Monthly Archives: August 2013

Less Is More

By | |
40 Comments

 

Thursday the BBC  (on 5Live at least) actually performed its task of reporting the events and considerations leading up to the vote on any attack on Syria with a fair degree of balance…though Seamus Milne and Labour’s Madeleine Moon I thought got off lightly without challenge to their anti-war stance.

Friday it all went pear shaped and normal service was resumed with the knives out for Cameron whilst Ed Miliband was being groomed for higher office.

Certainly a great deal of hyperbole in full flow from the BBC….

Nick Robinson on the Today programme stating:

‘For Parliament to defeat a Prime Minister on matters of peace and war is without modern precedent…the question is what does it mean?

First and foremost that Britain will not take part in any military attack on Syria.

The prime Minister has lost control of his own foreign and defence policy and as a result will cut a diminished figure on the international stage and the US may now question the value and reliability of Britain as an ally.

It is however here at home that David Cameron will feel the most pain.  The ruptures with his own party are back on public display.

Ed Miliband has been given the opportunity to disprove the claim that he is weak and he will walk taller as a result.

The repercussions of this vote could be felt for a very long time to come.’

 

 

Has Cameron ‘lost control of his own foreign and defence policy’?  

No…he elected to go for a vote when constitutionally he didn’t have to….his choice.  Apart from that isn’t it the role of Parliament to vote on legislation and government policies rather than to just act as a rubber stamp?

The fact is that control over any move to war was not ‘lost’ to parliament but to the likes of the BBC which has had an enormous influence on how the Iraq war is now seen by the Public and hence by politicians….foreign policy is now, at least partly, dictated by the BBC and how politicians think the BBC will react and report and comment on their decisions.

As for a ‘ defeat without modern precedent’ well that’s just a bit of over ripe rhetoric….the British were only going to provide a modest amount of military help to the US and the importance of this initial action and its potential impact was probably quite minimal with Assad unlikely to take much notice…depending of course on the scale of the US attacks.

Will the ‘repercussions be felt for a very long time to come’?  Doubtful….should Assad continue with mass murders, despite the assertion that there will be no military action in Syria, period, it is likely that a second attempt to get a yes vote on subsequent action might be possible and more successful.

 

But what is most interesting about Robinson’s piece is his reaction, or lack of, to Miliband who has proved shifty, without principle and opportunistic….so much so that Labour’s Dan Hodges has finally resigned in disgust at Miliband’s lack of character and backbone:

The truth about the Syria vote: Miliband changed his mind

and

Miliband was governed by narrow political interests – not those of Syrian children. I have left the Labour Party

 

Robinson doesn’t bother us with any analysis of Miliband’s dithering and general lack of honesty, nor for the reasons he changed his mind on supporting Cameron….only 20 minutes later do we get the comment that:  ‘This was a major set back for Cameron….but Ed Miliband’s position changed because he too was facing a pretty big rebellion from his own backbenchers.’

 

But that was it.  Miliband has got away with murder…or allowing Assad to continue to murder unchecked and a good portion of the blame can be layed at the door of the BBC for their campaign against the Iraq War and the pressure that puts on MPs to vote in a certain way….and Miliband is unchallenged in his new found role as honourable ‘peacemaker’ when in reality his position is one of convenient, opportunistic indecision and sloping shoulders.

 

John Humphrys added to the overwrought commentary and undue tone of great import:

‘It has been described as the greatest foreign policy defeat since Suez in 1956….the leader of the Labour Party, Ed Miliband, was the architect of that defeat.’

 

Personally I don’t think it was of such huge importance…nothing at all on the scale of Suez.  And didn’t Tony Blair get shunted out of office by his defeat over Israel and Lebanon?

The expected attack by the US and UK, and maybe France, would have been a minimal strike designed to make Assad think twice about usng chemical weapons…and that’s all.  For the UK to decide not to participate is hardly earth shattering.

 

Humphrys goes on to tell us that this has changed Britain’s role in the world…a very significant thing for Parliament to have done he claims.

 

Well….it’s a one off vote about a single issue….and even that vote could be reversed at a later date.

When challenged on his assertion…pointing out Libya for instance…Humphrys claims ‘that was then, this is now’.

Fundamentally, he tells us, British foreign policy has changed….we have  a new role in the world…of sitting back and doing nothing?

Well, yes….and this is now and tomorrow is another day and another decision which could be completely different.

Will we also have a new foreign policy then or merely something that adapts and changes with each new circumstance that arises as any sensible nation would adopt?

Humphrys goes onto say that Cameron’s ‘authority’ is diminished….again when challenged and told it was temporary Humphrys insisted that it was permanent.

Guess he has an agenda.

 

Nick Robinson is similarly excited:

‘This is not a one off…Parliament has used its power to rein in a Prime Minister and effect a  profound constitutional change…the genie cannot be put back in the bottle.’

 

 

As far as I can see this is a very minor political and military affair…one that should blow over in the normal course of events unless continually whipped up by Miliband with support from the likes of Robinson and Humphrys, unwitting or not.

The BBC (and the rest of course) has been giving this story a far greater significance than it merits….and has led them to draw all sorts  of conclusions that seem all too conveniently in line with their own politics….claiming this is highly damaging for Cameron whilst Miliband has risen Phoenix like from the ashes of his  more usual political roastings.

 

The reality is Cameron stood by his principles and allowed Parliament to take a vote on whether to go to war (of a very small kind) whilst Miliband dithered and changed his mind and took the line of least resistence rather than stand up and be counted even if he knew he would face defeat.

 

That is not a picture we get from the BBC at all.

 

 

‘We Just Don’t Matter’

By | |
36 Comments

 

 Listening to 5Live today I heard a report about an attack on a school by a Syrian aircraft using some sort of incendiary bomb.  Now I’m fairly hardened to images of war and the resultant carnage that results but I have to admit when I heard one man making his plea to the UN (10:14:30) it kind of stopped me dead in my tracks. 

Dear UN

What kind of peace are you calling for?

Don’t you see this….

Don’t you see this…

What do you need to see?

We are human beings.

We want to live.

 

 

You have to listen to it to get the full emotional impact, coming suddenly out of the radio in the middle of the day is very effecting….here is the BBC video report of the same thing with graphic images of the injuries….the ‘walking dead’.

 

 

Parliament, that body of fine upstanding men and women has voted….to look the other way.

 

Paddy Ashdown responded to that vote:

“In 50 years trying to serve my country I have never felt so depressed/ashamed. Britain’s answer to the Syrian horrors? none of our business!”

 

 He’s not wrong is he?

If the vote in Parliament had been one to merely delay military action brought about by the use of chemical weapons that may have been excusable….to ensure the culprit was correctly identified.

 

However that wasn’t what the vote ended up saying.

The vote has apparently put any possibility of military action off the table, for ever….regardless of any future events that may occur, however terrible, however many people get killed, whatever the means used to kill them.

Assad can murder as many people as he likes, in whatever manner he likes and the worst that will happen to him is a diplomatic flurry of indignation and condemnation.

He must be shaking in his blood filled boots.

 

But Ed Miliband is happy with that, in fact he’s trying to make as much political hay as he can out of events.

 He piously grandstands demanding ‘compelling evidence’ of chemical attacks…..and yet already over 100,000 Syrians have been killed and more die daily from ‘conventional weapons’…such as napalm bombs…..just how many have to die before he feels so ‘compelled’ to help them out, how many more millions have to be displaced, how many towns and cities destroyed?

What is Miliband’s ‘red line’?  I forgot…of course….he doesn’t have one….he’s already decided…there will be no military action at all.

Miliband states that we should learn the lessons of Iraq and that political and diplomatic pressure will persuade Assad to come to terms.

So what is the lesson of Iraq?   The lesson of Iraq is that after 12 years of UN sanctions and huge diplomatic efforts Saddam was still in power and totally unwilling to negotiate and happily murdering and gassing his own people.

 

 

Assad political cartoon, el Assad, syria

 

 

Still it’s good that Miliband and his family can be reassured that his own kids will be safe…and how ironic that he wears a poppy, the man who won’t stand up for those who suffer and die:

 

miliband kids safe 

 

Shame about the Syrian kids that he has abandoned to their fate:

 

syrai dead kids

 

 

Miliband says that what  is important is that the war is brought to an end.

His plan?  To talk softly to Assad but not to wave a big stick just in case he gets angry.

 

Why would Assad negotiate?  He’s winning and getting arms shipped in from Russia and Iran.

What would make him come to the negotiating table?

A military strike that so reduced his own military capability that he couldn’t beat the Rebels…not only that but make it likely that the Rebels may win.

 

Because Assad would then have to think….what next if the Rebels win?  Does he end up swinging from a lamp post or at the very least in the dock for war crimes.  Either way he loses.

The only thing that will do that and force him to end his attacks is a massive strike against his airforce and main weaponry.

 

Miliband has ensured that Assad remains in power and that the war goes on, killing countless more people, until that victory is assured.

 

Shame the BBC have yet to seriously challenge Miliband on his stance.

 

They know he is on dodgy ground , they asked Cameron if Miliband had behaved ‘dishonourably’, and yet I have heard no building of any momentum on that line of questioning yet.

 

 

 

‘Unarmed civilians being killed….I don’t think we can touch this…UN’s jurisdiction, we can’t intervene…return to base’

If you’ve seen the film ‘Blackhawk Down’ you might think no lessons have been learnt since then…or indeed from Bosnia and the Srebrenica Massacre when Dutch troops had to stand by and watch 8000 Bosnians being murdered….in a UN protected ‘safe area’.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGHRWRsJ8dw

 

 

Mark Mardell: What’s So Special?

By | | , , , , ,
33 Comments

Mark Mardell is having a little freak-out about his beloved Obamessiah’s relentless rush to war (or is it only a rush when Bush does it?), which I’m enjoying immensely. It’s caused him to reveal his ignorance on US politics and scramble to find something that makes sense to him.

UK Syria vote leaves US asking ‘what’s so special?’

That’s Mardell’s concern here: how an intransigent Parliament is hindering the President’s wishes. Forget about the questionable evidence of Assad using chemical weapons, as apparently Susan Rice (who lied to the world about Benghazi, on orders from the President) and John Kerry (who was against intervention before he was for it – or was it the other way round? Depends on who’s President, I think) have presented new evidence about an intercepted phone call from some Syrian officer saying something they did got out of hand. France is all for His Obombing plan, so that will help His cause, according to Mardell.

My guess is that there will be renewed emphasis on the role of the French, the Turks and perhaps others. It will strengthen the hand of those in Congress who argue they should have their own vote.

Yeah, we always look for France’s approval on these things…..

So it’s only an opinion of some Congressmen that they should have a vote on war? I despair of this man’s appalling journalism sometimes, I swear. How many years has he been here now? While the President can order a very limited military strike, any real action requires a vote from Congress. This isn’t some partisan interpretation or something that sprang out of Rush Limbaugh’s fevered imagination. It’s the law. Didn’t we go through this whole charade with Libya? Remember when the President violated the law by doing too much warmongering for too long, after the date passed when Congressional approval was required? Has Mardell forgotten all about that? He sure is aware when Congress has the ability not to grant the President every wish.

Nobody seriously believes that a single round of cruise missiles will be the beginning and end of it. Just like with Libya, military forces will be required to hang around in war-mode for more than 60 days, and any more action than that requires Congressional approval, period. It’s not just politicians’ egos or enemies of the President trying to tear Him down this time, and Mardell would do well to remember that.

Mardell’s expert analysis has been way off on the Syria story. He assured us only last week that the President wasn’t going to rush into anything. What Mardell somehow fails to realize after all these years is that the President is all about Himself and His image, first and foremost. He’s perfectly capable of going to war just to prove a point, to stick a finger in the eye of His detractors. Nobody who’s been seriously paying attention for the last five years would think that this President will just gracefully step back after making such bold statements. The BBC’s US President editor, though, remains convinced that He wants to keep on deliberating and deeply contemplating everything. We saw the same error of judgment in his coverage of Libya.

Also notice how all the discussion is about whether or not the President looks good doing this, and about who’s going to join in. Neither Mardell nor anyone else at the BBC seems to be worried that this might be as illegal as anything George Bush did, even though he had two UN resolutions behind him, while the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate-in-Chief doesn’t need any. He needed only one to engage in regime change in Libya, and I guess even that’s not necessary now. Sure, the President now says He’s not doing regime change this time. But He’s already publicly demanded that Assad step down. Is that a “never mind” now? Mardell doesn’t want you to remember that. In fact, just the other day, he told a little white lie about it, claiming that the President has actually “repeatedly” said that He’s not interested in regime change. Well, maybe He has, but He’s also demanded regime change, so it’s no use pretending that didn’t happen. Can we call it dithering yet?

Since all of His promises seem to have an expiration date, who believes that regime change in Syria isn’t inevitably the goal once the shooting starts? We’re not going to have a repeat of containing Sadaam Hussein for a decade, are we? Who’s Mardell trying to kid here?

Then there’s the whole “poodle” thing.

It may be a different story now that it is clear Britain, so often cast as America’s poodle, won’t take part at all.

So often? How often, really? Back in the heady days of the “rush to war” in Iraq, and the initial invasion of Afghanistan, sure, we heard that a lot. But do people still go around saying that? I don’t recall Britain being called a poodle regarding Libya. And wasn’t it Blair was Bush’s poodle, and not really the way Mardell presents it? What happened to everyone loving this President? Surely nobody would be ashamed to follow Him.

I then laughed out loud when I read this:

It undermines the effort of the president to sell action to his own people, who seem to be deeply unimpressed by his arguments so far (the last opinion poll I saw had just 9% backing intervention).

Only a couple days late on that score, Mark. We all knew about that already. Don’t we always say that if it’s in the WaPo, the Beeboids know about it? Or maybe he just read it on this disgusting website. Skype Emoticons   I hope he’s not going to claim he saw that poll before he wrote that Sec. of State Kerry was “of course right that most people will think as he does” about it being “common sense” that Assad was behind the chemical weapons attack, “simply from watching the TV pictures”. Because that would be embarrassing.

Having said that, NBC has done a more recent poll, with more specific and helpful results.

  • Only 26% think we should take military action against Assad in general, aside from the question of chemical weapons
  • 50% are against military action against Assad for using chemical weapons, with 42% approving. Is that a mandate, I wonder?
  • 50% actually approve of a very limited air strikes using cruise missiles launched from U.S. naval ships that were meant to destroy military units and infrastructure that have been used to carry out chemical attacks. That’s rather hypothetical, assuming that we know exactly who did it and where, which we of course don’t, and probably won’t even after the UN busybodies get there days after it’s all been cleaned up. But at least it’s a token some can wave around as approval of His Obombing plan. If Mardell gets around to reading the NBC poll, he’ll probably see that as a mandate to act without Congress’s approval.
  • 79% think the President should have Congressional approval before taking military action, and 21% don’t. Argh. Some of us are as dopey as Mardell. But at least the vast majority think Congress is more relevant than he does.

Not coincidentally, more people disapprove of how the President is doing his job, 48% – 44%, and more disapprove of how He’s handling foreign policy, 49% – 41%. Probably all due to crypto-racism, right, Mark? They like going to war, they just don’t like going to war under the direction of a black President.

Worst of all, though, is the continued absence of any mention from the BBC’s top man in the US – an experienced, world-class political analyst – of the President’s Nobel Peace Prize. Sure, dithering over whether to act, drawing a silly red line in the sand, boxing Himself into a corner over going to war, and losing a top ally in the process makes the President look less than the God-like creature so many at the BBC seem to worship. But how ridiculous is it that a Nobel Peace Prize laureate is now talking about starting yet another war against yet another country, this time not even “leading from behind”. This President must have the highest body count of any Nobel laureate, with more to come, yet Mardell doesn’t say a word about it. Hack, failure. I admit it’s refreshing to see him not advocating for one of the President’s policies for a change, but his coverage of this issue is pathetic. Like Justin Webb before him, he’ll probably get promoted for it.

Has anyone at the BBC mentioned His Nobel in this context yet? Anywhere? Has even a favored edgy comedian made a joke about it on the radio?

Would You Adams And Eve It?

By | |
40 Comments

 

 

£320,000 per year for a Human Resources director.

No wonder the BBC is 75% repeats.

 

For what was Ms Adams paid so much money, what outstanding values did she bring to the BBC?

Ms Adams was accused of a “dereliction of duty” for her role in authorising the pay-offs, and Conservative MP Stewart Jackson said the practice would be called “corporate fraud and cronyism” in any other organisation.

And….

Michelle Stanistreet, the NUJ’s general secretary, met Lord Hall on Tuesday and outlined serious allegations that BBC human resources staff targeted staff union activists during a bitter dispute about changes to the employee pension scheme in 2010.

The Telegraph has seen a witness statement which claims that BBC HR officials “monitored” the emails of a member of staff who was an NUJ representative during the industrial dispute over the pension changes.

The statement by Byron Myers, a former BBC head of human resources, which forms part of a legal case brought by the union against the corporation over the new pension scheme, also alleges that HR staff used “underhand tactics” to collect information on NUJ activists and “bring cases of disciplinary action for intimidation and bullying as a means of control”.

 

 

Glenn Greenwald is already sharpening his pencils at the Guardian for an exposé.

 

A Toxic Tale Of….Economic Growth?

By | | , , , , , , , , ,
2 Comments

Remember back in February of this year, when the US government was facing an across-the-board 5% budget cut, known colloquially as the “sequester”, because nasty old Republicans wouldn’t bow down to the Presidents spending desires? At the time, the BBC’s US President editor couldn’t have been more cross, calling it a “toxic tale of cruel dismemberment and government by crisis”. Oh, how we were fed doom and gloom. The emotive language, the hand-wringing, the tales of woe just kept coming. Remember, titled BBC editors somehow don’t have to be impartial at all times. They give “expert analysis”, which is opinion when its at home. Is it bias when all the opinions come from the Left?

In any case, the President wasn’t getting His way, and it looked as if the nasty white Republicans wanted to prevent Him from saving us all. BBC went into full White House propaganda mode. As I wrote in that post, the BBC also lied about how the sequester came to be. It was such a bad idea, they felt, that it couldn’t possibly have come from the President. Yet, it had. And so the BBC pretended it wasn’t true. Mark Mardell repeated the falsehood:

Many Republicans say the idea for the “sequester” budget cuts was President Obama’s in the first place. The White House rejects that.

Whoever came up with the idea, the 2011 law meant failure to agree would cut both cherished Democratic programmes that helped the poor and defence spending beloved of Republicans.

We know who came up with it, and so did Mardell when he pretended to be unsure. The President did, because He believed it would be a threat so great that the Republicans would cave. Of course, only a fool would think that the Republican leadership, under pressure from Tea Partiers and other fiscal conservatives, would see cutting government spending as something to be avoided at all costs. So Rep. Boehner didn’t blink, and we got the cuts.

Either Mardell or a sub editor gave his post the headline: ‘Sequester budget cuts: America’s grim fairy tale ‘. It was a very dark day for the country, apparently.

And how’s that “cruel dismemberment” working out now? Here’s how:

US economic growth revised upwards to 2.5%

Now that is cruel….to anyone who believed that the sequester was going to destroy the recovery. What was the actual fairy tale, then: the real story of the budget negotiations, or the BBC’s tale of “cruel dismemberment”?

The US economy grew at an annualised pace of 2.5% in the second quarter of the year, the Commerce Department said in revised figures.

That was more than double the pace recorded in the previous three months, and above estimates of 2.2%.

The rise, helped by an increase in exports, is a further sign that the economy may be getting back on track.

The government had originally estimated that GDP grew at a 1.7% rate in the second quarter.

Others have noticed that maybe the sequester wasn’t the horror show Mardell and the BBC believed it would be. Sure, the usual water-carriers at the WaPo and HuffPo have said it’s been restricting growth, but who here thinks that growth would be rocketing past 5% or something now if there had been no spending cuts? If the sequester was really killing the economy for two quarters, the BBC would be all over it.

And the BBC analysis about how the sequester wasn’t such a catastrophe after all, and that the President was wrong?

What’s funny is that the Beeboids probably see this latest report as a sign that The Obamessiah is saving us, that His Economic Plan For Us is starting to bear fruit, in spite of Republican intransigence and enemies wanting to destroy Him. So bringing the sequester into the picture isn’t going to help that at all, as they sure can’t make a case that we’d be going like gangbusters without it. The BBC links to other articles they’ve run recently trumpeting signs of economic growth and recovery, and no mention of the sequester anywhere. If it was as bad as the BBC’s top experts warned us it was, how can this be?

I think we can safely ignore any BBC expert analysis on the US economy, budget, or politics.

Happy Clappy Anti-Israeli’s On the BBC

By | |
29 Comments

 

 

 

Via BBC Watch and Archbishop Cranmer:

It seems the BBC has been giving a platform to an organisation, greenbelt, that hosts an anti-Israel manifesto, its main motivation seems to be centred around Israel/Palestine.

 

It has a strange notion of what exactly Christianity teaches:

Our history is firmly rooted within a Christian tradition which is world-affirming, politically and culturally engaged…….. inclusive and accepting of all, regardless of ethnicity, gender, sexuality, background or belief.

 

Hmmm…OK…I guess God loves a sinner.….’Archbishop urges Christians to ‘repent’ over ‘wicked’ attitude to homosexuality’

 

As you can see Israel is a major pre-occupation with greenbelt:

This is what Greenbelt attempts to do: to make links with people in situations around the world struggling for justice and peace and to bring them to Greenbelt and give them a stage. We view this as part of our mission.

In addition, in terms of our programming on and highlighting issues around Israel/Palestine, Greenbelt also aligns itself with resolutions of international law, drawn up by the United Nations, that deem:

  • The continued Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories as illegal
  • The separation wall being built since 2002 as illegal
  • The continued building of Israeli settlements in the West Bank as illegal

 

 

 

Read BBC Watch and Cranmer….and you can see just how ‘non-inclusive’ and anti-Israeli this group is.

 

Any surprise that the BBC is giving such a significant boost  to greenbelt’s credentials and therefore to its, unmentioned by the BBC, main political narrative?….and it is essentially a political organisation with tamboreens. 

 

 

And just out of interest that bastion of BBC righton-edness, Richard Curtis, is friends with Jim Wallis, guest on the show, and another prolific anti-Israel campaigner.

Jim lives in Washington DC, with his wife Joy Carroll, one of the first women ordained in the Church of England, and who was advisor, inspiration and role model for Richard Curtis for his comedy series “The Vicar of Dibley”.

 Small world.

Isn’t it great that the BBC is in essence a private club for the likes of Curtis who can take license payers money and use it make programmes that are blatant propaganda for one of his many pet causes…whether poverty, anti-Tory or pro-climate change lobbying.  

 

 

 

Plurality…Apparently It’s Now A Bad Thing

By | |
33 Comments

 

Remember Leveson and all that when so much was made of the dominance of one media giant…..no, not the BBC.

Seems that all that foot stamping and those pious demands for media plurality was just so much hot air.

Apparently Cameron has taken them at their word and gone forth and spread the word, literally, amongst the highest and the lowest in the land.

Cameron has been talking to regional journalists and broadcasters and the Big Boys don’t like it.

Downing Street hogs the remote control: The PM’s use of tame media is annoying the big guns at Sky, ITN and the BBC

 

Of course as the BBC is by far the most dominant of the news providers with the lion’s share of the audience for news it is the BBC that should be losing out…its stranglehold on the national narrative perhaps being loosened…no bad thing if true.

Cameron talking to local concerns is a good ploy, back to the soapbox almost…but he still needs the national media, so the BBC still has a significant role to play no doubt.

 

 

 

Jim Al-Khalili’s Shameful Sellout

By | |
32 Comments

 

Jim Al-Khalili has shamelessly, shamefully, set aside his scientific principles and those of his newfound career in Journalism to bring us half an hour of climate change propaganda….not science at all…just pure, outright hard sell and ‘facts’ that would not look out of place on Press TV.

 In The Life Scientific he interviews (and I say that advisedly as it is more a scripted ‘one-two’) Joanna Haigh who pushes the IPCC’s case and ‘explains how she deals with Deniers.’

Haigh is somewhat of a fanatic and one who refuses to countenance any doubts about her science…..she says she objects to calling people who have reservations about the causes of cliamte change ‘sceptics’…she prefers to label them ‘deniers’ because they apparently deny climate change is happening.

  As far as I can see most ‘Deniers‘ in fact say climate change does occur….it always changes…the question they ask is ‘What causes that change?’.

 

Haigh tells us that the IPCC’s science is reviewed rigorously…the IPCC is not a consensus body of green lobbyists…and consensus is very hard to achieve.

She also tells us that the computer climate models are in fact very accurate and reliable…..input a few equations into a computer and there you go…..the climate predicted for the next one hundred years…’Amazing!’…it gives us faith in the future, allegedly.  Simple really, how could anyone have ever doubted her and her kind.

She tells us that long range forecasts are more accurate than short term….I suppose that’s why the Met. Office stopped publishing its long term ones as they were continuously embarrassed by them.

Of course that is somewhat hard to prove…..a forecast for 100 years from now is more about that ‘faith’ she was spouting earlier than reality.

And of course it is difficult for the Public to know what to believe because of all those ‘Deniers’ blogging away distorting the science.

 

As for the 15 year or so standstill…well you know there are always going to be errors and a range of predictions….and the climate always varies but….the trend is upwards, ever upwards…no really.

 

All the signs are that we must do something radical.

 

Now that the last BBC review into its climate change coverage has been and gone it seems normal service has resumed….not a sceptic, sorry, denier, in sight or sound of a BBC studio as far as I can see.

 

 

 

 

Crooke

By | |
29 Comments

 

The BBC know full well Alastair Crooke’s ‘pedigree’ and who holds the leash for this particular lapdog.

Just a couple of months ago BBC Watch commented on the BBC’s use of Crooke:

If readers are now beginning to suspect that the BBC simply saved itself a phone call to the Syrian Ministry of Propaganda by inviting Alastair Crooke to this programme, they might not be far wrong.

 

It looks though that the BBC just don’t care that Crooke is somewhat compromised as a commentator on events in the Middle East as he pops up again today on  World at One (13:14:30) where we were told merely that he ‘fostered contact between Islamic political groups and the West’

The BBC knowingly led him onto the point they wanted to make….Israel, and Saudi Arabia are ‘providing the intelligence’ about these gas attacks…..and we are to infer…the  intelligence is therefore highly dubious….because of its source.

 

Hmmm…well the ‘fact’ of  the gas attack was not provided by the Israelis to the world…..and the UN are  presently at work on the ground trying to establish what did happen, and by whom.

Crooke went on to tell us it definitely wasn’t the Syrian regime that used chemical weapons…because the Russians said so…oh, and Iran said, 100%, that it wasn’t Assad.

 

I’ll leave the last word to BBC Watch:

Providing Alastair Crooke with the opportunity to spout the spin of a terrorist organization and a murderous dictatorship to millions of listeners unchallenged is obviously bad enough. But when that is done without due disclosure of the political connections of the man and his very dubious organization, then the BBC is displaying wanton disregard for its own obligation to impartiality and once again putting its own political colours – and agenda – in full view.