Hi folks. Been away much of the week so apols for my absence. Anyway, here is a NEW Open Thread for your edification! Enjoy.

The BBC told the Science and Technology Committee that…..’Climate change is “a matter of reporting and journalistic inquiry, and one where our strong reputation for independence is paramount”.’

However…….David Jordan, Director of Editorial Policy and Standards for the BBC, told them that “politicians driving an issue and talking about its importance and policy developments in relation to it will be clearly important to our news agenda”

So politicians are driving the news agenda…regardless of the science?

It does look like that….see the interview with Andrew Miller, Labour MP below.

The BBC always tell us, as indeed it does above, that its independence is paramount.

Just how does the BBC square that with the implication we get from the Science and Technology Committee’s report that the BBC is just the voice of government peddling their climate propaganda….‘politicians driving the news agenda’?

The Committee is clearly tryng to control how the BBC reports on climate change and demands that it makes itself available to push the green message….to adopt  ‘collective responsibility’ for ‘persuading’ the Public to accept climate change is man made and sacrifices have to be made.

The Committee has evidence that the BBC et al can be a vital component in that battle for hearts and minds…and wallets…..

“The media have an enormous impact on behaviour and belief” and forms “the key source of information, especially the BBC, for what people believe on almost any issue you want to name”.  With regards to climate change the most referred to single source of information (58%) was TV news, usually the BBC…..”TV news was the most cited source of information on climate science”.

Shame the BBC says…….

‘Although we do not have specific evidence of climate change itself, the BBC’s audiences expect it to deliver high-quality programming that is informative and educational about science in general and, therefore, about climate change in particular.’  David Jordan the BBC’s Director of Editorial Policy

The report states….

The BBC News teams continue to make mistakes in their coverage of climate science by giving opinions and scientific fact the same weight.

Yes……much of the global warming ‘science’  reported by the BBC is merely pure opinion, dogma or theory based on computer models, self delusion and wishful thinking.

Despite that the BBC has been bombarding us with alarmist climate change messages….in the run up to the IPCC’s latest report they warmed us up with a few alarmist disaster scenarios and then went full tilt when the actual report came out.

Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

Just how good was the BBC’s reporting?  Well Andrew Miller, Labour MP and chair of the Science and Technology Committee, said there was a ‘Fantastic piece by Matt McGrath…world class piece of reporting.’…of course McGrath, the ‘new Black’, force fed us an unadulterated version of the IPCC’s uber alarmism.
Miller was interviewed on the Today programme (08:35)….some highlights of which are below……

Miller tells us that there needs to be a ‘collective responsibility’ to get the message of climate change across to the public…..that is a joint effort by politicians, scientists and the media.

People who are unwilling to accept climate change is real have attitudes which are unhelpful to getting that message out.

Climate change (man made), he tells us, is one of the biggest challenges facing the planet at the present time.

False balance….there is an overwhelming amount of science that supports the climate change case….and the BBC should not provide sceptics with so much airtime and should label them as having vested interests….but he doesn’t require the same disclosure for the so-called ‘experts’.

David Jordan, Director of Editorial Policy and Standards for the BBC,  said  ‘We seek to avoid equal time and status for scientists and non scientists.’

Evan Davis solely talked of sceptics as ‘non-experts’ or ‘non-scientists’.

Miller tries to label sceptics as having an agenda with vested interests…describing them as ‘not disinterested parties and lobbyists who should be labelled as such.‘

Evan Davis asks…How often is the BBC  guilty of providing such a platform to sceptics?

Miller claims ‘It happens consistently in the climate change debate.’

Jordan then states that….’Such interviews  [As with Nigel Lawson] are not typical of the BBC’s coverage of climate change…there is a huge amount of output by the BBC devoted to this subject based on an acceptance that climate change is happening.‘

The trouble is that isn’t what Jordan told the Committee, as they report:

David Jordan, Director of Editorial Policy and Standards for the BBC, was less emphatic on the status of the science, stating that:

The BBC believes that it has an important role to play in explaining climate science, climate change and global warming, if that is what is happening, to its audiences. All our evidence is that, although we do not have specific evidence of climate change itself, the BBC’s audiences expect it to deliver high-quality programming that is informative and educational about science in general and, therefore, about climate change in particular.[81]
Although, later in the evidence session, he seemed less sceptical:
There are now very few people who say that no global warming is happening and it is not the result of man-made activity, but the debate has moved on to the precise ranges and all sorts of other questions

So the BBC, despite having no specific evidence of climate change,  has gone on to produce a ‘huge output….devoted to this subject based on an acceptance that climate change is happening.‘

And what of those ‘sceptics’….just how unqualified are they?

Paxman interviewed James Lovelock last night (23 mins)…he introduced him with these words…..

‘One of the world’s top public intellectuals, a titan of post-war science working outside mainstream scientific institutions coming up with some of the most original ideas of our time.‘

Note that ‘working outside mainstream scientific institutions’…..not of the ‘consensus’ then?  And yet still a ‘Titan of post-war science’!

And what did Lovelock have to say?

James Lovelock: Take this climate matter everybody is thinking about. They all talk, they pass laws, they do things, as if they knew what was happening. I don’t think anybody really knows what’s happening. They just guess. And a whole group of them meet together and encourage each other’s guesses.

And what about vested interests?

Jeremy Paxman: It follows from [what you‘ve said] , does it not, that this panel on climate change which has, as you point out, vested interests involved, may be just as likely or even more likely to make mistakes?

What about Dr Tol so disparaged by Miller?  The Economist thinks he might have a point….

Richard Tol of Sussex University, in Britain, disparagingly appraised the report’s conclusions as “the four horsemen of the apocalypse”. The final version appears to have been fought over paragraph and comma between those (such as Dr Tol) who want to describe dispassionately what they think is happening and those who want to scare the world into taking action.

And what of the latest report?  The Economist notes that it breaks with the previous dogma….

A new way of looking at the climate for both scientists and policymakers. Until now, many of them have thought of the climate as a problem like no other: its severity determined by meteorological factors, such as the interaction between clouds, winds and oceans; not much influenced by “lesser” problems, like rural development; and best dealt with by trying to stop it (by reducing greenhouse-gas emissions). The new report breaks with this approach. It sees the climate as one problem among many, the severity of which is often determined by its interaction with those other problems. And the right policies frequently try to lessen the burden—to adapt to change, rather than attempting to stop it. In that respect, then, this report marks the end of climate exceptionalism and the beginning of realism.

In other words it lines up with what George Bush used to promote (and be derided for by the likes of Justin Webb) and Lawson does now….adaption and acceptance of change.

But Lawson is apparently unacceptable as a commentator on climate change.

Miller and the Green lobby relentlessly try to paint the GWPF and the likes of Nigel Lawson as some kind of extremist anti-science group funded by secretive industrial barons seeking to undermine the saviours of the Planet….but what does the GWPF really think?
The GWPF does not have an official or shared view about the science of global warming – although we are of course aware that this issue is not yet settled. On climate science, our members and supporters cover a broad range of different views, from the IPCC position through agnosticism to outright scepticism. Our main focus is to analyse global warming policies and their economic and other implications. Our aim is to provide the most robust and reliable economic analysis and advice.

And what about anyone else who cares, or dares, to raise a question or two about the ‘science’?

Are they qualified or able to understand the science?

Dr Emily Shuckburgh who published the report titled Climate Science, the Public and the News Media in 2012,[39] believed that there was an appetite for more information and that:

“many non expert members of the public do have a wide ranging and subtle understanding of climate change, are able to grasp new concepts, and are willing to engage in debate”

‘Willing to engage in debate’….but the likes of Miller only want to debate with those who already believe…in other words no debate at all.

Is it that sceptics are ignorant or stupid?

Study: Climate Change Skeptics Know More About Science Than Believers

Despite allegations that they are tantamount to “flat earthers,” a study published Sunday in the Nature Climate Change journal indicates that climate change skeptics actually tend to have a slightly higher level of general scientific knowledge than those who believe in the theory.

From the Nature journal (the Climate change alarmist’s bible):

Seeming public apathy over climate change is often attributed to a deficit in comprehension. The public knows too little science, it is claimed, to understand the evidence or avoid being misled.  We conducted a study to test this account and found no support for it.

Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change.

But of course people like Miller see no contradiction in the fact that he himself feels able to speak ‘expertly’ about climate or that a BBC journalist like McGrath can be ‘fantastic and world class’….purely because he produces what Miller approves of in the way of climate propaganda.

So how qualified is Miller or any politician?

Dr Sarah Wollaston, Conservative MP for Totnes. Interviewed before she was elected,  said: ‘I just don’t think that there are enough people in Westminster who can read a scientific paper.’

Miller is not a scientist, and definitley not a climate change scientist:

He went on to study at the London School of Economics where he was awarded a diploma in industrial relations in 1977. He worked initially as a laboratory technician at the Department of Geology at Portsmouth Polytechnic……In 2010 Miller was confirmed as the first Chair of the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee

And what about McGarth….we know Harrabin is moonlighting from his real expertise as an English graduate…..what are McGrath’s scientific qualifications?…..

Originally from Tipperary in Ireland, Matt edited computer magazines for several years before joining BBC Radio 5 live at its launch in 1994. Following stints as producer and reporter, Matt became the station’s science specialist in 1997.

And the IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri?  A railway engineer.

Lord Stern?.…an economist.

The bumptious Bob Ward?  A geology graduate who works now as a green PR guru for a multi-millionaire businessman who said:

“Our first responsibility is to make money for our clients….and nothing is more important than oil.”   Jeremy Grantham….Bob Ward’s boss and also that of Lord Stern.

I could go on and on…..but if we are to label all those who are interviewed on the BBC I’d be quite happy with that…I somehow doubt the green lobbyists would be quite so happy as they realise their charade and fraudulent posturing is exposed.

But should ‘non-scientists’ be denied a voice….especially when discussing policies designed to combat global warming or actions to adapt to such a scenario?

The Guardian tells us:

We took a strategic decision about five years ago that, looking at the swathe of opinion in the scientific literature and the voices of people like the Royal Society and so on, this was a major scientific issue, with potentially profound societal and economic consequences.

You can see what is at stake…with many a grasping hand being shoved forward for a piece of the pie:

There is far greater emphasis to adapting to the impacts of climate in this new summary. The problem, as ever, is who foots the bill?
“It is not up to IPCC to define that,” said Dr Jose Marengo, a Brazilian government official who attended the talks.
“It provides the scientific basis to say this is the bill, somebody has to pay, and with the scientific grounds it is relatively easier now to go to the climate negotiations in the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) and start making deals about who will pay for adaptation.”

So the IPCC’s ‘science’ is providng the basis for many countries to try and claim massive payouts from those they would like to blame for climate change….and we know who the BBC labels as to blame…..the West….

Climate change poses a huge barrier to a fulfilling future, argues Lord Puttnam, an ambassador for Unicef UK. In this week’s Green Room, he asks what price children will have to pay for three or four carbon-happy generations?

Why the West should put money in the trees

This is politician and ‘climate expert’ Chris Huhne in the Guardian….

The scientific case is strengthening: developed countries are to blame for global warming – and there will soon be a legal reckoning

Would you enjoy the cosiness and warmth of Christmas with your children or grandchildren just that little bit less if you knew that other people’s children were dying because of it? More than four million children under five years old are now at risk of acute malnutrition in the Sahel, an area of the world that is one of the clearest victims of the rich world’s addiction to fossil fuels.

That sort of attitude is why genuine debate about what is causing climate change is so important with far reaching consequences.

Climate is political….the science is irrelevant for many….it is now used to promote a political agenda that aims to undermine the West and reduce it to poverty and decline…..

Mike Hulme, until recently head of the Tyndall Centre at the UEA, gave the game away in his book “Why We DisAgree About Climate Change”:

The idea of climate change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identities and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us.
……
Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs.
…….
We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilize them in support of our projects.
…….
These myths transcend the scientific categories of ‘true’ and ‘false’.

Here are some interesting quotes from Miller and Co’s report:

Science and Technology  Committee – Eighth Report
Communicating climate science

Lack of appropriate training for news editors may be an issue. The importance of their role was explained by David Jordan who told us “editors of individual programmes (whether news or otherwise) are responsible for fact checking their content before it is aired”.  [Lack of training?….all those secret seminars designed by Harrabin to convince BBC editors and programme makers to adopt the green agenda and insert the propaganda into their programmes…all wasted?]
This lack of distinction within BBC News between proven scientific facts and opinions or beliefs is problematic. The BBC editorial guidelines include guidance on accuracy. These were also referred to by David Jordan in evidence to us. However, these state “accuracy is not simply a matter of getting facts right.  If an issue is controversial, relevant opinions as well as facts may need to be considered. When necessary, all the relevant facts and information should also be weighed to get at the truth”.

The BBC News teams continue to make mistakes in their coverage of climate science by giving opinions and scientific fact the same weight. BBC guidelines have stringent requirements for the coverage of politicians and political parties. For example, any proposal to invite politicians to contribute to non-political output must be referred to the Chief Advisor Politics. The BBC could benefit from applying a similarly stringent approach when interviewing non-experts on controversial scientific topics such as climate change.

“If you want to introduce behavioural change in relation to climate change and you want to alter what people do […] you must take the public with you”.

Improving understanding is important to ensuring effective policy implementation.

James Painter…There is agreement that it [the Media] has a “huge role in setting the agenda for what people talk or think about”.[48] He also explained that the media plays a crucial role in public knowledge of science:
In the specific area of science coverage, most people in the UK get their information from the media, so the way the media report and frame climate change is one significant input into public understanding of the topic.

[James Painter…ex BBC….One of the BBC’s main climate change propagandists, James Painter…What it underlines yet again is that BBC staff are up their gills in the political process of disseminating alarmism; the fact that Mr Painter (aided and abetted by the unbiquitous Richard Black) has written this report is proof positive that his main concern, as the Cancun phase of the climate alarmism approaches, is to affect greenie change by propaganda.]

Genuine scepticism should be embraced by the climate science community. Dogma on either side of the debate should be revealed as such.

To achieve the necessary commitment from the public to climate policy, the Government must demonstrate a coherent approach to communicating both the scientific basis and the proposed solutions.

Relying heavily on scientists as the most prominent voice, has a resulted in a vacuum that has allowed inaccurate arguments to flourish with little effective challenge.

We are very disappointed by the heavy reliance that the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph place on the ability of their readers to distinguish between fact and opinion on climate science. This is especially the case because opinion pieces about climate science in these publications are frequently based on factual inaccuracies which go unchallenged.

[Says who?    Richard Black does, former BBC Correspondent, he was critical of the coverage in the Mail on Sunday and the ‘regular inaccuracies’ that appeared:
This is something that TheMail on Sunday clearly does not have a problem with because it has done it many times before. Complaints have been submitted and mistakes pointed out, and the same thing carries on happening. Whether one wants to see that as part of a polarised or increasingly variegated media landscape, or see it in terms of a political game, depends on how one looks at it.]

James Painter told us that despite “lots of evidence that people distinguish between news and opinion” what worried him was the finding in his research that “that there is an awful lot of uncontested sceptical opinion in the opinion pieces and editorials in much of the right-leaning press”.

We acknowledge the difficulty for broadcasters in maintaining coverage of climate change when the basic facts are established and the central story remains the same. We consider it vital, however, that they continue to do so. Our greatest concern is about the BBC given the high level of trust the public has in its coverage. It did not convince us that it had a clear understanding of the information needs of its audience.

 We recommend that the BBC should develop clear editorial guidelines for all commentators and presenters on the facts of climate that should be used to challenge statements, from either side of the climate policy debate, that stray too far from the scientific facts. Public service broadcasters should be held to a higher standard than other broadcasters.

This is not to say that non-scientists should be excluded from the debate, the BBC has the responsibility to reflect all views and opinions in society and it is worth remembering that not all frauds and mistakes in science have been uncovered by scientists. Where time is available for careful consideration and discussion of the facts, it should be possible to explore more detailed consideration of where the science is less certain, such as how feedback mechanisms and climate sensitivity influence the response of the climate to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Scientists, politicians, lobbying groups and other interested parties should be heard on this issue but the BBC should be clear on what role its interviewees have and should be careful not to treat lobbying groups as disinterested experts.
The BBC said….Climate change is “a matter of reporting and journalistic inquiry, and one where our strong reputation for independence is paramount”.

David Jordan, Director of Editorial Policy and Standards for the BBC
told us that “politicians driving an issue and talking about its importance and policy developments in relation to it will be clearly important to our news agenda”.[61] James Randerson, of the Guardian, explained that “from an editor’s point of view, if politicians are talking about it, we report it. It gives us something to report, so if politicians are not talking about it there is one fewer source of stories”.[62] Professor Philo also emphasised the role of politicians in ensuring a subject receives coverage because politicians “are seen as opinion leaders; they are what media specialists […] would call primary definers”.

Submissions to our inquiry commented on a tendency for the media to approach climate science as an argument about two equally valid points of view, rather than discussion about scientific facts, and on the false balance of views being presented as a consequence. Professor Pidgeon questioned whether the “norm of ensuring balanced reporting […] is appropriate where the scientific evidence is so overwhelming”.[68]When questioned about the balance of views in the media, Sir Mark Walport told us that climate change “is not a matter for opinion or belief. It is a matter of fact whether humans are altering the climate or not. There is a correct answer to this question”.

David Kennedy, Chief Executive of the Committee on Climate Change told us “someone needs to take charge of the story” and “we can provide a story, and we aim to do that […] but in terms of cascading and multiplying that narrative there has to be an important role for the Government. There is more that both central and local government can do once there is a story”

We were told that “confusion between the science and the politics bedevils the public dialogue” and that “the profound policy implications of climate change mean that public discussion often constitutes policy debate masquerading as science”. [211]ClimateXChange, the research group that advises the Scottish Government on climate change issues, told us why, in their view, communicating about climate change had become so complicated:
Climate change is a politicised debate involving conflicting interests and challenging societal and individual habits. The discourse on climate change is complicated by difficulties in communication between science, policy, the media and the public. There is space for miscommunication, resistance and politicisation at any stage of the discourse.[212]

New thread. Now fill it up.

The BBC still  seem reluctant to report this:

France’s Muslims drawn to far right anti-immigration party

Elections at the weekend revealed a remarkable phenomenon: Muslims voting with the far right, anti-immigration Front National (FN).

“The main left and right parties have failed them. But for many Muslims, the moves towards legalising gay marriage would be enough by itself to vote for a party like the FN that opposes it too.”

And this definitely is a no no for the BBC….an immigrant’s son compaining about immigrants:

In the north-eastern town of Forbach, where the FN fell short of another dramatic victory, a former miner identified as Ahmed, 53, described his attraction to Ms Le Pen’s politics.

“It might seem bizarre for an Algerian’s son,” he told the daily newspaper Aujourd’hui en France.

“But my vote is a sanction. We give far too many handouts [to foreigners] in France and not enough to the French.”

Farid Smahi, whose father fought with the French army in World War II but later against them as Algeria battled for freedom, told the channel a million people of Arab background voted for Ms Le Pen in the 2012 presidential elections.

Though the BBC is keen to report this ‘phenomenom’ of the election:

The Socialists retained control of Paris, with their candidate Anne Hidalgo due to become the capital’s first female mayor.

“I am the first woman to be mayor of Paris,” she said.

How shocking a woman Mayor….not so shocking though that Muslims vote for the Far Right….and oppose immigration?

Bizarre world of the BBC.

When the bombs went off in London on 7/7 we were told that the real victims were Muslims….not the 52 dead and 700 injured.

Seems the BBC still continues with that mentality.

The Central African Republic has been suffering for nearly a decade with a war started by Muslim militias.

The world and the BBC long ignored this war.  Just as they ignored the 5 million killed in the Congo.

In 2012 the UN said this:

“The world doesn’t seem to notice that the Central African Republic is facing a catastrophic situation,” said Daniel Bekele, Africa director. “Seleka fighters are killing civilians and burning villages to the ground while some villagers are dying in the bush for lack of assistance.”

The Seleka are Muslim militias.

The Guardian reports this in November 2013:

A massacre of the innocents is taking place in the heart of Africa as the world looks the other way.

Militias in the Central African Republic are slitting children’s throats, razing villages and throwing young men to the crocodiles. What needs to happen before the world intervenes?

Fear of the Seleka’s brutality can be seen in ghost villages that line a rutted dirt road running north of Bangui through a vast sprawl of lush green African bush. Mudbrick houses with thatched roofs stand empty beneath the trees, raising the question of where the residents have fled. The answer can be found in Bossangoa, where about 34,000 people have sought refuge at the St Antoine de Padoue Cathedral.

Everyone at the Catholic mission in Bossangoa is Christian.

The latest eruption began in March when the unpopular president, François Bozizé, fled by helicopter with five suitcases after being overthrown by a loose coalition of rebels, bandits and guns for hire known as the Seleka, meaning “alliance” in the local language. One of its leaders, Michel Djotodia, declared himself president — the first Muslim to rule this majority Christian nation of 4.6 million people. What Médecins sans Frontières termed “a crisis on top of a crisis” for the population accelerated considerably in September when Djotodia officially disbanded the Seleka. Many of the rebels refused to disarm and leave the militias as ordered but veered further out of control, killing, looting and burning villages. They also systematically stripped administrative offices down to the light fittings and destroyed public records.

The US estimates that nearly 400,000 people have been displaced – many hiding in the jungle without access to malaria or HIV treatment – and 68,000 have gone to neighbouring countries.

The Seleka are playing judge, jury and executioner without regard even for Djotodia.

Even the BBC knows the truth:

The CAR has been in turmoil since Michel Djotodia ousted Francois Bozize in March and installed himself as the first Muslim leader in the Christian-majority country.

The mainly Muslim Seleka rebel coalition which brought him to power has been accused of atrocities against Christians.

But no dramatic headlines…no ‘34,000 Christians face slaughter’.

This was the best the BBC could come up with:

Central African Republic: French troops expand operations

Unlike the treatment they give Muslims:

CAR conflict: UN warns 19,000 Muslims ‘face slaughter’

or the equally dramatic:

‘I’ll be last Muslim in CAR’

The truth is the original violence starting in 2004 was begun by Muslim militias and the present violence, begun in 2012, was also started by Muslim militias….where they attempted to take control of the whole country…which has a Christian majority.

The Americans have concerns:

We are also deeply alarmed by the prospect of CAR becoming a safe haven for violent extremists.

That’ll be Islamic ‘extremists’.

The BBC has other ideas about where the blame lies:

Despite this recognition of the roots of the violence….

‘This phase of CAR’s troubles began when largely Muslim Seleka rebels stormed through the country last year.

They toppled the government in March and installed their leader as interim president.’

….it seems that when it comes to interpreting what that means we get a completely different picture from the BBC:

‘Across this chaotic nation, many thousands of Muslims are now under siege. Some families have found shelter in mosques or churches. A few are protected by French or African peacekeepers. Most are now desperately looking for ways to escape abroad.

After months of horrific violence, a once well-integrated society has divided sharply along religious lines. The Muslim minority finds itself splintered into an archipelago of isolation and terror.

Despite some heroic efforts at local mediation, the situation appears to be changing fast, and for the worse, with thousands of Muslims now abandoning towns that had been considered relatively safe.

There are simply not enough French or African peacekeepers to patrol this vast country, and almost no credible local institutions in place to intervene. Christian militias continue to operate roadblocks and openly warn of their determination to kill or expel all Muslims.’

So no mention of this…’The US estimates that nearly 400,000 people have been displaced – many hiding in the jungle without access to malaria or HIV treatment – and 68,000 have gone to neighbouring countries.’ as the result of Muslim attacks?

Just the Christians to blame then.

The BBC downplayed or ignored Christians being ‘ethnically cleansed’ by Muslims from the Middle East….even telling us that Christian communities were thriving there…even in Gaza.

The BBC pretty well ignored the conflict in the Congo until last year….but sprang into action when it was suggested that Christians were being massacred around the world by Muslims:

Are there really 100,000 new Christian martyrs every year?

As of course it did when the question of Muslim demographics was raised….trying to deny a high Muslim immigration and birth rate would lead to challenging social and cultural upheavals in Europe.

Somewhat undermined by the BBC’s very own favourite Muslim commentator Mo Ansar:

And for many conflicts such as this one in the Central African Republic the BBC has long tried to downplay the religious aspect to any fighting…preferring to categorise it as ‘tribal’ or a conflict merely about ‘land’…..Nigeria  a case in point.

Until now…when it suddenly becomes ‘religious’, a land racked by Christian violence…much as Buddhists were solely to blame for violence in Burma…..as in the Middle East where Muslims are always the innocent victims…..”This is a new torpedo for the blame game.”…”Every week we hear new reports that this is a Jewish state, there will be a transfer of the Arab population, we will be sent into exile. We ignore them. We are staying steadfast in our land,”

Oh those Jews!  What legendary torture for the Palestinians will they think up next?

Funny how a 60 year war by Muslims against the Jews is considered a fair and reasonable response whilst Christians battling Muslim militias trying to conquer their land are ‘ethnically cleansing the land and slaughtering thousands’.

The Jews were legitimately granted the land of Israel by the international community whilst that can’t be said of the Muslim militias in CAR who are attempting to conquer and colonise the land and impose their religion on the Christians, as in Nigeria.

Who, in those circumstances has more right to defend their land?  And yet it is the Christians who are vilified by the BBC not the Palestinians.

Muslims pick a fight, and when they get their backsides kicked, the BBC rushes to defend them and report on their ‘victimisation’.

Perhaps, if as in this country, they didn’t go around killing non-Muslisms, beheading unarmed soldiers in the street, trying to force their religion upon everyone, they might not get so much ‘islamophobic’ attention.

Liked this, the BBC’s latest ‘special interest’:

Freedom eh?  The BBC’s taking a great interest in ‘Freedom’.

‘What freedom looks like to you’ it reveals.

Wonder what it looks like in Saudi Arabia?

Saudi Arabia declares atheists terrorists under new laws targeting citizens who ‘call for secular thought in any form’

Saudi Arabia has officially identified atheists as terrorists in sweeping new laws that threaten up to 20 years in prison for almost any criticism of the government or Islam.

The BBC hasn’t caught up with this story yet….sure it will.

Or maybe not…

Funny…they are always so keen to report ‘hooman rights abuses’ when Human Rights Watch makes a complaint…..if the abuse is done by the US or UK….but not in this case.

Maybe Mark Mardell will corner Obama and demand answers:

Dispatches: Obama Refuses to Talk Human Rights in Saudi Arabia

Following Obama’s meeting with Saudi King Abdullah on Friday, reporters asked a senior administrative official whether Obama had raised human rights issues. The official replied, “The focus of the meeting was strategic and regional topics.” When pressed for a yes or no, the official said, “no.”

The BBC does take the time for this little bit of fun from Saudi though:

#BBCtrending: The story behind Saudi Arabia’s ‘first kiss’

Here’s the original….74,000,000 viewers can’t be wrong.

“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way.
Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. Allahu akbar!”

The Muslim Brotherhood….loveable rogues….or as Jeremy Bowen declared them:

“conservative, moderate and non-violent”.

Later updated, corrected, to this:

Though you might argue with the ‘non-violent’ bit as well……Hamas being a Muslim Brotherhood group.

And never mind this…..

The Muslim Brotherhood’s goal, as stated by Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna was to reclaim Islam’s manifest destiny, an empire, stretching from Spain to Indonesia…..

Muslim Brotherhood goal: Islamic world domination  – “…the Islamic Ummah [nation]… can regain its power, be liberated and assume its rightful position which was intended by Allah, as the most exalted nation among men, as the teachers of humanity…”
– “…know your status, so that you firmly believe that you are the masters of the world, even if your enemies desire your degradation…”

– “It should be known that Jihad and preparation for Jihad are not only for the purpose of fending-off assaults and attacks against Muslims by Allah’s enemies, but are also for the purpose of realizing the great task of establishing an Islamic state, strengthening the religion and spreading it around the world…”  [So not ‘defensive’ in the way you might interpret the word ‘defensive’…more along the lines of ‘pre-emptive attack is the best form of defence’]

– “…Jihad for Allah is not limited to the specific region of the Islamic countries. The Muslim homeland is one and is not divided. The banner of Jihad has already been raised in some of its parts, and it shall continue to be raised, with the help of Allah, until every inch of the land of Islam will be liberated, the State of Islam will be established…”

Means: Jihad – a mandatory religious duty. “This is followed by the power of arms and weapons… This is the role of Jihad.”

“You should be prepared to answer the call of Jihad whenever you are called, in any region of the Islamic world. Our Islam is universal not regional, and all Islamic countries are one homeland. Go out to battle, oh believers, young and old, by foot or on horseback, under all circumstances and conditions”

So non-violent?…..‘Go out to battle, oh believers…..‘

Sounds fairly unviolent…depends on the context I suppose!

Why is that of interest?

The BBC reports:

David Cameron orders review of Muslim Brotherhood

Prime Minister David Cameron has commissioned a review of the Muslim Brotherhood’s UK activity, No 10 says.

The Muslim Brotherhood is an Islamist movement which has been declared a terrorist group by Egypt’s government.

Number 10 said the review would examine the group’s philosophy and activities, and the government’s policy towards it.

The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said that the “main conclusions” of the review, which is due to be completed by the summer, would be made public.

The BBC still reports this:

‘Says it rejects use of violence and supports democratic principles’

and this:

Whitehall officials have suspected for some time that a small number of people belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood here in the UK also have links to violent extremism.

But these are believed to be individual cases rather than part of a collective policy.

Ahhh….so once again we’re being told the Muslim Brotherhood is really an organisation ‘of peace and tolerance’…and it’s just a small group, no doubt perverting the Muslim Bortherhood’s true beliefs.

Perhaps Frank Gardner, security expert, should read up a bit more on the Muslim Brotherhood and their beliefs and aims.

The BBC tells us that this is its most famous slogan:

“Islam is the solution.”

I might suggest that this is the more famous, or infamous one…curious the BBC doesn’t quote such a well known ‘slogan’:

“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way.
Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. Allahu akbar!”

I look forward with interest to the government’s conclusions…though as ‘ No 10 has not provided any details on which bodies are to be involved in the review’ it is difficult to judge just how genuine the appraisal will be….certain groups will no doubt try to influence the outcome in favour of the Muslim Brotherhood and downplay their dangerous beliefs and activities.

And let’s not forget there are many that are happy to ignore such things if it gets them a vote or two…… the SNP were desperate to get Osama Saeed, a Muslim Association of Britain member (part of the Muslim brotherhood), as one of its MPs.

Talk about selling their soul for the ethnic vote.

Scottish National Party to endorse Islamist candidate

Later today, Friday 17 April [2009], Osama Saeed will be endorsed by the Scottish National Party (SNP) as their prospective parliamentary candidate for Glasgow Central by Alex Salmond and Angus Robertson MP at a rally at the SNP’s spring conference in Glasgow. If elected to Westminster, Saeed, a former spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britain (a front-group for the Muslim Brotherhood, the world’s largest Islamist movement), will be the UK’s first ever openly Islamist MP.

His world vision:

The return of the caliphate

“It is our view that the Labour government has masterminded the unnecessary imposition of competition, backdoor privatisation and the undermining of all postal services.”    said the CWU….a union affiliated to Labour!

The National Audit Office has released its report into the partial privatisation of Royal Mail.

The Privatisation of Royal Mail

The Department was successful in floating Royal Mail. But its approach was marked by deep caution, the price of which was borne by the taxpayer.

The BBC has given this headline status and has been giving the lions share of coverage to the critics, Labour in particular….we do get defenders of the share price but they do not balance the critics.

That aside there is one glaring hole in the BBC’s coverage gives Labour plenty of airtime to say things like this:

The government “botched” the privatisation of Royal Mail, short-changing taxpayers by hundreds of millions of pounds, by selling shares too cheaply, Labour has said.

….and yet, once again, as with mine closures, and the economic crash, the BBC conveniently forgets the history and context behind events…when they are uncomfortable and embarrassing  for Labour….or so it seems.

Chuka Umunna was given free rein by Sheila Fogarty (13:09ish) claiming that ‘Labour would never have privatised Royal Mail……it doesn’t make sense…the government has privatised the profits and nationalised the debts’

He went on….‘The taxpayers have been disgracefully shortchanged and are owed an apology…ultimately the person who is responsible is the Prime Minister and he should apologise.’

[Well…when we get an apology from Gordon Brown for his ‘ultimate responsibility’ for the economic apocalypse he left us with perhaps Cameron might consider one.]

However….‘Labour would never have privatised Royal Mail?‘…em… they had every intention of doing so.

Not only that but their imposition of a disastrously strict regulatory regime brought Royal Mail to its knees….from a profit making, pension paying success, it became an economic disaster zone having to go to government with a begging bowl.

And there’s always room for Labor’s Margaret Hodge to add her ‘independent’ assessment on the BBC:

Margaret Hodge, chair of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), said the sharp rise in Royal Mail’s share price since the sale showed “the department had no clue what it was doing.”

What about that glaring hole in the BBC’s coverage though?

Labour now says that Royal Mail was sold off too cheaply…..the Public are shortchanged and Cameron must apologise.

Would that be the same Labour party that had already, in effect, privatised the Royal Mail for free, giving its most valuable assets to its private competitors at prices, enforced by Labour’s Regulator, that meant Royal Mail made huge losses as it was forced to deliver competitor’s mail at below cost.

What did the bosses at Royal Mail think?

“regulation gone mad”…the new price regime would “choke the company” and the universal one-price service.

What did the postal worker’s union, the CWU, think?

“It is our view that the Labour government has masterminded the unnecessary imposition of competition, backdoor privatisation and the undermining of all postal services.”

You might think that was relevant to the debate today….but not a single mention on the BBC today of this rather embarrassing history for Labour.

Or that Labour ‘masterminded’ putting 60,000 postmen and women on the jobs scrapheap…..

Modernisation – Royal Mail is needs massive upgrading and staff cutting

It’s already happening under public ownership. Over 60,000 jobs have been lost from Royal Mail in the last five-six years with more disappearing as machinery and delivery revisions are brought in.

Labour had already privatised Royal Mail…it allowed private companies to asset strip and cherry pick the best bits of Royal Mail’s business for peanuts….putting it and the universal service in jeopardy and destroying a once solvent pension fund…now a very hefty charge on the public purse.

And Labour claims the sale was rushed to get in ahead of industrial action…so that would be strike action by the CWU union, affiliated to Labour, which forced the ‘premature’ sale of shares at a low price…costing the tax payer, god bless ’em, millions?  Hmmm..dodgy argument there I might have thought.

So who is responsible for ‘giving away’ Royal Mail and ‘nationalising the debts’?

First and foremost it’s the Labour Party in reality.

Just a shame the BBC isn’t doing its job properly and challenging their own narrative rather than allowing them to grandstand as the defenders of the Public Finances….LOL!

For a more balanced and indepth look try this site for a view on the privatisation:

Taking Stock…Royal Mail’s IPO in HIndsight

It’s always a bad idea to compare ‘independent’ sites with the BBC…they are all too often far better at providing indepth information and analysis….you realise just how bad the BBC can be despite the massive resources.

Hi folks! The PAYPAL button is now live and awaiting your generosity. We  appreciate every £ you can find as we seek to pay for our hosting independence! Thank you.

The BBC…‘too white, too male, too leftwing’….said Labour’s James Purnell in an interview with The Times (Paywalled)

Well….I may have exaggerated…I leave it to you to filter out the unlikely words though a clue might be this statement from him:

‘Sometimes we are at our most politically successful when we are least inclined to give people what they want.’

Sorry…another typo…not the BBC is most ‘politically successful’ but most ‘commercially successful’….an understandable, easy mistake to make….though Parnell makes absolutely clear….

‘What I love about the BBC is being impartial.  Politics was a great interlude but now I’m back where I belong.’………and of course the staunch Labourite has given all that dirty politicking up now!

He does make an interesting remark about the Charter renewal…..the BBC has a campaign to influence politicians…well we knew that, having seen their massed mobilisation to try and prevent decriminalisation of the licence fee dodgers.

Purnell says about the in-joke comedy W1A:

‘It’s funny.  I love the fact that the BBC, as its first salvo in the charter review, decides to put on a programme about how ridiculous it is.’

The BBC uses its programming to slip in political and social messages all the time so it’s no surprise to see them using the licence fee to pump out propaganda to allow them to keep raking in the licence fee and spending it on their pet  projects…..giving us what we don’t want but the BBC feels we need.

Purnell doesn’t seem keen to use subscription funding…or maybe is just unaware of the technology….you can bet he has Sky at home though.

‘We need a system that allows people to pay easily for something you can’t stop them consuming.  There needs to be some kind of deterrent.’

You mean like cutting them off from the service as Sky can do?  Easy, no?

Purnell proclaims that the BBC is worth it…40p a day for all you can consume…we must keep the licence fee!

But that surely isn’t the BBC’s job….to campaign for the licence fee…..the job of management is to provide the programmes within the funding framework set up by Parliament…the BBC could advise what they believe would happen under different funding scenarios but to campaign for a particular one is definitely beyond its remit.

It must be no coincidence that the BBC has re-employed their once head of corporate planning and then a senior Labour politician, ‘coolly ambitious and ruthlessly well-connected’,  as its ‘doorkicker’ in the charter renewal negotiations:

His role “brings together communications, future media, marketing, policy, research and development and strategy”…his aim…‘to discover, define and deliver the future of the BBC.’

In other words he’s there to keep the money rolling in and the BBC the dominant media provider using his bulging contacts book.

On competition with other broadcasters and print media he claims, as usual, that the BBC improves other sources by forcing them to raise their game…without the BBC we wouldn’t have such quality programming or news.

He claims the USA is a prime example of that with no equivalent of the BBC there (em…PBS?.…’PBS is the most prominent provider of television programs to public television stations in the United States, distributing series such as Sesame Street, PBS NewsHour, Masterpiece, Frontline and Antiques Roadshow. Since the mid-2000s, Roper polls commissioned by PBS have consistently placed the service as America’s most-trusted national institution.)…and presumably no quality television or films or news journalism because there’s no BBC….despite many programmes on PBS coming from the very inspirational BBC…..and all available on T’internet.

He says:

‘I start from what is right for audiences, our polity and the national conversation.  I think people having a choice between different types of voices is a really good thing.  We want competition and choice.’

No…you don’t James.  There was no national conversation via the BBC about Europe, climate change, immigration, Islam or Labour’s part in smashing the economy…..maybe I was right…‘Sometimes we are at our most politically successful when we are least inclined to give people what they want.’

And competition?…. The BBC tries hard to kill off all competition….just look at how it actively campaigned against Murdoch, and still rails against News Corp newspapers…and the Daily Mail….and presses hard to limit Press freedom whilst having Labour politicians protecting the BBC’s own position of dominance.

The important reality is that these aren’t competitors in a commercial sense, or that is not the main reason or the BBC’s assaults on them….the real reason is political…the BBC is leftwing, despite Owen Jones’ fantasy wet dream, and believes it represents a world view that is the correct one…and far from welcoming ‘diversity’ it aims to enforce its own belief system upon the world, without discussion….as with climate change.

News International and papers like the Mail or the Express are targeted by the BBC because they have a more right of centre approach…a more populist approach…they reflect what the Public thinks in the main…and the BBC spends its time trying to re-educate the Public to accept its world view and believes these competing news and media sources are undermining its message….hence they have to go or at least be reined in, controlled.

Diversity?   Competition? A national conversation?

Not so far.