The BBC of course is horrified…their first thought was to compare Trump getting this acknowledgement with Nixon and Stalin getting it. Not JFK or Obama then?
The one the BBC really hates though is this…..
The BBC hates the fact that it no longer controls the ‘facts’ anymore.
BBC facts are defined by the BBC as Global truth, that there is Climate Change, actually Global Warming, which is caused by White men. Therefore White men and White men alone, should be humiliated and punished.
This is not Racism, or Sexism, but BBC facts.
I have just looked at the Mensa complaints list of BBC Empirical or Boolean Climate Change facts:
(1) The BBC thinks computer models produce facts.
(2) The BBC thinks there is a false balance between fact and opinion, unless the “fact” turns out to be an “assumption“, and the “opinion” is of an “environmental activist“.
And the worst of all “BBC fact“, if not illegal.
(3) The BBC thinks “Anthropogenic Global Warming is a fact”.
The IPCC using an assumption says “very likely” and the BBC which claims to be impartial says “fact“, this also does not come from the Royal Society. This evidence proves that the BBC takes a more extremely Biased view than the IPCC or the Royal Society and conflicts with the BBC Trusts claim that impartiality is important.
I think the BBC’s idiotic decision to go down the road of activism, unrestrained by causational climate scientists, was made by that seminar of environmental activists. But to my knowledge, nobody has yet taken legal action over this issue, but it may be part of the upcoming Judicial Review planned by causational climate scientists.
“Donald Trump state visit to UK being considered”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38051579
Well its good thing that Cameron is not PM any more.
“The UK PM has called the Republican hopeful’s proposal for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the US “divisive, stupid and wrong”.”
And more importantly……….
“Mr Trump replied by warning he may not have a “very good relationship” with Mr Cameron if he enters the White House.”
Well he’s there and Cameron is not PM …………
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36300005
And in the Guardian ( paper version of BBC ) a letter writer says that the same magazine made Hitler Man Of The Year in 1938 .
Also Stalin in 1939 AND 1942 (What a man eh?)…
But he was good old warm, cuddly best friend “Uncle Joe” at that time. Fake news perhaps?
In fact, he cuddled more people to death than even the Austrian managed but who’s counting?
Will politics ever smell sweet?
boo,
LOL ! And tens of millions of victims of that bastard would agree. Not much on the BBC vilifying Stalin is there ?
Grant,
“Not much on the BBC vilifying Stalin is there ?”
From the BBC perspective there are even grounds for praising the man. The following BBC article titled “Joseph Stalin: National hero or cold-blooded murderer?” has implicit that an argument could be made for the former. Can one visualise any article that starts with the words “Has Hitler been misunderstood”?… I hope you can see my point.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/timelines/z8nbcdm
I can feel a Tucker moment coming on…
May God save us, and preserve us from stupid, ill-informed idiots like her.
Well, since she didn’t get elected, or even on to the actual ballot, she’d be a shoo-in at the Beebyanka, until her next try. She ticks nearly all the boxes (although a Navajo eight-times granny might be useful). In addition to her Harrabinesque moonbattery on “the environment”, she has all of the “Trump is Hitler” claptrap that amounts to sophisticated analysis of the United States among the Beebyanka’s nomenklatura.
Even better… she believes discrimination must stop, BUT that she should have been elected, because she is young and female and would have been the first woman under thirty in the US Congress. I’m not entirely sure how she reconciles those two, but anyone who can’t tell the difference between carbon and carbon dioxide must be able to believe six impossible things before breakfast. Perfect Beeb material.
She has no charm and a poor grasp of the core of an issue or case. She appeared unable to make a clear point, expressed for maximum understanding with minimum effort. All that will be a handicap in becoming populist enough to be elected to office.
Oooh!
I think I just used a bad word.
Sorry!
I’ll go wash my keyboard out.
“She has no charm and a poor grasp of the core of an issue”
She did state very clearly that we must “protect the wetlands”.
Or did she mean to say “swamp”? In which case she has the keenest grasp of the issue.
By the way “sorry” just isn’t good enough, it’s ten sessions on the carousel of shame for you. It’s for your own good.
She seemed to be under the impression that mercury poisons air ! Tucker asks her if she has any background in science. She says , yes, social science. FFS !!!
Hahahahaha……. aye, you’ll note it was said without irony. She is also “a co-founder of Turning Green”, maybe Patrick Moore could offer some guidance on the pitfalls of co-founding green organisations?. She also states that her degree is in “Social and Cultural Analysis”.
Whatever that might be.
I suppose she has a “feel” for science then I guess.
Don’t forget protecting us all against the “arsenic”. I lose close members of my family to this one two or three times a week.
As for mercury……
About the “Turning Green” organisation their mission statement ticks all the right feel-good boxes “Turning Green is a global student-led movement devoted to cultivating a healthy, just and thriving planet through education and advocacy around environmentally sustainable and socially responsible choices. We inform, inspire, and mobilize a global network of students to become visionary catalysts for sustainable change in their lives, school campuses, and local communities.” Visionary catalysts indeed.
http://turninggreen.org/
As I understand it the Time magazine award goes to someone who has ‘most influenced the news for good or ill’, it is not an endorsement of his or her views. Adolf Hitler also received the award in the 30s I believe.
Exactly, Cranmer. But what the BBC Radio 3 newsreader announced was clearly intended to influence the reaction of the listener, to the BBC’s own political agenda:
“Previous winners include Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Vladimir Putin.” (no mention of the sainted Obama or JF Kennedy or Merkel, note.)
I expect they think that’s funny. I think it’s a particularly repellent and incontrovertible example of BBC bias.
On BBC Radio Ulster they said the exact thing. Verbatim. Disgraceful, this was obviously planned to go through multiple stations.
I got incensed at such obvious blatant bias. Obama didn’t get that treatment.