Barclay’s Bank has released details of its pay structure and some at the BBC are up in arms commenting about how unfair it all is that some Bankers get paid so much whilst some get very much less.

Victoria Derbyshire is not impressed that so many earn less than £25,000. (11:38)

I don’t know what she and the likes of Nicky Campbell  get paid but I’m pretty certain it’s no where near as low as £25,000…after all although she seems to only work part time she still manages to pay for the air fare to fly herself to work.

I don’t think Barclays will be taking any lessons in pay restraint from the BBC.

A good question from Greg Dyke:

‘Why do we pay all these presenters all this money for them to then slag us off?’

Yes…why do we?

BBC bias?……the floor is yours

‘Bit by bit, the story is coming out.’

Well you have to look quite hard on the BBC to find the story tucked away on the US section:

Senator Rand Paul’s drone filibuster delays CIA nomination

The BBC gives more prominence to this:

French mother tried for 9/11 T-shirt

A mother has gone on trial in southern France for sending her son [Named Jihad] to nursery school wearing a T-shirt reading “I am a bomb” and “Born on 11 September”.

You might have thought the drone story was worthy of more coverage considering the subject…the use of drones, especially the use of drones to kill US citizens…US citizens on US soil….and its other repercussions worldwide.

In February the BBC claimed:

Viewpoint: US media lax on drones

‘The media has been slow to fully report on the US drone programme, says Tara McKelvey, a correspondent for Newsweek Global and The Daily Beast. Is the truth finally starting to come out?’

The BBC tells us that:

The rest of the world questions the legality of their use, viscerally so in a country such as Pakistan, where drone attacks increased significantly during President Obama’s first term.

An estimated 74% of Pakistanis polled by Pew last year termed the United States an “enemy.” Drones are a clear factor.

Drones may be a key element in the US strategy, but as Ambassador Rehman makes clear, they are “not part of our playbook. The time for drone strikes is really over.”

The rest of the world opposes drone use, they increase radicalism and terrorism, Obama signs off 7 times more strikes than Bush ever did……and yet….

BBC seem a bit reluctant to give this story much prominence…unlike the dangers of a bacon sandwich.

I wonder if it would be a different sort of coverage from the BBC if George Bush was still in power and it had been a Democratic Senator who had opposed his use of drones?

I don’t ‘wonder’ at all really….I think I know the answer to that one.

Any chance the BBC web page editor is a vegetarian with this story being the BBC’s top story (Never mind more possible deaths in NHS hospital):

Processed meat ‘early death’ link

Sausages, ham, bacon and other processed meats appear to increase the risk of dying young.

Diets high in processed meats were linked to cardiovascular disease, cancer and early deaths.

Related Stories

• Red meat ‘increases health risks’
• Processed meat ‘linked to cancer’
• Vegetarians ‘cut heart risk by 32%’

Scary stuff.

Oh wait…..there’s a qualifying statement:

Lifestyle factors

It showed people who ate a lot of processed meat were also more likely to smoke, be obese and have other behaviours known to damage health.

oh…qualifying that….just so you don’t get complacent:

‘After adjusting for smoking, obesity and other confounders we think there is a risk of eating processed meat.’

‘We think‘…but we don’t know for sure.  We need more grant money for more research.

Any possibility that one trawl over their data and a completely different picture would  emerge?

The BBC tells us that ‘One in every 17 people followed in the study died.’..but that includes deaths from all causes including car crashes and murder and falling off ladders.

That misleads because the death rate due to cancer, heart disease or respiratory problems was a ratio of 1 in 27.   There were 450,000 people in the study….. 5,556 people died from heart and artery disease, 9,861 from cancer, and 1,068 from respiratory diseases….and of that 1 in 27 how many are due to processed meat?

The study says we can save 3% of deaths if we cut out eating processed meat….which by my calculation is under 500 people of those dying from the associated diseases.

So from out of 450,000 people across Europe 500 died possibly caused or partially caused by processed meat….

There was around a total of 1.28 million deaths from cancer across the EU in 2011….so maybe 1400 deaths could be possibly linked to processed meat by this study….3000 die every year in the UK alone in car crashes.

It seems there is a higher death rate if you go in for surgery:

New research finds that as many as four out of every 100 people undergoing surgery die after the procedure, with wide variations across Europe – a problem that requires more than just extra resources to solve, writes the president of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine….The European Surgical Outcomes study, published in The Lancet,

So stop going in for surgery and live!

No sense of proportion…. the death rate is declining in Europe and people live longer.  It just seems that this is scientists seeking the limelight and banging the drum for their own pet area of inquiry and the BBC gives it the highest prominence for some reason.

Not only does the BBC swallow this piece of junk food science whole it doesn’t examine the ingredients too hard….

My suggestion would be that listening to scientists processed by the BBC machine does more damage to your health than eating a bacon sandwich every day….especially as we know that the BBC is more than ready to link land use and livestock farming to climate change.

The BBC uses Lent to talk about ‘abandonment’…..

In the third of this year’s Lent Talks, journalist and broadcaster Benjamin Cohen reflects on the fear of being abandoned by his own Jewish community, for being gay.

But Lent is about sacrifice…the complete opposite of abandonment.

The BBC are using the story of Jesus and twisting it for their own anti-Christian…and a bonus for them….anti-Semitic/Israeli…reasons.

So now you know that Jews hate gays also, it’s not just the horrible Christians.  Another strike against the Israelis for the BBC.

But listen to the broadcast and you find out Cohen was rejected by neither his family nor his community….his examples of rejection seem to come more from society in general than Judaism in particular though he does go on to tell of his anger at ‘religions’.

It seemed that a rather thin excuse to bring up this subject of ‘abandonment’ was invented by someone at the BBC as it is unrelated to Lent….promoting gay rights whilst attacking Christianity and Judaism….but not, it might be added, Islam…nowhere was Islam mentioned.

Can you imagine someone at the BBC suggesting using Muhammed as a  comparison for a gay person?

The BBC are always keen to have a Muslim on the screen promoting Islam….but it seems that when the religion could be taken to task over a questionable belief the BBC brings on the fall guys…Christianity and Judaism.

Cohen states that an orthodox Jew believes the Torah is the literal word of God, a devout Catholic believes the Pope is infallible……but no mention of the Muslim belief that the Koran is the unalterable and literal word of God….that might be awkward considering the BBC’s insistence that Muslim terrorists who say they are carrying out God’s work are perverting Islam and therefore shouldn’t be considered Muslims.

Odd…follow the literal, fundamental teachings and you are ‘perverting’….demand change to the beliefs and you are ‘modernising’ and somehow you are still following the ‘real’ religion.

What is ‘Lent’ then?   Seems the BBC has its own ideas….

The BBC originally said this:

‘Lent is a time of giving things up. For Christians, it is one way of remembering the time Jesus’ fasted in the desert and is a test of self-discipline.’

The Church of England tells us:

‘The concept of fasting for 40 days is to reflect the 40 days Jesus’ fasted in the desert. Christians treat this time as a way of preparation to Easter and fasting is a recognised way of helping people to focus on their spiritual life and prayer.’

That seems to be the approved description, pretty clear.

The BBC’s latest version however is an inversion of the meaning  of Lent…Lent is no longer a time of sacrifice and self discipline but one of demands to others not to ‘abandon’ you…

‘The Christian season of Lent is traditionally a time for self-examination and reflection on universal human conditions such as temptation, betrayal, greed, forgiveness and love, as well as abandonment.’

That ‘abandonment’ seem to be just tacked on the end there in order to justify the line taken in the Lent Talk….it has a place in Christianity but it is in relation to the crucifixion not Lent.

The Mail reported the story a couple of days ago:

BBC Easter message compares treatment of gay people with the crucifixion of Christ

It’s not like the BBC to be coy about the glories of Islam…..usually they trumpet it from the rooftops….but not so keen to say that Islam is a  cesspit of homophobia…..one that not only denounces gays but kills them.

And of course it’s not just Iran….it’s widespread over the Islamic world.

Ah but hang on…Islam does get a mention…or rather a say in the Lent Talks.…

Imam Asim Hafiz, Muslim Chaplain and Religious Adviser to HM Forces, who has just returned from Afghanistan, explores the total abandonment experienced by both sides as a result of war

Can’t imagine what he will say.

Maybe he will add to what the Muslim extremist Tariq Ramadan said last year when he was given a chance to deliver a Lent Talk.

Funny how any criticism of Islam is ‘Islamophobic’ but it is perfectly acceptable to relentlessly disparage and condemn Christians and Jews for their beliefs on the BBC.

How many times have you heard a BBC presenter shout down a caller or contributor when they mention Islam?  It’s a regular occurrence…Islam  should not be mentioned on the BBC if at all possible…not with any negative connotations anyway.

It can only be wondered at what is the effect of having a Muslim in charge of religious broadcasting at the BBC.

The BBC have decided that wars are unwinnable and that therefore the use of military force should not be considered a viable option:

Spent force: Are wars still winnable?

The whole article is academic drivel, the real intent is to tell us how misguided were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and therefore we should not get involved in any more wars…

“Do not turn these into moral crusades.”
It seems the BBC have only one agenda…to undermine the war, the troops fighting it and the government.

It has briefed continuously against the Afghan war, and then Iraq, since the start, taking whatever line it thinks will cause the most political damage, painting the wars a complete failure.

The article is a strawman, raising irrelevant questions in order to channel the BBC’s own views about war.

The article tells us we are in a new era of warfare and the nature of war is changing…making the outcome of military action against ‘insurgents’  indecisive.

Only that’s pure bilge.  Such battles against ‘non state actors’ have been fought throughout history….and they have always been difficult and protracted….you either surrender to the ‘Insurgent’ or you contain him and hopefully eventually defeat him……what else does the BBC propose?

We had up to 30,000 troops in Northern Ireland for decades…does the BBC really believe the military and the politicians have no idea that such conflicts are difficult to conclude?

The British Army fought endless ‘insurgencies’ throughout the Empire…it held onto a united India for centuries with a tiny presence on the ground….they couldn’t do that without an understanding of the politics and how to fight the glorious rebels.

Here is a quote from a British Army manual ‘Frontier Warfare India’…..

‘To sum up the tribesman’s characteristics as a fighting man it may be said that, although a formidable fighter individually in his own hills and an adept at guerrilla warfare, he lacks cohesion, discipline, leadership and continuity of purpose.  Well trained, intelligently led and properly disposed regular troops should find no serious difficulty in eventually overcoming such resistance as the tribesman may offer, or in beating him at his own game in his own country.  It cannot be too strongly stressed however, that the  frontier is not the place in which to employ partially trained or negligent troops.

It will be readily understood that the political object for which any military operation is undertaken must govern not only the scope but the intensity of the operation and that it may often be necessary for political reasons, to modify the purely military applications of the principles of strategy and tactics.

These political difficulties, which are inherent in the problem of control, inevitably react on military plans and tend to retard decisive action.’

It seems they were quite capable of accurately assessing the military, political and social difficulties without the help of an ‘expert’ BBC armchair  strategist.

Funny that.

Strange though that the BBC are only too happy to excuse the violence of those ‘insurgents’  or terrorists as we should call them.  Unemployed, feeling discriminated against, ethnic, non christian, oppressed…..whatever….the BBC supports your right to use violence when the democratic process has failed you.

On time and for you to complete! Read or seen any bias? This is where you detail it!

Had to laugh at an interview that took place on Today with the CEO of building compant Costain this morning around 7.20am, The interviewer was desperate to get him to say that the Coalition had made a fatal mistake by cutting back on capital infrastructure projects “too fast” (aka Labour ideology) and he said the opposite. Hilarious stuff, How it must sicken the BBC when they don’t get the answers they want!

Chavez is gone. And the BBC are gutted that one of their lions of socialism has gone to join the choir invisible. Did you catch their coverage of the tyrants “career”? Shocking.

‘If you are a big utility or a big energy company that has made a lot of money in a very high oil price environment, then you will have money to spend…..
Whatever their motivation is, it provides a much-needed avenue for investment and growth.’   One of Al Gore’s investment principles.

You may be aware that the Climate Change cabal have opened up a new front in their war against the Sceptics…..not content to have the BBC, amongst many other media organisations, batting for their side they are encouraging the closure of ‘comments’ or the radical censorship of comments on pro AGW blogs or web reports should they be of an inconveniently sceptical nature.

Taking a look at many of their thoughts on this matter, the BBC itself as we know has already limited what you can say, if anything at all, I came across Al Gore’s ‘Reality Drop’ green propaganda site (RealityProp?) which I’m certain someone has mentioned in the comments here before….illustrating how useful the comments section is as always.

I may look more closely at the Green’s desire to blackout any sceptical views in another post but Al Gore interests me.

The BBC are never happier than when pillorying a Banker, or a ‘Bankster’ as John Pienaar delights in calling them…or successful businessmen  or posh politicians.  The BBC aren’t so keen to mention the multiple millions earned by the filmstars that grace their screens or Graham Norton’s couch…or indeed Graham Norton’s own hefty wage, or the actress who earns £10,000 for a 1 minute voice over…nor the financial affairs of Labour’s Margaret Hodge…nor the affairs of the sainted Al Gore.

Which is funny really because Gore must certainly qualify to be in the ranks of the filthy rich businessmen that the BBC like to portray as plundering the world’s resources and reducing everyone else to penury as thy do so.

Just for starters look at his new venture….not one designed to make money, at least on the face of it…but set up to attack Sceptics and swamp websites with the ‘approved’ Al Gore Climate Script.

Look at who set up the website for him….was it Greenpeace or WWF?…no…it was a worldwide advertising conglomerate, Arnold Worldwide,  that has just taken on Volvo cars as a client……

‘With Volvo repositioning itself as a luxury brand, suddenly they’re not such a “safe” choice any more. Our work is designed to get consumers to take a second look and see for themselves just how far the formerly boxy and boring brand has come.’

Not only Volvo, luxury Volvo at that, as a client, but McDonalds as well.

Guess Al Gore must have been holding his nose whilst dealing with them…just as he must do when he looks himself in the mirror….and not just because he sold out his media company to oil rich Qatar and walked away with $100 million of money made from dirty old oil.

Wind farms are wonderful things, but they don’t work too well and need to have gas or coal fired power stations on line to back them up…which must be 90% of the time.

Just like wind farms Al Gore’s famous ethical investment company also needs backing up by ‘dirty’ industry.

The Companies Gore invests in publically.

Al Gore talks a lot about ‘sustainability’ but he is using a sleight of hand, so to speak, to mislead us…. ‘sustainable’ for most of his investments doesn’t mean ‘green’ just reliable, long term investment rather than making a ‘quick buck’ selling for instant profit…..it really means a company run efficiently in all areas….and if the future looks like governments will impose green legislation then companies that take account of that in their planning get another tick in the box…but not because they are ‘green’,  merely that they look ahead to plan for  future likely problems.

Gore set up Generation Investment Management along with Goldman Sach’s banker David Blood (and apparently Mark Ferguson, Alex Ferguson’s son)…alongside GIM they have set up ‘Climate Solutions Funds’ which aims for specifically climate related industry.

‘This is not a touchy-feely, new age approach.  The idea is that the long term prospects for companies are affected by a host of intangible factors.  Some of these include social issues such as the environment.  But they also feature subjects such as corporate governance, brand management, personnel relations and geopolitics.
Its approach is not the same as an ethical fund because it will focus on finding companies that can benefit from intangible factors rather than eliminating whole categories of companies…so could still invest in tobacco, alcohol, arms or oil.’

GIM is a big investment fund which essentially has few green credentials, it invests in big business regardless, if it makes money:

‘That, after all, is why they created Generation. Unlike earlier “green” and “ethical” investment funds, which screened out “bad” companies, effectively sacrificing financial return for purity, Generation set out to outperform the market by finding firms that it expected to do better than average over the long term.’

‘According to Richard Campbell, speaking for GIM, the form “is from Generation’s Global Equities Fund, which is not a greentech fund, hence the lack of greentech stocks in it — it is a fund that invests in a broad range of global equities.” Campbell added, “Generation does have a greentech fund — its Climate Solutions Fund — but this invests in mostly private companies, hence there are no 13F filings.”‘

‘Sustainability’ is just a ploy, a tool, to make as much money as possible.

GIM doesn’t invest in project development it just parasitically leeches off those who do taking none of the major risks of investing in a new project:

‘Project development and the financing of renewable energy projects is out, purely for the capital-intensive nation and risk associated with such a project. Le Duc says, ‘We do not invest in project development, we invest in the picks and shovels, support services and the people who are benefiting from these new developments, but which are less capital-intensive. That would also point us towards the carbon space, owning companies like the exchanges, or businesses that focused on analytics. We like intellectually heavy, capital-light, IT-based models.’

Al Gore’s GIM isn’t too fussy about where the money goes as long as it makes money….

‘If you are a big utility or a big energy company that has made a lot of money in a very high oil price environment, then you will have money to spend. You may also have a strategic mandate to build the renewables portfolio, or to decarbonise your energy mix a bit. We are certainly seeing big energy and utilities buying up a lot of companies – not just the typical energy companies but also other industrial companies like Siemens, Danaher and GE.
‘Whatever their motivation is, it provides a much-needed avenue for investment and growth.‘

All that sustainable investment must be paying off, in 2010 the pay cheques were quite impressive:

‘David Blood, president, chief executive and co-founder of socially responsible asset manager Generation Investment Management with former US vice-president Al Gore, was awarded a 39% pay rise last year after a strong 12 months for sustainable investing. He took home £10.7m. Profits at the asset manager in the year to the end of last December rose 55.8% to £49.1m, and it currently has approximately $7bn under management, according to accounts filed at Companies House.
Generation’s 20 partners were paid a combined £49.4m, up from £31.6m in 2009.’

Gore certainly does invest in green tech but he has a much bigger portfolio of non-green industry backing him up and providing the real profits.

The BBC’s Harrabin and Co are always ready to investigate the sources of climate sceptic website’s funding….somehow implying the source of funding negates their arguments….but it seems all too unwilling to look at Gore’s finances when it can be seen that they come mainly from big industry fuelled by oil, coal and gas….the very antithesis of what he preaches.

Gore is a ‘big business’ businessman…as trustworthy as any other big business businessman…..shame we can’t trust the BBC to report equally on both.

Ironic this last link from the BBC:

‘Former US Vice President Al Gore has said US politicians serve the interests of wealthy industries, rather than the interests of the public.

Speaking to Sian Williams on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show, he added that television coverage of current affairs “selectively represents information that is paid for”.’

Update:

WUWT climate website did a story on ‘RealityDrop’ last year…it wasn’t successful then…and seems to be no more successful now:

Al Gore’s ‘Reality Drop’ is a bomb – so let’s give him a ‘hockey stick’

The video has all time:

• 7,746 Plays
• 6 Likes

Wow.

Hope he didn’t pay Arnold Worldwide too much money for that!