read them.
I also read the short stuff with few independent links and often too many ‘sources’ that are un-named.
Which is how I first became aware of the BBC Newsnight McAlpine accusations.
Your in no way irrational fantasy option explains much but excuses little, especially in light of ongoing events and revelations.
Hey, colditz, are you still pretending that the BBC did not deliberately censor Mervyn King’s remark about government green energy policies driving up fuel prices?
I can only assume, colditz, that you missed all the threads on 28gate, not to mention those lamenting the BBC’s own self-confessed bias on AGW (with scores of examples) – which might also explain your absence from those threads at the time (though massively coincidental that you managed to miss every one).
Random contributions like the one you just made do you no favours at all.
“The green lobby, one MP”, what planet are you on. 637 of our toy MPs voted in favour of the Climate Change Act as written by Greenpeace and known as the biggest suicide note in history….which it is. The whole CAGW is a fraud to part the People from as much of their money as the fraudsters can get.. It is our Country and People suffering and it is going to get worse. How many deaths are acceptable to you, 100, 1000 or 10000.
Dear Colditz. The identity of the 28 people present at the BBC Climate Change seminar has become adequate evidence for the current investigations into the BBC.
If you pay your license fee you are helping the corruption, you do not have to pay the fee if the BBC is breaking the ROYAL CHARTER.by being corrupt it is against the law to finance a corporation which you know is breaking the law.
Charles Moore was high profile and respectable enough to get the BBC’s attention with his public call for a boycott of the license fee over Ross/Brand. Both were dumped from the BBC soon enough, and Moore was even granted an audience with Mark Thompson.
Nobody here or even remotely connected with this blog has that kind of presence, but maybe a well-publicized new call for a boycott until real heads roll over Savile/McAlpine and 28-Gate might gain traction with enough real grassroots, word-of-mouth effort. Social Media would prove very useful here.
‘Social Media would prove very useful here’
Funny you should mention that.
All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to forget they can use Blogger, WordPress, FaceBook & twitter too.
It’s just a shame that, unlike the BBC, they tend to need day jobs to cover the rent as they are busy doing battle.
As well as mastermind the global green conspiracy, I believe the Beeb has also been torturing small furry animals.
I concur with the conspiracy ‘nutjob’ view myself.