Nothing by the BBC about the founder of Greenpeace coming over to the dark side:
There is no scientific proof of man-made global warming and a hotter earth would be ‘beneficial for humans and the majority of other species’, according to a founding member of environmental campaign group Greenpeace.
The assertion was made by Canadian ecologist Patrick Moore, a member of Greenpeace from 1971 to 1986, to U.S lawmakers on Tuesday.
He told The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee: ‘There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.’
Hmmm….all a bit inconvenient…especially for politicians arguing about it in PMQ’s and telling us CO2 is the most dangerous substance on Earth essentially….and all with nobody to challenge and disabuse them as the BBC fails miserably to do its job properly.
However the BBC is happy to report that the ‘slow down’, as they term it, in global warming has a cause….that must be what…cause number 341?
…and it’s not global cooling……
New research suggests a strong link between the powerful smell of pine trees and climate change.
Scientists say they’ve found a mechanism by which these scented vapours turn into aerosols above boreal forests.
These particles promote cooling by reflecting sunlight back into space and helping clouds to form.
The authors believe that this is playing a significant role in reducing the impact of rising temperatures. They argue that this effect is likely to strengthen in the future.
Oh……so global warming will actually be producing global cooling?
From Nick Davies in the Guardian in 1998:
The sexual abuse of children is a special crime, not simply because of the damage it does to its victims, nor even because of the anger and fear it provokes in communities, but more particularly because it is so easy – easy to commit, easy to get away with.
We have seen the results of cover-up and concealment, occasionally of corruption, of whistleblowers who are punished for trying to expose the truth, of local authorities, churches and other organisations who have closed ranks to deny or conceal allegations against their staff.
Of course it’s especially easy to get away with when people in positions of power or influence turn a blind eye to what is happening.
‘Speaking to the Radio 4 Today Programme O’Carroll said: ‘At the time Harman and Hewitt couldn’t just kick us out, or they could but they didn’t try. The reason was their careers in the NCCL depended upon them not rocking the boat too much.’ ‘
And it still goes on.
‘Is the BBC biased”s Craig, notes that Newsnight has again done a decent job:
Perhaps a stint at ITV might be good for a few more BBC journo’s and might make them remember why they entered the job n the first place.
However, Newsnight apart, the BBC wanted to ignore this story and sweep it under the carpet. Even now as they ‘report’ it they downplay the story itself and concentrate on the politics or try to spread the ‘blame’.
“There’s an argument that the Daily Mail has got an agenda against certain senior figures in the Labour Party.”
Pienaar tells us that this story has plenty of mileage left in it especially for the Daily Mail which will keep digging away….‘objectively [?], this accounts for the deep hostility towards the paper from Harman’.
Really? I thought it was because they’d dragged up something that was extremely uncomfortable for her from her past that she didn’t want to deal with.
Sheila Fogarty feeds Pienaar a question….
‘Is this fight between the Daily Mail and Harriet Harman following a pattern such as when a paper tries to draw in an MP or politician?’
So dealing with the politics and not the substance of the issue.
Pienaar says….‘Not in this unpleasant form…..’
So now we know what he thinks…the Daily Mail raising the question is ‘unpleasant’….never mind the truth then.
Pienaar reduces it to a matter of a ‘feud and vendetta’ by the Daily Mail against Harman…..we must remember, he tells us, that it is important that the story is put against the background of not what Harriet Harman did but what she didn’t do…it’s crucial to reiterate that there’s no accusation that she acted in any way to support the paedophiles.…..the damage to her is by connecting the word paedophiles to her name in the same sentence…that’s what caused the outrage from Harriet Harman’.
So Harman didn’t work for an organisation that had close ties to PIE and she didn’t push for photos of naked children to be considered legal as long as the children weren’t ‘harmed’?
Pienaar goes on….‘The damage has been done and the war will continue but as far as this is concerned that context needs to be clear.’
So context is all…once again never mind the truth…or the actual context.
Pienaar portrays this as solely a political feud between a right wing paper and the Labour Party….downplaying the actual story itself.
But is it just a story cooked up by a right wing press to embarrass Labour?
Curious no mention of this from Labour’s Tom Watson only last year:
After 30 years without an answer it’s time to find out who protected the infamous Paedophile Information Exchange
It was established in 1974 to campaign for the age of consent to be lowered to four years old
Did previous Tory and Labour governments fund the infamous Paedophile Information Exchange?
Or this from the Daily Mirror recently:
Everyone in the country is talking about perverts except people who have reasonable questions to answer about perverts
Deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman and her MP husband Jack Dromey waited three days until the scandal reached boiling point and then accused the newspaper which started it of being more pervy than they are and running a political smear campaign.
The Daily Mail is pretty pervy, but it’s not political for the simple reason that a Tory politician with the same provable, documented links to PIE would be front page too.
You can’t blame it on one newspaper because pretty much everyone’s done it, except the BBC which was conspicuous in its absence from reporting the allegations.
It’s undeniably a story.
And was the NCCL so innocent? Apparently not….Patricia Hewitt has surfaced and done Harman up like a kipper:
Did she have anything to apologise for? And did the NCCL sideline the ‘appalling PIE’ as claimed by Harman?
It seems not…….
From the Daily Mail in 1983:
And even the Guardian digs for more dirt:
Evidence continues to emerge of links between NCCL and PIE after denials by Harman and Dromey
Archive documents appear to show how the paedophile group managed to influence policy at the civil liberties group despite being run by people who believed in their right to have sex with young children.
The Daily Mail reports that in 1979, one year after Harman joined, the NCCL advertised in a PIE publication for new members…..so obviously readers of that publication were welcome…and they were obviously paedophiles if they were reading such stuff…..
Harman’s pressure group advertised for members in magazine for paedophiles: New evidence links NCCL to PIE while Harriet was legal chief
The BBC does come up with this…which proves once more that Harman’s claim that PIE was loathed and sidelined is bunk…as is Pienaar’s claim that it’s merely a trumped up political charge by the Mail:
The NCCL continued to defend having PIE as a member. As late as September 1983, an NCCL officer was quoted in the Daily Mail saying the group was campaigning to lower the age of consent to 14. “An offiliate [sic] group like the Paedophile Information Exchange would agree with our policy. That does not mean it’s a mutual thing and we have to agree with theirs.”
From the Mirror in 1977…sex is not for children…so the general atmosphere of the ‘times’ was not of acceptance of the likes of PIE:
The BBC is also digging…but you could interpret their effort as an attempt to tar a few others with the same brush and therefore limit the ‘damage’ that might accrue for Harman and Co:
The Paedophile Information Exchange was affiliated to the National Council for Civil Liberties – now Liberty – in the late 1970s and early 1980s. But how did pro-paedophile campaigners operate so openly?
It’s part of the story of how paedophiles tried to go mainstream in the 1970s. The group behind the attempt – the Paedophile Information Exchange – is back in the news because of a series of stories run by the Daily Mail about Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman.
PIE was formed in 1974. It campaigned for “children’s sexuality”. It wanted the government to axe or lower the age of consent. It offered support to adults “in legal difficulties concerning sexual acts with consenting ‘under age’ partners”. The real aim was to normalise sex with children.
It’s an ideology that seems chilling now. But PIE managed to gain support from some professional bodies and progressive groups. It received invitations from student unions, won sympathetic media coverage and found academics willing to push its message.
Peter Hain, then president of the Young Liberals, described paedophilia as “a wholly undesirable abnormality”
Reading the newspapers of the time there is a palpable anxiety that PIE was succeeding. ….A Guardian article in 1977 noted with dismay how the group was growing.
[Polly] Toynbee talked of her “disgust, aversion and anger” at the group.
Some, such as philosopher Roger Scruton, felt that freedom of speech had to be sacrificed when it came to groups like PIE. In a Times piece in September 1983 he wrote: “Paedophiles must be prevented from ‘coming out’.
Astonishing how many ‘lefties’ the BBC can squeeze in to one story and who all ‘opposed’ PIE fanatically….The Guardian, Hain, Toynbee and the BBC’s own Roger Scruton.
And then we have this highlighted by the BBC…..
If there was anything with the word ‘liberation’ in the name you were automatically in favour of it if you were young and cool in the 1970s. It seemed like PIE had slipped through the net” Matthew Parris, columnist
All just a mistake then….caught up in the excitement of the trendy 60’s and 70’s vibe.
Nothing to see here….child rape, child molestation…well you know…that’s progress for you…..
And there are many more questions to be asked….did a Labour government fund PIE?:
Or who is this?:
And who is this BBC presenter?:
The charity was set up by a PIE member in the 80s, offering yachting classes to vulnerable and underprivileged children.
The BBC presenter was investigated after police became aware of allegations he was abusing boys during sailing trips.
No charges were ever brought against the star for reasons that remain unclear.
A child protection source said yesterday: “The presenter was going out on a boat with vulnerable children and a leading former member of PIE.
“The charity was being used as a way of taking indecent pictures of the boys and there was also physical abuse occurring.”
No such answers from this something and nothing from the BBC:
The BBC deftly avoids going into any details about the claims made about the NCCL’s connections to PIE….
What does the Daily Mail say?
The newspaper has repeatedly questioned the reasons for the link being established and the role of Harriet Harman, Jack Dromey and Patricia Hewitt in the relationship between the two organisations.
It claims that Ms Harman tried to “water down” child pornography legislation when offering the National Council for Civil Liberties’ views on the Protection of Children Bill in 1978.
All clear then?…you now know exactly what the ‘Harman-Mail’ row is all about?….and that is it from the world’s finest news broadcaster.
When the Leftwing Guardian and Mirror, and even a Labour MP, are asking questions and demanding answers, the BBC is left standing in the wings looking foolishly partisan in its attempt to ignore and now cover up and downplay the story.
As the Labour supporting blog ‘Labour Uncut’ says:
Just because its in the Mail doesn’t make it wrong. Harman, Hewitt and Dromey need to provide some answers
Of course to get the answers you need to ask the questions in the first place…take note BBC [Laura Kuennsberg aside].
I am sure Harriet Harman would not want to be affiliated with this thread! The floor is yours….
The BBC’s adopted son, Moazzam Begg, has been arrested by anti-terrorist police:
Can we expect the BBC to bring out Jimmy Savile’s old caravan and park it in the car park again as they must have done the last time Begg was incarcerated and his father became a constant fixture on the airwaves demanding his innocent son’s release.
Of course being arrested doesn’t mean you are guilty…let’s face it Begg admitted he attended a terrorist training camp before his stay at Guantanamo..and yet the BBC campaigned for his release loudly and often.
Whilst in the training camp in Afghanistan Begg said he “… met men who seemed to me exemplary in their faith and self-sacrifice, and seen a world that awed and inspired me.”
Guantánamo files leaked in 2011 reveal that the Department of Defense had secretly concluded that Begg was a “confirmed member of al-Qaida,” and that he had been an instructor at the Derunta training camp, as well as having attended the al-Badr and Harakat aI-Ansar training camps
Good old BBC…always ready to promote those who would do us harm…..
Lawyers for the British Guantanamo Bay detainee Moazzam Begg say they have received the first uncensored letter from him in two-and-a-half years.
Mr Begg, 36, is being detained at the US military base without trial. Three other Britons also remain there.
The letter, seen by BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, claimed he had been tortured, threatened with death and kept in solitary confinement.
The BBC, ever ready to attack the intelligence services whilst ignoring terror:
The case of Binyam Mohamed is the clearest example yet of the dark and dangerous moral terrain that British intelligence walked after 9/11, not least in its relationship to its closest ally.
British intelligence was never involved in directly torturing Mr Mohamed nor were they in the room when he was, but they were involved in a wider process that has led to serious allegations being levelled.
The BBC long ignored the Daily Mail’s revelations about Harman and Co at the NCCL. The BBC didn’t investigate the claims and only began to ‘report’ the story when Harman made her defence.
The BBC on the other hand has been quick to report a story in the Times about Tory MP Peter Bone.
Curious what catches their eye.
Having said that Newsnight did put the boot into Harman……
Harman tells us that…..
“I think if there is anybody who has over the years supported indecency it is much more the Daily Mail than it is me and that’s the frank truth of it.”
Of course it was the Daily Mail that introduced 24 hour drinking, or a free for all gambling regime where gambling machines were as addictive as ‘crack’, or engineered the destruction of the economy or put young Brits on the ‘scrapheap’ preferring instead to import millions of cheap labourers.
Sorry no, my mistake…it was in fact Harriet Harman’s very own Labour Party that did that.
Unfortunately for Harman it’s not just the Mail that recognises she may have something to answer for…here’s the Telegraph in 2012:
How Hattie’s friends defended paedophilia
‘….attitudes towards paedophilia in the 1970s were bizarrely relaxed – and not just in Catholic presbyteries or BBC dressing rooms. This was the era when activists on the radical Left lobbied long and hard for changes in the law to reflect a more “enlightened” attitude towards sex between adults and minors.’
The National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL), which – in its evidence to the Criminal Law Revision Committee in 1976 – had said the following:
“Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage… The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage.”
In 1977, months before the future deputy leader of the Labour Party took up her post, the NCCL was quoted in the Evening Standard on the subject of the infamous Paedophile Information Exchange, the “information” in question being disgusting pictures of children involved in sex acts which members would pass to each other in plain envelopes. “NCCL has no policy on [the Paedophile Information Exchange’s] aims – other than the evidence that children are harmed if, after a mutual relationship with an adult, they are exposed to the attentions of the police, press and court,” said a spokesman.
Perhaps that attitude informed Harman’s take on photographs of children being OK…as long as there was no harm to the child…..but…..
“Our amendment places the onus of proof on the prosecution to show that the child was actually harmed,” she wrote.
So she thinks there is no prima facie belief that such behaviour is harmful and so should be allowed to continue unless proved harmful?
Very relaxed and liberal.
Also from the Telegraph, 2009….not a paper that Harman can try to dismiss as ‘puerile’ :
Harriet Harman’s political judgement has been called into question after it emerged that she once advocated the watering down of child pornography laws.
Whilst Newsnight did a reasonable job that hasn’t continued throughout today…None of the actual claims about the NCCL were aired in detail, instead we had Harman’s denials and defence and her tweeting of a Daily Mail story in a desperate attempt to throw a bit of mud back……
This is the actual Mail story in its Television and celebrity news section……
Inside Courtney Stodden photo album: Teen bride as an innocent 12-year-old… posing with sisters in first bikini shoot
Personally, having read the Mail for years, I can’t say I’ve ever noticed it urging us all to go out and chase young girls in bikinis.
However, make of it what you want but if it is ‘titillating’ and the ‘sexualisation of children’ as Harman claims, and the BBC has repeatedly repeated that for her, then what to make of this from the Left’s own progressive little rag, The Huffington Post (prone to publish plenty of revealing photos as Guido reveals….and yet no disparagement from Harman just as she does as she dumps on the Sun for its page 3)…..
And look…they report the same story that the Mails does about the girl:
Follow Video , Courtney Stodden , Courtney Stodden At 12 , Courtney Stodden At 13 , Slidepollajax , Young Photos Of Courtney Stodden , Celebrity News
A new batch of photos became available today that were taken when Courtney was about 12 or 13, her mother Krista Stodden told Celebuzz.
While some of Courtney’s poses in these older photos are still suggestive, there is no denying that she actually looks like a teenager. One of the photos is of Courtney with her older sisters Ashley and Brittany in a hot tub, who their mother says are both married with husbands their own ages.
The Huffington Post publishes photos of Courtney Stodden when she was 12 or 13 and link to the same picture that the Mail reproduced:
Why no outraged feminist fury from Harman?
Other Media publications aren’t averse to a bit of ‘titillation’ either…the Guardian celebrating Kate Moss being the ‘object of our gaze‘ and ‘turning heads’ since she was 14…..
Croydon-born beauty has been the object of our gaze since she was 14 but shows no sign of losing her place at the top
and the BBC isn’t averse to using her, though older (19), in its own celebrity news where we see that a half dressed, drinking and smoking Kate Moss is…
Kate Moss: Crazy, sexy, cool