From climate sceptic site WUWT:

The deception about global warming was only effective because of the aiding and abetting of the mainstream media.

Those most active in pushing the false information were exposed in the leaked Climatic Research Unit (CRU) emails. They represented very influential media outlets including The Guardian, The New York Times, and the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).

Enjoyed this quote:

“And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that.”

Everybody knows information is power. Control of power through control of information has evolved, like everything else. Those with power needed a conduit for their version of information. In the global warming deception, they found a media willing to be the messenger. Instead of performing their original role of exposing and limiting power, they aided and abetted.

 

Can quite easily see Harrabin and his sidekicks motoring around with tommy guns gunning down the sceptics….he did after all admit a desire to punch Delingpole…or was it Booker?

I was on BBC5 live last evening doing the Paper reviews and this story came up.

A Biased BBC reader brings this example of a BBC programme faking weather for climate change inspired program!

“Top Gear presenter Richard Hammond swapped steering wheels for wet weather gear when filming his latest TV series. The star of Total Wipeout and Richard Hammond’s Blast Lab is hosting a new three part BBC1 series entitled Wild Weather with Richard Hammond – and naturally motored up to Cumbria for an episode on water. But they had to make their own rain when they got here. He and the crew filmed at Honister Slate Mine as they explored the force and effect water has on our weather and our land.”

My aching sides…

Hi folks. Well, last week saw the BBBC server crash (again) and we lost some posts and many comments. Here’s hoping for a smoother December! Here’s the first Open Thread of the week!

The reality of immigration brought to you by Frank Fielding in the Daily Mail…..

We’re adding a migrant city the size of Birmingham every 30 months reveals MP who co-chairs migration group

The reality of mass immigration and an open door policy is that it means an end to the welfare state, no more free NHS, no more state schools, no more anything really funded by the state….after all how do you tax a huge, ever shifting, anonymous population and how do you judge who should receive the benefits?

Can’t say I have ever heard such a conclusion being articulated on the BBC…but here is David Goodhart in 2004 speculating on such a thing….

Too diverse?

Is Britain becoming too diverse to sustain the mutual obligations behind a good society and the welfare state?

The nation state remains irreplaceable as the site for democratic participation and it is hard to imagine how else one can organise welfare states and redistribution except through national tax and public spending. Moreover, since the arrival of immigrant groups from non-liberal or illiberal cultures it has become clear that to remain liberal the state may have to prescribe a clearer hierarchy of values.

Still waiting for that to happen despite all Cameron’s words and promises….however one group seems to get special status in the UK hierarchy…and the BBC has no qualms about this politicial special adviser being elevated to the House of Lords. 

Goodhart did conclude something similar in this BBC programme….

The gulf between conservative Islam and secular liberal Britain is larger than with any comparable large group….for those of us who value an open, liberal society it is time to explain why it is superior to the alternatives.

He told us that…

Some claim that if people understood Islam more everything would be fine, they would be more tolerant, I think quite the contrary….the more they understand about it the more alien they would find it…authoritarian, collectivist, patriarchal, misogynist…..all sorts of things that Britain might have been 100 years ago but isn’t now.

When you import the people you import their values which may be diametrically and dangerously opposed to yours.  How do you deal with that, especially as an open border policy means that a community that gets larger and more insular feels no need to integrate?

Despite the welcome programme with David Goodhart the BBC still dances around the issues refusing to come to a hard conclusion…one that filters through to all its presenters….Goodhart’s programme is probably already on the ‘forgotten pile’ never to be listened to by the BBC journalists when it should be one of the highlights of their journalism college.

The BBC’s coverage of immigration has been extensive recently but it is essentially more of the same old same old as they still favour the pro-immigration side of the debate, debates run by presenters who are all too happy running on auto-pilot and thinking happy, uncritical thoughts about immigration and chatting away pleasantly to them.

Was amused to see the BBC packing the studios with immigrants last week to tell us what they thought of our immigration policy…..naturally they told us that it was essentially a racist policy putting fear into the hearts of immigrants everywhere….oh and they only come to the UK because they love it, its culture and its people so much…nothing to do with benefits and all that.

Hardly an impartial way of exploring the issues.

Was amused though to hear the reply of one Polish girl to Peter Allen’s leading question along the lines of….‘Do the Brits like you?’ (49 mins)

Her reply was interesting…she said she was always welcomed by British people…however when living in London…er..the people were different….but now she lives in Manchester and they are really friendly there.

Hmmm…could she really mean that multicultural London, where the Brits have been ethnically cleansed from, is less friendly than good old racist white Britain?

Have to say that whenever a Beeboid asks such a question almost invariably the answer has been that the immigrant has not suffered any discrimination or abuse.  Which kind of paints a different picture to the one so many race campaigners want you to believe, or more importantly they want the polticians who pull the purse strings that fund their band wagons to believe.

Did enjoy this repeat by the BBC of an interview with a Polish immigrant, who came here in 1996 so not really relevant to the politics of Labour’s open door policy….repeated on the Tuesday before the Rochdale by-election.  Any coincidence in the timing as it told us how wonderful immigrants were?  However it might have backfired as the smug immigrant considered himself rather clever, well educated and sophisticated…more so than those who oppose immigration…a psychological affliction obviously related to their ignorance and narrow-minded prejudices.

Same old same old from the BBC…they just can’t help it.

An interesting quote from a BBC journo to Nick Cohen in response to Cohen’s previous article on the ‘disastrous’ rule of James Harding……Who’s in Charge of BBC News?……

As a loyalist it is hard to publicly criticise an organisation to which I owe so much.

The journo went on…..

There’s also a genuine climate of fear, unlike anything I’ve ever experienced before. People are afraid to speak out. I often criticise editorial decisions and deployments from within and have been warned by friends higher up not to do so.

Cohen wraps up his follow up with this:

It is a backhanded compliment to its honesty that the Right accuses it of liberal bias, the Scottish Nationalists accuse it of pro-union bias and the Left accuses it of pro-Tory bias. All of them are trying to shape BBC coverage because they know that viewers and listeners recognise that – with the well-known exceptions – BBC reporters try to tell the truth as best they can.

This may not sound like much. But in the modern world where PR and propaganda are everywhere on the rise, honest reporting is more necessary and precious than ever.

……the wretched man [Harding] remains in post. If director-general won’t act, then the BBC Trust should, and ask whether it wants to see BBC News remain an essential public service. If it does, as I hope it does, it should then ask whether BBC News can survive with Harding in charge.

Two issues you might have with that final conclusion…firstly that the BBC is ‘trying its best’ and is essentially impartial….well no…even the BBC has admitted it is biased on immigration, Islam and Europe…never mind the Tories, Thatcher, UKIP and climate change….essentially then the major news subjects of our times.

The second issue is blaming Harding for all the travails of the BBC….For a start Tony Hall has similarly packed the BBC with his own cronies, without bothering the HR department too much…..and BBC News has long been in A&E…how could Cohen forget Paxman’s blast at it [Abridged]….?

In this press of events there often isn’t the time to get out and find things out: you rely upon second-hand information – quotes from powerful vested interests, assessments from organisations which do the work we don’t have time for, even, god help us, press releases from public relations agencies. The consequence is that what follows isn’t analysis. It’s simply comment, because analysis takes time, and comment is free.

In news, as much as anywhere else in the industry, the question is no longer ‘what can we do?’ It’s ‘what can we afford?’ Finding things out takes time and money. Easier to stay in the warm fug of what everyone agrees is news. Which is, of course, why we behave as a herd of not-very-clever animals. It’s less risky than thinking for ourselves.

 

What is the defining problem of contemporary television – is trust: can you believe what you see on television, does television treat people fairly, is it healthy for society? There’s a real danger now either that we lose trust. Or that in attempting to regain it we retreat into such a mind-numbing literalism that we neutralise the imaginative capacity of the medium.

Television is now encountering something which politicians have had to live with for years. The weather has changed. We no longer live in a time when trust was axiomatic. The crisis of confidence in television reflects the crisis of trust in politics: the old ‘we know best’ culture – in which producers affected a patrician concern to enlighten the poor dumb creatures who were their viewers won’t wash any longer.

But the most important change, it seems to me, is the philosophy which underpins what we do.

Television and politics are facing the same challenge: how do you connect? Which brings me to the question of news.

Television and politics are facing the same challenge: how do you connect? Which brings me to the question of news.

Let’s be frank. These two trades, politics and media have a great deal in common. Both deal in words and images, both involve a contract with the public based upon fairly explicit promises. And both are trades best practised by people who aren’t over-encumbered with a sense of their own frailty. We are also, of course, both down there with estate agents and car dealers when it comes to public affection and trust. Look at the charts: producers do rank just above paedophiles. Just.

The basic charge sheet against us from Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell is as follows. Firstly, that we behave like a herd. Secondly that we have a trivial and collective judgement. Thirdly, that we prefer sensation to understanding. I’m sorry to say, but I think there’s something in all of these arguments.

The problem is that all news programmes need to make noise. The need’s got worse, the more crowded the market’s become. We clamour for the viewers’ attention: “Don’t switch over. Watch us! You won’t be disappointed!”

The problem is that all news programmes need to make noise. The need’s got worse, the more crowded the market’s become. We clamour for the viewers’ attention: “Don’t switch over. Watch us! You won’t be disappointed!”…the story needs to be kept moving. So it needs to be constantly hyped. Making a lot of noise is one thing we’re all pretty good at.

What’s happened is that we have a dynamic in news now that is less about uncovering things than it is about covering them. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a war in Lebanon or floods in Doncaster, it doesn’t really exist until there’s a reporter there in flak jacket or wellingtons, going live….The need is for constant sensation. The consequence is that reporting now prizes emotion over much else.

And famously he said:

“The big question here is the one of legitimacy. Sometimes, in the middle of the night, I wonder about what I do. It comes in the form of a question. ‘And who, precisely, do you presume to speak for?’ Who ever voted for you? It’s something we’d do well to remember.”

 

Don’t worry…they can’t be racist coz they’re black (h/T Jo Brand)…

Bahamas fends off critics over new migrant rules

On the first day new immigration rules took effect this month in the Bahamas, officers in green fatigues swept through poor sections of the capital filling two yellow school buses with dozens of people who couldn’t document their right to be in the island chain.

The government, amid fierce criticism of the raid, later insisted the timing of the operation was coincidence. Still, the message of the surprise morning raid, in which the officers were accompanied by local media, couldn’t be clearer: The Bahamas aims to become less hospitable to its swelling population of migrants lacking legal status.

“The fact is that illegal migration is a huge problem for us,” Foreign Minister Fred Mitchell said in a recent interview. “We spend enormous resources for it. It is a drain on our social services, health care and education and we need to get the matter under control.”

Government officials say the new restrictions remain popular among Bahamian citizens. “It’s becoming a national security issue for us and for our neighbors and we have to do something about it,” Mitchell said.

 

Nothing on the BBC about this.  Wonder why they’re being so coy at this time.

And where is all the fuss about Cameron saying he will deport immigrants in his latest speech?

We will extend our new policy of ‘deport first, appeal later’ to cover all immigration appeals where a so-called right to family life is invoked.

 

Mark Reckless was hung out to dry for mentioning that word.

Listening to Today we heard that Cameron had run his speech past the European great and the good for their approval…

Angela Merkel forces David Cameron to retreat from EU migrant cap

What was notably missing was a comment that this quite starkly illustrates how membership of the EU takes away all control of the borders and only leaving the EU political structure will succeed in controlling immigration.

Even an immigrant recognises and admits that:

If he [Cameron] wanted to start a real, honest debate he could have said to the British public: look, we cannot bring the number down, that is the reality and there are real benefits for us. But we can, if you want, just get out of the EU, with everything that entails, so let us have that discussion, have that referendum.

Most factories must have closed down yesterday as the immigrant work force were too busy doing interviews with the BBC and the Guardian to turn up.

Hardly an approach that is designed to give us an impartial view of the subject….they are hardly likely to say reduce immigration…as indeed they did not.

Did hear a BBC set up yesterday with several immigrants voicing their opinions of Cameron’s speech..again why is that relevant…Turkeys voting for Christmas?

We heard that they had no thoughts of claiming benefits, they came because they loved Britain…and they’ve never claimed a benefit in their lives…never mind that one had 3 kids, 2 born in the UK and the oldest she brought over from Poland with her…so immediately she would have been a priority on the housing list and been given benefits.

Here is the Guardian doing a similar job:

A migrant’s verdict on immigration plan: ‘there is a war against us’

Cameron’s speech makes the UK feel less open, less safe, less friendly – and he is not the only politician to do so. All the main parties seem to be following Ukip in this debate and it is having dangerous consequences for us as we try to go about our day-to-day lives.

 

That is the BBC’s excuse for not talking about immigration honestly…there will be blood on the streets if we acknowledge there is a problem with immigration…or Islam.

I would have thought it more likely there would be blood on the streets if the majority’s views are continually dismissed and maligned as racists and bigots.  UKIP is in fact the saviour of the BBC’s grand project to preserve civic order and community cohesion as it is giving a voice to that majority long ignored and insulted.

Without UKIP what would happen as the elite continue to preserve their own privileges and entrenched power systems?

As Chomsky said:

The right to lie in the service of power is guarded with considerable vigour and passion.

The BBC has been the handservant of the rich and powerful guarding their privileges and despotism, allowing them to impose policies that run against the interests and wishes of the population.

The BBC is far from independent and does indeed lie in the service of power….as long as that power also aligns with the BBC’s own moral and ethical compass.

The BBC is very concerned…13,000 people are working as slaves in the UK….most will be foreign immigrants but the BBC chose to illustrate its ‘package’ on Today with the plight of an English slave…and didn’t mention who the slavers were…Travellers…yet another favoured ‘minority’ given an easy ride by the BBC.

I’m not sure why the BBC is so concerned, after all they are coming here ‘to work’ aren’t they?  Coming here to work seems to be the phrase of the moment especially in relation to immigrants…they’re ‘coming here to work’ so it doesn’t matter that they work for low pay, for long hours, and undercut the British workers and burden the state.

It’s surely a short leap to then justify slavery or bonded labour on that very same principle…they’re coming here to work and they surely don’t claim tax credits…what’s not to like?

Things have gone pearshaped once again so here’s an emergency open thread….

When you consider how ready the BBC is to plaster the thoughts of Chairman Brand all over the airwaves when he really hasn’t got anything of any originality or coherence to say it is surprising that when the Labour leader and his mansion tax policy is pretty much destroyed by another ‘celebrity’ we don’t hear a thing about it on the BBC….all the more surprising as the mansion tax is one of Miliband’s major policies designed of course to show how he is taking from the rich to give to the poor…might have thought the BBC would show an interest especially as Myleene Klass is said to have done a ‘Paxman’…perhaps she could get a place on Newsnight.

From the Telegraph:

Singer Myleene Klass ‘wipes the floor’ with Ed Miliband over mansion tax

The singer told the Labour leader: “For me, it’s so disturbing – the name in its own right: ‘mansion tax’. Immediately you conjure up an image of these Barbie-esque houses, but in London, which is where 80 per cent of the people who will be paying this tax actually live, have you seen what that amount of money can get you? It’s like a garage.