Oil company Chevron was fined $19 billion by a court in Ecuador last year….based on ‘evidence’ brought by environmentalists.

The BBC did report this in 2012:

Chevron has in the past said the original ruling against the company was a product of “bribery and fraud”.

However things have moved on…..

One of the financiers of an environmental lawsuit that led to a $19 billion verdict against Chevron Corp. in Ecuador told a judge that he came to regret funding the case once after learning that it may be a fraud.

Burford Capital LLC Chief Executive Officer Christopher Bogart told a Manhattan federal judge yesterday that his firm, which he described as the world’s largest dedicated litigation financing provider, supplied $4 million to the Ecuadorean plaintiffs and later sold the share when it became “deeply concerned about the mounting evidence of fraud and misconduct.”

You would have thought that this would have been a big story for the BBC environmental reporters….what is alleged to be a massive con gouging an oil company for $19 billion using methods that are indeed reminiscent of the Mafia.

Apparently not….a week since the story resurfaced…but no signs of it on the BBC…..they know about it because they link to the above report from ‘Bloomberg’ but seem uninterested themselves in disclosing the fraud and criminal actions of their environmental ‘friends’ as AGW alarmist John Ashton might call them.

Of course the BBC’s Harrabin sent out a memo to his fellow reporters ‘guiding’ them on the preferred way to report the court’s findings that Al Gore’s little propaganda film was bunk, downplaying the fact that it was found to be peddling lies….

‘In any future reporting of Gore we should be careful not to suggest that the High Court says Gore was wrong on climate……We might say something like: “Al Gore whose film was judged by the High Court to have used some debatable science” or “Al Gore whose film was judged in the High Court to be controversial in parts”.  The key is to avoid suggesting that the judge disagreed with the main climate change thesis. ‘

And Harrabin confirms he’s not exactly neutral when it comes to climate change…not ‘reporting’ but ‘warning’ of climate change:

I have spent much of the last two decades of my journalistic life warning about the potential dangers of climate change, but when I first watched Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth I felt a flutter of unease.

Harrabin’s not shy, once again, when it comes to tryng to blacken the name of anyone opposed to his campaign to warn us of the dangers of climate change:

The man who brought the complaint, Stuart Dimmock, expressed his delight that this “shockumentary” had been exposed.

Mr Dimmock is a member of the “New Party”, apparently funded by a businessman with a strong dislike of environmentalists and drink-drive laws.

When asked on the BBC’s World Tonight programme who had under-written his court costs, he paused long and loud before saying that “someone on the internet” had offered him support.

Here Harrabin admits the film was political but such an approach was ‘forced’ upon Gore as:

The sceptics knew that they did not need to win the battle of climate facts, they just needed to keep doubt alive.

An Inconvenient Truth is a response to that often cynical campaign, attempting to put climate change beyond doubt and remove ambiguity from presentation of the scientific facts.

The film was made as a polemic, not an educational tool for children. The government would have been on safer ground if it had chosen Sir David Attenborough’s climate change programme which passed the BBC’s own anguished impartiality test.

In the event, ministers seized on the slick, powerful and informative Gore movie as a tool to persuade children, and presumably by extension their parents, to worry about the climate.

And this points to the essentially political nature of the film, and the decision to show it in schools.

So there you have Harrabin making excuses for the lies of Al Gore…..and blaming it all on those awful, ignorant, unscientific Sceptics.

Perhaps that’s why they’re slow out of the traps reporting this:

From the New York Post via Bishop Hill:

Chevron’s landmark lawsuit exposes ‘greenmail’

In a Manhattan courtroom Tuesday, one of the highest-profile environmental campaigns of recent decades is about to be exposed as nothing more than a fraud and extortion racket — “greenmail.”

Chevron is suing lawyer Steven Donziger and a number of activist environmental groups in a civil-racketeering suit, claiming that his landmark $19 billion award against the oil company in an Ecuadorean court was the product of a criminal conspiracy.

Ironically, much of the company’s evidence comes from footage shot for “Crude,” an award-winning pro-Donziger documentary that premiered with much publicity at the Sundance Film Festival.

In an eight-year suit in Ecuador, Donziger and his environmentalist allies argued that the oil company had wantonly polluted the pristine Ecuadorean rainforest, creating vast areas of poisoned land and causing huge spikes in cancer and other diseases.

Chevron got a court order for more than 500 hours of footage from “Crude” that never made it into the documentary.

They show Donziger full of contempt for the country he says he cares about, openly boasting about how corrupt Ecuador’s judicial system is and planning to intimidate the judge because “the only language . . . this judge is going to understand is one of pressure, intimidation and humiliation.”

The filmmaker even recorded the lawyers lamenting that no pollution had spread from the original drilling sites and “right now all the reports are saying . . . nothing has spread anywhere at all” and how this lack of pollution was a serious problem.

But the footage also shows Don­ziger figuring he can brazen it out: “If we take our existing evidence on groundwater contamination, extrapolate based on nothing other than our . . . theory . . . then we can do it. And we can get money for it.”

Chevron will produce evidence that Don­ziger forged the signature of American experts on reports claiming widespread pollution — when these same experts had actually filed reports finding no such thing.

And that Donziger and his associates paid the Ecuadorean court’s “independent” expert more than a quarter of a million dollars so they could ghost-write his findings — the report that recommended the massive damages.

Chevron even promises to show that Donziger offered a judge on the case a $500,000 bribe to swing the judgment.

Chevron is arguing that Don­ziger and his environmental allies are no better than the mafia extorting money out of the company based on threats and fraud.

Here’s an on-time new thread for you all to KEEP detailing the bias!

Victoria Derbyshire had a bit of a melt down today, (around 11:00) but what’s new?,  when interviewing Ian Peters, managing director of British Gas Residential Energy, dropping all pretence of professionalism, preferring instead to harangue him for having the temerity to put prices up.

When he expressed sympathy and understanding for customers she berated him and told him ‘Don’t do it then!’…later claiming that ‘you don’t care a hoot about your customers…how can you say that!’….despite him explaining in detail exactly what his company does to try and reduce bills for the ‘vulnerable’…saying no one has been cut off in the 4 years he has been in charge.

‘Dividends’ are clearly a problem for Derbyshire….an evil capitalist idea that leeches money out of a company to give to the undeserving rich…like perhaps her retired grandmother whose pension company invests in British Gas and the like and provides capital for investment and growth of the company and expects a return on that investment…to pay out pensions?

Finally Derbyshire suggests this might all be a response to ‘the price freeze proposed by the leader of one political party.’

Does she mean Labour?  Why so coy about naming it?

Shelagh Fogarty, a refreshing down to earth change to the shrewish, howling Derbyshire, also tackled the same subject, interviewing Labour’s Caroline Flint.
Unfortunately Fogarty wasn’t well enough briefed to offer more than generalised questions and Flint was able to pump out well rehearsed reams of ‘facts and figures’ which Fogarty couldn’t challenge in any depth.  Having said that she then brought on two experts who comprehensively panned Flint’s claims….so some balance there…but it would be nice to see a BBC presenter with the ability to challenge the likes of Flint themselves.

Fogarty , as usual, also had on Martin Lewis, financial expert, who filled in many gaps that the BBC itself studiously avoids (He also did a comprehensive breakdown in a previous programme of the graduate loan scheme….which again seems a mystery to BBC presenters)…like the fact that Miliband’s price freeze is a con…if you want to freeze your price you can, and not just for 20 months but until 2017…and it will still save you money even with a small premium to pay….also there is no termination fee…so you can leave the plan at any time at no cost….these are some of the fixed tariffs from EDF as an example based on a dual fuel package.

Ed Miliband’s latest big idea, the energy price freeze, based on his claim of a ‘living standards crisis’ gets an easy ride on the BBC despite being roundly slated in most other analyses….but a look back in the BBC archives brings up something interesting from Labour’s recent past when in government….a situation that pretty much exactly mirrors today’s……energy prices going up, dividends going up, and demands for price freezes and profit windfall taxes.

As reported by the BBC in 2008:

The “big six” energy suppliers increased their shareholder dividend payouts by 19% last year, according to new research.
The suppliers paid £1.64bn in dividends in 2007, £257m more than the year before, a study commissioned by the Local Government Association found.
The news comes shortly after Gordon Brown said there would be no one-off fuel payment to help poorer households.
Instead, ministers are likely to focus on new energy-efficiency measures.

The research found that Centrica upped its payout to shareholders to £478m from £409m in 2006 while EDF increased its dividend from £105m to £110m.
Meanwhile, Scottish and Southern Energy’s dividend rose to £474m from £400m and RWE Npower saw a jump from £37m to £250m.
E.ON paid £240m worth of dividends in 2007, after paying nothing in 2006.

The Government has come under increasing pressure from trade unions and Labour backbenchers to help poorer families deal with the rising cost of energy via a one-off tax on the profits of utility companies.

Thus far, Chancellor Alistair Darling has resisted the calls, saying this would make the market less competitive.

But Tony Woodley, joint leader of the two-million strong Unite union, said the government needed to “legislate to cap prices from [those] greedy utilities so that we help the ordinary families in our country”.

What’s notable?

The ‘Big Six’ were around then…so where was the competitive market under Labour?

Gordon Brown said there would be no one-off fuel payment to help poorer households…preferring instead to impose energy efficiency measures.

Alistair Darling says such government interventions would make the market less competitive not more as Miliband claims he wants to do.

Also….a price freeze is proposed by none other than Miliband’s own paymaster and puller of strings, the Unite Union.

And now we have that very policy proposed by Ed Miliband…bought and paid for by the Unite Union.

I guess now they have their puppet in place they are pulling the strings and are deciding what Labour’s policies will be.

What is the point of the BBC and its enormous resources if it doesn’t use them to provide its journalists with the information necessary to tear into the lying, posturing, bullying politicians who set out to deceive the public in order to get and hang on to power whilst trying to avoid taking responsibility for taking a decision and its, more often than not, disastrous outcomes.

I see that the BBC has taken the catastrophic failure of the  Al-Madinah free school in Derby to create the impression that ALL free schools are a disaster unlike the wonderful State controlled sector (well, the part of that which isn’t ON STRIKE today) I heard an interview on Radio 4 just after 5pm which was a full on onslaught into the concept of free schools which managed to avoid the one central fact in the whole matter – namely Al-Madinah’s problem isn’t that it was a FREE school but rather that it is an Islamic school. It’s quite a wonder to match the BBC seize the total dysfunctionality of Islam and twist it into a contrived attack on the Coalition.

I woke up at 6.30am to hear a BBC presenter on the Today programme ponder “Was this the end of the Republican Party”? This related to their cave-in over the raising of the Debt ceiling, allowing Obama to spend another £1trillion or so that the US doesn’t have. Mark Mardell was then invited on so he could ruminate on the “stupid” strategy of the GOP and how hopefully now that Obama has taught them a lesson, they will not repeat the madness of ..erm…seeking to live within Budget. I have to admit how disappointed I am by the GOP’s roll-over but the BBC’s delight at this is quite nauseating, as is it’s WILFUL dismissal of the reason a “debt ceiling” exists in the first place.

The Trussell Trust has launched a political campaign demanding an inquiry into the reasons behind the rising need, allegedly, for food banks.

Just a coincidence that it made its claims just in time for PMQ’s…Ed Miliband even quoting them in one of his questions….it says the figures were released to coincide with World Food Day.

The Trust’s executive chairman is Chris Mould.. a member of the Labour Party.

No doubt he’s happy then that his charity work is advancing the cause as The New Statesman admits:

Food bank figures reinforce Labour’s cost of living offensive

Curiously the New Statesman says this:

Labour has also used the trust’s findings to reaffirm the case for an energy price freeze.

But that was at 08:29…long before Labour could have responded to the press release.

Maybe the New Statesman’s article was written the night before with advance warning.

Not as if Labour hasn’t co-ordinated it’s PMQs with a charity before is it?

The Trust claims:

The Trust said that the problem of hunger in the UK is getting worse.

Rising living costs and stagnant wages are forcing more people to live on a “financial knife edge”, it said.

No mention that disposable income has risen…due to the government’s raising of the tax allowance threshold…something the BBC also doesn’t mention despite its enormous impact on income, whilst always mentioning Miliband’s new line of attack on ‘living standards’.

This might be an uncomfortable fact for Miliband and the BBC:

The foodbank is born

Whilst fundraising for Bulgaria in Salisbury in 2000, Paddy received a call from a desperate mother in Salisbury saying “my children are going to bed hungry tonight – what are YOU going to do about it”. Paddy investigated local indices of deprivation and ‘hidden hunger’ in the UK. The shocking results showed that significant numbers of local people faced short term hunger as a result of a sudden crisis.  Paddy started Salisbury foodbank in his garden shed and garage, providing three days of emergency food to local people in crisis. In 2004 the UK foodbank network was launched teaching churches and communities nationwide how to start their own foodbank.

Apparently Chris Mould does quite well on charity:

Over the last two years (2011-12) Mould and his wife have received over £150,000 in wages, salaries, emoluments, consultancy fees and rent payments from Trussell Trust.

The rent payments go to Mould’s wife who bills the Trust for office space she leases to it in Salisbury.

Mould has also set up a private company, Chris Mould Limited, through which Trussell Trust has paid him more than £30,000 over the last two years, for “management consultancy” services.

A further sum of £1700 was paid last year to “Chris Mould Support”, “for the support of Chris Mould in support of his role as trustee”

Nearly two thirds (over £600,000) of Trussell’s income is currently being spent on staff wages, etc.

Since the Trussell frontline workers are all unpaid volunteers, that sounds like an awful lot of money on the wages bill.

It’s not clear why but Trussell also holds modest investments in the oil and gas industry, including stock in British Petroleum and Shell Oil.

and if you want to join in and help out by setting up a foodbank it’ll hardly cost you a thing:

Financial cost to church
Churches are expected to make a donation (currently £1500) towards Trussell Trust expenses supporting your project and a small annual donation towards the ongoing costs of the network support. Local project costs vary depending on the need to pay staff (P/T) and rent warehouse, cafe area. Estimated annual costs range from £10k to £18k including the donation above.

Non-Financial Requirements for church

• Small office with IT and telephone
• Food-store/warehouse – year 1 size of single garage
• Cafe area – enough for 3 tables with 4 chairs, and small kitchen/coffee making area.
• Initial team of about 12 volunteers, some with particular skills like fundraising, admin, coordination etc
• As a community project we envisage this being provided by partnering with other local churches so Christians are seen to be working together and no one church has to bear the burden.

 Some good advice for BBC journalists in the Middle East:

Paul Conroy: “War journalists must avoid being used as propaganda”

The acclaimed war photographer spoke at the Cheltenham Literature Festival about the changing impact of journalism in conflict.

Journalists have a bigger influence on how war is perceived than in years gone by.

Discussing how journalists and photographers cover wars and the pressures they are under, Conroy, who covered Syria with Sunday Times journalist Marie Colvin, said: “Everything is in the instant now, battles have been influenced by the immediacy of information.”

The acclaimed war photographer, who also covered the Balkan conflicts, said it was now impossible for journalists to switch from being with one side to covering the other side of a conflict. It had been possible in the 1990s, but this was no longer the case.

Because of this journalists had to be wary of how they might be used to put forward a biased or inaccurate picture. “What we realised was that you are open to be used for propaganda. What you have to do is double check and get eye witness accounts.”

It’s not BIAS as such, more an insight into the mindset that prevails at the highest level in  the BBC.

“I deserve my £330,000 BBC salary, say Yentob: Executive defends his pay packet and admits he feels uneasy about salaries paid to top star”

It’s a bit rich, if you’ll pardon the pun, to read Yentob revelling in the ££££ we pay him even as the organisation over which he presides demonises many groups of people earning so much less than £330,000.

Here you go,  a new mid week thread for you.  Sorry I have been a bit absent recently, aim to post more in the time ahead.