‘This is my country, too’


Whilst the BBC doesn’t like to report anything that might indicate a terror attack was Islamic in nature, avoiding eye-witness reports and other news sources’ informed speculation until forced to do so, it is happy to casually assert Brexit causes Islamophobia.

This is my country, too

This year has seen a spike in anti-Muslim hate crimes, and a new survey shows women are suffering the most – so what’s it like to be a black British Muslim woman at the moment? Not great, says Muna Ahmed.

“I’ve always felt safe here in England, but post-Brexit, post the [terror] attacks, it’s getting worse and worse.”

I rather think any abuse is more to do with the numerous savage and murderous attacks by Muslim attackers on people in this country in the name of Allah.

The Muslim goes on…

After major attacks we have to endure intimidating comments and fear personal attacks, all because of the actions of a terrorist. Being held accountable for the actions of extremists is a massive burden.

Some days I want to scream at the top of my voice that I have nothing to do with terrorism but it doesn’t matter how loud I scream, I will always be tarred with the same brush.

All we want is to feel safe in our own country and to be accepted for who we are – because we are British and this is our home.

It us only natural for people to question why she would still want to belong to a ‘religion’ that literally calls for Muslims to kill the Unbelievers until Islam reigns supreme…and does so again and again.  She says she has nothing to do with terrorism but she adheres to a religion that encourages violence to further its dominance….and this isn’t just about the terorism…it’s also about Islamists trying to force British institutions, schools, businesses and the media to adopt Islamic practices…the threat being that if they don’t Muslims will feel alienated, become angry and get radicalised.  This is blackmail as the Mirror pointed out….


AS the country vexes itself over how to deal with the radicalisation of British-born Muslim youths, it’s revealing to know some of their leaders believe they have the answer.

The introduction of Sharia Law in Britain along with important religious days in the Muslim calendar becoming public holidays for followers of the faith should do the trick, or so claims the secretary general of the Union of Muslim Organisations in the UK and Ireland.

As Dr Syed Aziz Pasha says: “If you give us religious rights we will be in a better position to convince young people that they are being treated equally along with other citizens.”

This sounds perilously close to blackmail.


We have a right to be angry at the ideology that licences these attacks as Brendan O’Neil says in Spiked……

As part of the post-terror narrative, our emotions are closely policed. Some emotions are celebrated, others demonised. Empathy – good. Grief – good. Sharing your sadness online – great. But hatred? Anger? Fury? These are bad. They are inferior forms of feeling, apparently, and must be discouraged. Because if we green-light anger about terrorism, then people will launch pogroms against Muslims, they say, or even attack Sikhs or the local Hindu-owned cornershop, because that’s how stupid and hateful we apparently are. But there is a strong justification for hate right now. Certainly for anger. For rage, in fact. Twenty-two of our fellow citizens were killed at a pop concert. I hate that, I hate the person who did it, I hate those who will apologise for it, and I hate the ideology that underpins such barbarism. I want to destroy that ideology.

Where’s the rage? If the massacre of children and their parents on a fun night out doesn’t make you feel rage, nothing will. The terrorist has defeated you. You are dead already.

Britain is well on its way to Talibanisation in many areas...as said, the violence is not the real problem..it is the intent behind that violence, an intent shared by the ‘non-violent’ as well, that is the problem…the problem that labels white women as prostitutes and British society as decadent and tries to hijack our schools…. Islamisation….

Make no mistake, Taliban devotees are in our schools, playgrounds, homes, mosques, political parties, public service, private firms and universities.

And if we are to have any hope of combating them, we need to stop this attitude of appeasement and understand why so many Muslims are attracted to the most punishing forms of belief, suppressing women and children.

If this was happening in any other nation, we would be condemning it loudly.

Yet here, curtailed and deficient education endured by many Muslim children is seen as a religious entitlement, which, if opposed, apparently confirms Islamophobia.

Why are we fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan and indulging Taliban values here?

Even if it offends liberal principles, the powerful must find a way of stopping Islamicists from promulgating their distorted creed.

About time the BBC started asking Muslims like the one in this report what their views are on homosexuaity, apostates, a woman’s place in a Muslim society, Jews and foreign policy….find out just what she actually believes her religion to be rather than give us an extremely one-sided viewpoint that goes completely unchallenged.



Slow Mo BBC Reporting


Another savage attack by what appears to be a Muslim terrorist named Sayfullo Saipov, apparently from Uzbekistan and who shouted ‘Allah Akbar’ according to witnesses….ABC says it is a ‘key reason’ authorities suspect terrorism.  Why would the BBC miss out a ‘key reason’ from their report?  This is from CNN…note ‘four law enforcement sources’ say he shouted ‘Allah Akbar’

Multiple law enforcement sources say the New York incident is being investigated as terrorism. Separately, four law enforcement sources said witnesses reported the suspect was yelling Allahu Akbar.

Nice beard….


Here he is being arrested…


The BBC manages to miss all of that out in its report.  The BBC is quite happy to jump the gun and, on no substantial evidence, pronounce that Trump was only elected because he had Russian help, however it is reluctant to give the slightest inkling that a terrorist attacker might be Muslim.

You can almost guarantee he is Muslim by the BBC’s silence…if he’d been a white supremacist the BBC would be making it headline news.

Here’s the BBC’s photo album of the attack…..


Not one photo shows the attacker and yet, as above and below there are many available….all pretty newsworthy I’d say…..


An image taken from Twitter shows what appears to be the suspect, according to a senior law enforcement official.



  London stands in grief and solidarity with the great city of New York tonight….but you know what?…terror attacks are all part and parcel of the great city experience…innit bruv?  So don’t be alarmed!


Image result for obama clinton in putins pocket


The BBC are desperately clutching at straws as their big hope to take down Trump, the case against Paul Manafort, looks like it is unconnected with Trump and the Russians at present….all to do with previous, pre-Trump dealings with Ukrainians.  So the BBC moves rapidly on to another Trump advisor and now pronounce that….

This may be the real blockbuster

Initial headlines on Monday morning were about Paul Manafort’s indictment for money laundering and undisclosed foreign lobbying activities. The real blockbuster, however, may end up being George Papadopoulos’s plea bargain, which was disclosed shortly after the Manafort news came out.

Unlike Mr Manafort, pinched for activities largely conducted before he joined the Trump team, Mr Papadopoulos has admitted to lying to the FBI about contacts he had with Russian nationals while serving as a Trump foreign policy adviser.

The BBC’s report has chosen a very definite narrative….that Papadopoulos proactively sought out the Russians in order to find dirt on Clinton and to make connections between Trump and the Russians.  Trouble is that seems more the BBC’s wishful thinking than the truth.  The Telegraph, which doesn’t particularly like Trump, has a more balanced and probably truthful narrative that shows Papadopoulos was lured in [and why wouldn’t he be interested in ‘dirt’ on Clinton?] and that Trump just wasn’t interested in  making contact in any meaningful way…and the Russian offer to meet was an ‘open invitation’ to travel to Russia and meet Putin…it was what is a pretty normal approach to meet potential leaders….Corbyn went to the EU the other week….is he being groomed by the EU, is the EU interfering in British democracy?  The BBC can’t have it both ways.

From the measured Telegraph:

The professor and the Russian woman were in regular contact with Papadopolous throughout March and April 2016 about the possibility of setting up a trip to Russia for Mr Trump or senior campaign officials. 

“As mentioned we are all very excited by the possibility of a good relationship with Mr Trump. The Russian Federation would love to welcome him once his candidature would be officially announced,” the Russian woman wrote to Papadopoulos in April 2016. 

Papadopoulos was talking up the Russia connection to senior Trump campaign officials. “The Russian government has an open invitation by Putin for Mr Trump when he is ready,” he told a campaign official on April 25. 

The proposed visit to Russia by Mr Trump never materialised and it appears senior campaign officials were less enthusiastic about the idea than Papadopoulos. 


The BBC’s version just more partisan nonsense from the BBC which should stick to the facts and stop inventing sensational news stories and making spurious and unfounded interpretations and allegations.

In another report the BBC makes dramatic portrayal of Trump ‘raging’, in a ‘tirade’ and ‘making outburts’ about all this and yet the BBC casually brush aside, way down right at the very bottom of the report, allegations that Clinton took large amounts of money from the Russians…

Mr Trump said on Friday that it was now “commonly agreed” that there was no collusion between him and Russia but said that there were links between Moscow and Mrs Clinton.

Republican lawmakers have said that a uranium deal with a Russian company in 2010, when Mrs Clinton was secretary of state, was sealed in exchange for donations to her husband’s charity.

A Congressional investigation has been opened into the case. Democrats say it is an attempt to divert attention from the alleged ties between Russia and Mr Trump.

The BBC has reported it here but where is the massive and intense scrutiny of such serious allegations as they apply to Trump?  Never mind Clinton’s use of private, insecure servers to keep highly sensitive government documents on, what of Obama giving the Russians 20% control of US uranium or the fact that, as reported by the NYT, Clinton got millions from the Russians?  Where are the claims that either of them were in Putin’s pocket?

Image result for obama clinton in putins pocket


 And where is the BBC report on this?……note the links to Russia……

Tony Podesta Resigns from Podesta Group as Mueller Probe Heats Up

Democratic “power lobbyist” Tony Podesta is resigning from the Podesta Group, after coming under investigation by FBI Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Politico reported Monday.

“Podesta announced his decision during a firm-wide meeting Monday morning and is alerting clients of his impending departure,” Politico reported. Podesta’s brother, John Podesta, served as chairman of Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Last week, NBC News reported that Podesta and the Podesta Group were subjects of Mueller’s investigation, which has “morphed into a criminal inquiry into whether the firm violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act.”

The Podesta Group has also lobbied for Uranium One, the Canadian-based energy company that has come under scrutiny as well.

And then there’s the link to the firm that produced the ‘dodgy dossier’ on Trump…again the BBC take little to no interest in the fact that this lurid anti-Trump dossier was produced for the Democrats….

Obama’s Campaign Paid $972,000 To Law Firm That Secretly Paid Fusion GPS In 2016

Since April of 2016, Obama’s campaign organization has paid nearly a million dollars to the law firm that funneled money to Fusion GPS to compile a dossier of unverified allegations against Donald Trump.

Withnail and #MeToo





Sex and the city, politics, showbiz….office romances and unwanted advances, wanted advances…..have we just woken up in the 16th century Puritan England or something?  Why all the shock and amazement?  Did nobody really know all of this went on?  Boris Becker shagging in a restaurant broom cupboard and Prezza doing it just about anywhere with his secretary…..

Image result for john prescott  secretary  sex


Image result for john prescott  secretary  sex


In 2014 we had this from the Telegraph…

Sex, booze and power plays: 9 things nobody tells you before you get a job at Westminster

Once again the culture at Westminster is under the spotlight after Nigel Evans’s court case and young researchers reveal all about the ‘palace of sexminster’. But is it that bad? Political correspondent Sophy Ridge shares her insight and tips.

Three years of drinking, late nights and infidelity are the perfect preparation for a job in the historic seat of government.

And this…

Senior Tory steps down as rumours of lewd behaviour sweep ‘palace of sexminster’

A survey for Channel Four News claimed that a third of the young men and women working in Parliament — nicknamed “the palace of sexminster” — had suffered sexual harassment. One worker, who did not want to be identified, said he was “asked to go to the gents by a certain MP who had always been a nice guy”.

And of course there was Lord Rennard in 2013…

Lord Ashdown: Sex pest rumours surrounding Lord Rennard ‘all over Westminster’


Undoubtedly if  you dig further you will find case after case going on back into the mists of time…but now its new news?

A lot of it seems to be born again virgins shocked, yes shocked, at men making advances to them…such as the BBC woman whose colleague, over dinner, told her she was sexy, or the woman who showed a photo to her boss who told her she looked good….apparently both are sexual harassment.  I don’t know any women, or for that matter girls, who would not put a bloke in his place in no uncertain terms if if he said a word or put a hand out of place.



Have to say women are just as prone to exactly the same behaviour as men, admittedly they are not so often in positions of authority which may be used to ‘persuade’ someone to comply but if they were…watch out.


Some women need to grow up and realise men and women are by nature inclined to try it on as are all animals, for others it may be more serious but they should have said something at the time especially if it was a case of being told ‘do this if you want to keep your job’…that has to be near rape if not actual rape.

The only pleasure here is that the BBC is in a bind…it would love to hit the Tories hard but of course it has its own problems, Savile aside, with sex abuse in its own ranks and discrimination on many levels such as pay and older women being sidelined.  It gave Corbyn lots of airtime to strut about pronouncing his determination to ‘do something’…can only imagine both he and the BBC thought this would be limited to the Tories on the WhatsApp hit list, a rather foolish hope I’d have thought, or that he knew Labour would get dragged in and he was pre-empting that with a bit of help from his friends.

I see the BBC reporting this….

Speaker Bercow calls for zero tolerance of harassment

Commons Speaker John Bercow has said there must be “zero tolerance” of sexual harassment in Parliament as ministers vowed action “within days” to improve the way complaints are handled.

Claims about inappropriate behaviour by MPs were “disturbing”, Mr Bercow said.

All parties, he said, must have “credible” staff grievance procedures.

Wasn’t long ago that he didn’t want to know…

Since the Whips Office is hopelessly conflicted when it comes to investigating serious complaints against MPs – and since one of the complaints was about its original handling of the allegation – I made appointments for both men to see the Speaker, John Bercow. After the first meeting, he took legal advice, then sent a member of his staff to tell me that he could not become involved. The messenger repeatedly told me that his job was to protect the Speaker. So the only avenue open to the complainants was to go to the police.

Strictly  legally he may not have been able to become involved in disciplinary matters relating to this but in his capacity he could of course have driven an agenda for change….did he?  No.

Let’s have some more perspective and context from the BBC on this matter.







Running for Gover


Michael Gove has disappointed as he apologises for his joke on R4….but he does a useful job of illustrating the biggest problem we have…the pathetic grovelling of our politicians, businessmen, and commentators to the Liberal, left-wing tyranny that dictates what we can say, think and do.  The all-too-ready willingness to apologise when the Twitterati mobilise and the BBC and Guardian report this as ‘wide-spread disapproval’, the willingness to discard everything you believe in in order to appease these liberal PC monsters, and the willingness to throw others under the PC bus to prove your own ‘worthiness’….eg….Jo Johnson threw fellow Tory Chris Heaton-Harris under that bus after a letter to universities asking about their curriculum on Brexit.  Just call me Dave.

Gove made a perfectly good and acceptable joke about Harvey Weinstein and has been savaged by the Left….and yet you can  bet the BBC’s News Quiz made jokes on the same subject [I haven’t listened….if you have please enlighten me]…that programme is quite happy to joke about other issues of equal or more importance and controversy.

Mr Gove and former Labour leader Neil Kinnock were being interviewed at 08:10 BST – a slot usually reserved for the most important political guests of the day.

In a twist to the usual format, he and Mr Kinnock were asked what they thought of the show and its interviewers.

Mr Gove said: “Sometimes, I think coming into the studio with you John is a bit like going into Harvey Weinstein’s bedroom.”

As some laughter and applause was heard from the audience at Wigmore Hall in central London, Mr Kinnock added: “John goes way past groping.”

Mr Gove then said: “You just hope you emerge with your dignity intact.”

That in no way makes light of rape and sexual abuse…it’s merely a joke making a comparison to Humphry’s interview style and how an interviewee may emerge ‘battered and bruised’ afterwards.

The BBC delights in listing many of the ‘outraged’…at Gove…oddly enough not at Kinnock who actually made the worst comment….


Here we have ‘a journalist’….

A journalist in the audience for the recording, to mark the Today programme’s 60th anniversary, also said that despite the fact some people laughed, others had a “look of disgust”.

Except that ‘a journalist‘ is the Guardian’s media editor...


And this one…

Presenter and journalist Lucy Siegle said Mr Gove had “ruined” the birthday edition of the show.

...is a BBC presenter and Guardian journo…anti-Trump, pro-Climate change, anti-everything you might expect….


The BBC tacks on the end of their piece…

The comments come on the day Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is to talk about the issue of abuse, saying MPs who abuse or sexually harass women must be “held to account”.

What?  Corbyn who has presided over a Party that seems set on intimidating and bullying women, not to mention Jews, and who has done nothing to stop it.

Don’t think I’ll be taking any lessons from him…though the BBC seems keen on us listening to him as it promotes his new comments, and new found zeal, on this subject at every chance.

A blind eye to child abuse: Whistleblowers warned Labour leadership favourite Jeremy Corbyn of paedophiles preying on children on his doorstep – but claim he did NOTHING



You must not read this


Just a reminder of the BBC’s Inquisition-like tendencies in regard to climate change or indeed any right-wing person who dares to speak against the Orthodoxy…..and how ready it is to apologise to those who object to anyone being given a platform on the BBC who might wish to do so.

You may recall that the BBC Trust stated that ‘The programme would not be repeated in any form.’

Hmmmm…OK…so here’s the transcript of Quentin Lett’s programme on the Met. Office once again for your delectation….and to prove just how absurd, dishonest and almost sinister the BBC Trust’s conclusions were……

Source: BBC Radio 4
URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06418l5
Date: 05/08/2015
Event: What’s the Point of…? The Met Office
Credit: BBC Radio 4
Also see:



  • Helen Chivers: Head of News & Social Media, the Met Office
  • Piers Corbyn: Astrophysicist and weather forecaster
  • Michael Fish: Weatherman at the BBC
  • Eric Freeman: Farmer
  • John Kettley: Weatherman, previously with the Met Office
  • Quentin Letts: Journalist and sketch writer
  • Peter Lilley: Conservative MP, UK Parliament
  • Angus MacNeil: Scottish Nationalist MP, UK Parliament
  • Ken Nottage: Chief Executive, Royal Three Counties Show
  • Catherine [?] Potts: Historian
  • Group Captain Sir James Stagg: British RAF meteorologist
  • Graham Stringer: Labour MP, UK Parliament
  • Andy Silvester: Campaign Manager, Taxpayers’ Alliance
  • Mark Vogan: Amateur weatherman


[Sound of sheep bleating.]

Male voice [over loudspeaker]: So we’d like to extend a very warm welcome to everybody here at the Royal Three Counties Show. Indeed, the forecast was for a thunderstorm – luckily, that hasn’t happened. But then you can never trust the weather forecasters.

Quentin Letts: Can’t trust weather forecasts?! Why not? Most forecasts come from the Met Office, a government body which receives hundreds of millions of pounds of public money. The Met Office employs 1,800 people, some of them on big money. It does a great deal more than predicting the next “barbecue summer”. It has military links. It takes a not uncontroversial position on climate change. If we don’t believe its weather forecasts, what about the rest of its activities? Is it a national asset? A much-loved institution? Or a historic throwback, in need of reform? What’s the point… of the Met Office?


Male voice: The area forecast for the next 24 hours: Viking, North Utcire, South Utcire, north-easterly 4 or 5, backing north-westerly 5 to 7, mainly fair, good…

Male voice: What I have on offer for you today is going to come as a real rude shock…

Male voice: Not a lot of sunshine about today, in fact much more rainfall too, in the south, that we had expected…

Male voice: In all districts, there shall be some showers, but with bright intervals…

Quentin Letts: The weather forecasts down the ages, Met Office voices broadcasting on the BBC, for the past 90 years. An official take on the weather was the idea of a Royal Navy admiral, Robert FitzRoy, who had sailed to Australia with some chap called Charles Darwin. He started data-based predictions of the weather in 1854, but set up a forerunner of the Met Office five years later, when a bad storm off Anglesey sank the clipper Royal Charter, with the loss of 450 lives, mostly gold miners returning from Australia. FitzRoy used the latest technology for his forecasts, as historian Catherine Potts explains.

Catherine Potts: Instrumental meteorology had been improving for the last 50 or so years, so we had much better instruments to measure, to understand changes in pressure which were crucial, self-recording anemometers for the wind had been invented in the previous 20 or so years – just take the Beaufort Scale, which was invented in 1806, and that enabled people to measure wind in the same way across the world.

Quentin Letts: Was it based in London?

Catherine Potts: Yes it was, it was based in London, um, and it had stations – what we term stations, recording sites – around the UK at the ports, and they sent their information in via telegraph, the Met Office basically couldn’t have actually started doing anything without the invention of the telegraph.

Quentin Letts: What was the size of the thing, at the start, and who was funding it?

Catherine Potts: It was funded by the government and it was absolutely tiny – there were three staff and they were headed up by Admiral Robert FitzRoy, who was our founder and actually the inventor, essentially, of the science of forecasting.

Quentin Letts: The science of forecasting? The latest technology? These terms evoke egg-headish certitude, yet can we ever be sure about the climate? The weather forecast is 154 years old, but not everyone agrees with the way the Met Office boffins concoct their forecasts. They still get the weather wrong! Now, we – the British public – are buying them a £97 million computer to improve the accuracy of those forecasts. Mark Vogan is an amateur weatherman who uses ocean temperatures and soil moisture for his predictions.

Mark Vogan: The Met Office methods are based around computer, and unfortunately computer isn’t going to necessarily always give us the answers, you know. It’s human input into that computer, and the computer obviously just runs through various equations to come up with scenarios, and obviously, accuracy-wise, once you get out past 10 days, the accuracy greatly drops off. For example, we’ve got a strong El Nino developing in the East Pacific – that has a big impact on the atmosphere, so if you can understand what response that water has to the atmosphere, then you can have a rough idea as to what’s going on. For example, the North Atlantic – I’m 32 years of age, I don’t recall the last time the Atlantic has been as cold as it is, compared to normal, in my lifetime, and that has a big impact, I think that’s going to rule a cooler summer, I think it’s had an impact on the last couple of winters, so if you can understand what ocean temperature does to the atmosphere, then I think that can give you a reasonably good idea as to what kind of weather you can expect, further down the road.

Quentin Letts: Cooler summer?! I’m melting here, in 36 degrees – that’s 96 Fahrenheit, in old money. Piers Corbyn, brother of Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn, runs his forecasting service WeatherAction from a cramped basement office in South London. He uses sunspots and other non-mainstream methods, yet has a strong record of accuracy. And he has some quite strong words about the Met Office.

Piers Corbyn: They spend hundreds of millions on supercomputers. Those supercomputers will – even if you spend ten times that – would not improve forecasting skill one jot. They’ve reached the limit. The reason why they’ve reached the limit is they’re ignoring external influences – solar activity and the modulation of solar effects by the Moon. If those are not in there, whatever goes in will produce what comes out, and rubbish in is rubbish out. What those supercomputers do is enable them to get short-range right answers quicker, but when it goes to anything like a few days ahead, it enables them to get the wrong answers quicker.

Quentin Letts: The title of this programme is “What’s the Point of the Met Office?”. Can you answer that question – what’s the point of this organisation?

Piers Corbyn: The point for them and the government is it’s primarily was set up to do weather forecasting, to the best of its ability and to the best available science. They fail in that, because they’re not using the best available science. The reason is, they’ve had another purpose latched on them, which is to – and you read it in their blurb on the TV – it’s to promote and defend and propagate the man-made climate change theory, and suggest what horrors are going to come, allegedly, from more CO2, which is fiction.

Quentin Letts: A contentious point, and one we’ll come back to. [James Bond signature music plays in the background.] By the way, did you know that all Met Office forecasters must sign the Official Secrets Act? Civil servants, you see… “It may drizzle in Droitwich tomorrow, 007. But if you tell anyone, I shall have to kill you”. One operative, who spent three decades at the Met Office is John Kettley, now running a weather consultancy of his own. What, for him, is the point of the Met Office?

John Kettley: The point of the Met Office is that it provides fantastic information worldwide but particularly in the UK, using the skills of experienced forecasters and the power – fantastic computer power – that is now available to organisations like the Met Office and others around the world, to provide excellent computer analysis for the future. So, you know, we are looking, these days, not only at weeks and months ahead but years ahead, if you’re looking at the fact that we’ve got the Hadley Research Centre within the Met Office, which has got to try and analyse to see just exactly where this globe is going, really, what’s going to be the position on the globe in the next century or two. So we’ve got to look ahead with these computers, which, you know, Joe Bloggs like myself, we cannot be involved in that.

Quentin Letts: In his small-screen days, was bearded, rangy meteorologist John Kettley a scientific figure or something more than that? Teatime crumpet, companionship? Are TV forecasters – “presenters”, they are now called – figures of dry, impartial fact or are they – dread word – “celebrities”, pin-ups. They tell us to take brollies or wear sun cream. Is this the duty of a meteorologist or a nanny? And need they emote so much when they tell us it might be chilly?

John Kettley: Many of us did get fan mail. Some of us did get items of clothing sent through the post –

Quentin Letts: Did you?!

John Kettley: Um…

Quentin Letts: Did you get knickers sent through the post to you?

John Kettley: Not necessarily that sort of thing but sweaters. Which may seem a little bit boring to you… [Laughs.]

Quentin Letts: I see… [Laughs.]

John Kettley: But we did get clothing sent through the post. But yes, it was just fan mail but it was all friendly stuff, and you knew where to stop.

Quentin Letts: So that’s interesting, because that’s an idea of the weather presenter, weather forecaster, being a friend –

John Kettley: Yes.

Quentin Letts: – and being almost a member of the family. So that’s part of the role of the Met Office, is it, to be companionable?

John Kettley: Yes, you go right back to the beginning, when I had my first ever audition- and it’s an awful long time ago – I had my first audition through Pebble Mill, and the presenter from Pebble Mill came in and he said to me “The first time you go on television, John, nobody’s invited you into their lounge. You’ve got to be there as a friend. If you upset them, they’ll never turn on again”. That is so vital, that is so important, it’s important now as it was then – you’ve got to be somebody who people can associate with, you’ve got to be trustworthy and you haven’t got to be talking down to them, either. You are a scientist, first and foremost, but you’re now a presenter and you’ve got to speak language over the garden fence.

Quentin Letts: Some forecasts can seem almost Biblical, these days. Heatwaves, floods, “weather events” – to use a term not found in Genesis. We once spoke of natural disasters, but they may, in part, be the fault of mankind. One enters the foggy debate about climate change at one’s peril, but is the Met Office, with its attachment to the state and its emotionally splashy presenters, truly impartial here? Its work is open to political scrutiny, not least by the Commons Select Committee on Climate Change. One recent member has been Labour’s Graham Stringer.

Graham Stringer: They’re very good and getting better, when it comes to 1 to 5-day weather forecasting and getting the detailed weather forecasts down to very small areas – I think they’re excellent at that. Er, their climate predictions are – and their medium-term predictions – are pretty random and they are very poor.

Quentin Letts: Random? That’s a bit worrying, isn’t it?

Graham Stringer: Well, it is. I mean when, at the start of last year, they said we could expect less precipitation than normal, in January and February – and the whole country was flooded. [Quentin Letts laughs.] And then the Chief Scientific Officer said that this was undoubtedly due to climate change, and most of the scientists – even in the Met Office – looked askance at that, because there’s no scientific evidence whatsoever that that rain was related to climate change. So, good at the short term, very poor at medium and long term.

Some of the scientists who believe that they’re absolutely right are saying we must save the planet, we must change the way we produce energy and therefore we will have lots of alternative renewable forms of energy which, at the moment, are very expensive. The money that my constituents are paying, effectively as a flat tax on their energy bills, I think would – that money would be better spent, i.e., not on a flat tax way but would be better spent on research so we could genuinely produce clean and cheap electricity, rather than very expensive, ugly electricity.

Quentin Letts: Another member of the committee has been the veteran Conservative Peter Lilley. Does he get lobbied by the Met Office?

Peter Lilley: I suppose we do get lobbied by them. They come before the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change, on which I sat, and tell us they need even more money for even bigger computers so they can be even more precisely wrong in future.

Quentin Letts [laughing]: That’s one way of looking at it – they would say it’s going to help them to be ultra, um, long-termist and being able to tell us what the weather’s going to do and also what the climate’s going to do.

Peter Lilley: Well, in 2004 they put out a very glossy document –

Quentin Letts 2004, so 11 years ago…

Peter Lilley: – called “Forecasting the Next Decade”. So they say the Met Office Hadley Centre has pioneered a new system to predict the climate a decade ahead. “We’re now using the system to predict changes up to 2014” – this was in 2004, they made this prediction. “By the end of this period, the global average temperature is expected to have risen by around 0.3 degrees Centigrade, compared to 2004”. That’s a huge increase, because in the previous 150 years, the increase was about 0.7 degrees, so it’s nearly half as much again in the next decade, was what they were expecting – and they were 90% sure that it would be within 0.2 and 0.4 degrees.

Quentin Letts: And what actually happened?

Peter Lilley: Nothing. Zilch. There was no global warming over the ensuing decade.

Quentin Letts: Are you a total sceptic, on man-made climate change?

Peter Lilley: No, I studied physics at Cambridge, so I accept the basic thesis that a bit more CO2 in the atmosphere, or a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere, will marginally warm up the Earth. But I’m what’s known as a “lukewarmist”, one who thinks that there won’t be much warming as a result of it, and that’s the scientifically proven bit of the theory – anything going on the alarmist scale is pure speculation. The sad thing is that they’ve become committed to a particular pseudo-scientific doctrine and now are unwilling to change their doctrine when the facts refute it.

Quentin Letts: By that, you mean man-made climate change.

Peter Lilley: Alarmist man-made climate change – there is a certain amount of man-made climate change going on but not very much, and they’re pretending that there’s a lot and going to be a lot. And when their predictions turn out to be false, then they don’t change their theory. Dame Julia Slingo, the Chief Scientific Officer of the Met Office, now says that the heating must have taken place but it hasn’t shown up on the surface of the Earth because it’s been swallowed by the deep oceans, a sort of new version of “the deep oceans swallowed my homework” thesis.

Quentin Letts [laughing]: Does this lead you to think that the Met Office should be privatised?

Peter Lilley: I’m not sure anyone would want to buy it.


Male voice: In western districts, showers will be more frequent than in the east…

Quentin Letts: What a voice… For some, the Met Office’s forecasts, of weather on land and at sea, are crucial. The new Chairman at Westminster’s Climate Change Committee is Scottish Nationalist MP Angus MacNeil from the Western Isles, near Shannon, Rockall, Malin, Hebrides.

Female voice: Rockall, Malin, Hebrides, Bailey. Northwest, backing southwest 4 or 5, increasing 6 at times. Showers good, occasionally moderate…

Quentin Letts: Angus, you have an amazing journey to your constituency every week – you land on a beach, in an aeroplane. You must listen to the weather forecast with some attention.

Angus MacNeil: Absolutely, and particularly the wind speeds are absolutely vital to me, to make my journey, because sometimes the journey doesn’t happen or you can’t land – you go to the island, you look down and you return to Glasgow for the evening, so weather is absolutely vital and knowing what the weather’s going to do.

Quentin Letts: And your constituents are in that rare part of the population who actually listen closely to the shipping forecast, because it affects their lives. Which bit of the shipping forecast affects you?

Angus MacNeil: Well, I’ve listened to shipping forecasts since I was a child, and when the words “Shannon, Rockall, Malin, Hebrides” would come up, “Shannon, Rockall, Malin, Hebrides” was the cue to be quiet. And particularly the weather in Malin and Hebrides – it was always important to us to give us a guide as to what was coming.

Quentin Letts: Your new position, as Chairman of the Climate Change Select Committee at Westminster, means that you’re effectively, um, you know, you’ve got a vested interest in the Met Office. Are they right to get into the climate change issues or should they concentrate on just plain short-term weather forecasting?

Angus MacNeil: The primary point is providing the data. If they want to inform with their knowledge and provide us with a view on that data, I think that’s a useful contribution to the debate. I think what is also and must be respected is: other people might have a view on that data as well.

Quentin Letts: And is it good that they are a state body. Does that affect things?

Angus MacNeil: It’s better to be privately owned by the taxpayers than privately owned by some private individuals, if you like. They’re using data from Norway, from Ireland, from Faroes, from wherever, and I think they do a good job at that, and I think they’re very much trusted in the job they do, and that trust is vital and important.

Quentin Letts: We can laugh about the “barbecue summer”, but weather forecasting acquired a graver significance 71 years ago. Tens of thousands of lives, and even the freedom of Europe, depended on the Met Office getting its forecast right. The Normandy invasion of early June 1944 was delayed by storms. One of those waiting for the off was my maternal grandfather, a sapper, one of the first to land. He and his advance team needed the high seas to abate. It was down to Group Captain James Stagg from the Met Office to let military commanders know when the weather would improve. Advised by Stagg, Supreme Allied Commander Eisenhower ordered the invasion to go ahead.


James Stagg: Certainly, as my colleagues and I withdrew from the meeting that made the final and irrevocable decision, he came across to me and said “Hold that weather to what you have forecast for us, Stagg, for Heaven’s sake hold it.”

[Soundtrack of Frank Sinatra: “Stormy Weather”.]

Quentin Letts: The Met Office’s customers – yes, they pay – include the Civil Aviation Authority, Heathrow Airport, Thames Water and – keep this to yourselves – the Ministry of Defence. Former weather presenter Helen Chivers is now the Met Office’s corporate spokeswoman.

Helen Chivers: The Met Office is the UK’s national meteorological service, and we deliver the public weather service to the UK. So what we’re doing there is providing forecasts and severe weather warnings that protect lives and livelihoods and critical national infrastructure for the UK. But we work wider than that – we work across the whole of the world and we provide, sort of, a joined-up area that will work for the different needs of everybody within the UK. So we’re global and we’re – got a real focus on saving lives and helping people be prosperous in the UK.

Quentin Letts: Makes you sound like an emergency service.

Helen Chivers: I suppose we are, in a strange way. I mean, when it comes down to it, our history and where we started was saving lives at sea, and in essence, that is still very much at the heart of our ethos. But it isn’t just at sea, now, it’s on land as well, and not in the UK – it’s across the world.

Quentin Letts: Country lore has much to say about the weather. “Red sky at night, shepherd’s delight”, if bees stay at home rain will soon come, sheep climbing a hill a clear day – sign of a clear day, pigs gather leaves and straw before a storm. I’ve come to the Three Counties Show in Malvern to talk to some rural weather experts – farmers. Eric Freeman, 83 summers young, has squinted at some weather in his time. How does he work out what’s coming?

Eric Freeman: I think when you’ve been around a long time, you get a feeling. You get up in the morning, don’t you, and you think “Ah, there’s a drop of rain”, but that’s the pride [?] of the morning, isn’t it, and it comes out nice later on.

Quentin Letts: If your beasts are sitting down, in the field, does that tell you something? Because there’s that old saying, that when the cows are sitting, it’s going to rain.

Eric Freeman: I think they get up and feed when, you know, if there’s some weather coming, I think they tend to be up and about. [Sound of cow mooing.]

Quentin Letts: Here we are, talking to Ken Nottage, Chief Executive of the Three Counties Show – Royal Three Counties Show. Ken, weather is a very big thing, it’s a very big consideration for you, isn’t it.

Ken Nottage: It’s huge, and you know, it’s probably the most important factor, pre-Show [?].

Quentin Letts: To the people who’ve come here today, it’s a question of whether or not we wear gumboots, whether or not we bring a mac. But to you, it’s a question of finance.

Ken Nottage: It is, indeed. It’s not just finance, it’s also safety, for the visitors that are here. But a bad Show – one that needs to be cancelled due to weather, be that rain, be that wind, whatever it is – can be very, very expensive.

Quentin Letts: There was one year, I think, when the weather forecaster said “Whatever you do, today” – this was during your Show – “whatever you do today, folks” – he said, on the radio – “don’t go out”.

Ken Nottage: Disastrous! I can remember it – they said, they said “Stay indoors today – it’s going to rain everywhere.” And it didn’t rain here. And that cost us – you know, that was getting on for a six-figure sum, just that, you know. I wanted to kill that weather forecaster, you can imagine.

Quentin Letts: Here is perhaps the most spectacular example of the Met Office getting it wrong.


Michael Fish: Earlier on, today, apparently a woman rang the BBC and said she heard that there was a hurricane on the way. Well, if you’re watching, don’t worry, there isn’t.

Quentin Letts: There was. Michael Fish, not predicting the Great Storm of 1987, which left 18 people dead. But it’s not just dicey forecasts, that riles Andy Silvester from the Taxpayers’ Alliance.

Andy Silvester: New Zealand has an equivalent to the Met Office called Metro, which has a commercial arm which outsources weather forecasting to things like Tesco and Sainsbury’s, so they can predict when they need to get the strawberries on the shelves for a hot weekend, or something, and so forth. So I think what we’d like to see there again, is the Met Office have to deal with a bit more competition. It seems, at the moment, to have a bit of a monopoly, largely because it’s an institution.

Quentin Letts: Oh, so the very fact that it is official – does it give it commercial advantage, or does it give it a moral, um, advantage? A sort of sense, among the public, that somehow it’s more reliable.

Andy Silvester: Well, I think, on the former point, on the commercial advantage, getting a huge amount of money from taxpayers, of course makes it infinitely more competitive than it would be, otherwise, because its commercial competitors don’t have to deal with that pressure. You know, you look at the supercomputers that have been bought, you know, huge amounts of money spent, 2009, 2014, on these grand new bits of technology. Of course that gives it an advantage, and that means it doesn’t have to deal with competition in the same way that any normal business would. And –

Quentin Letts: It can go to the state for its funding, rather than going to banks.

Andy Silvester: Yes, given a supercomputer, you know – they spent an awful lot of money in 2009 on the supercomputer, forecasting didn’t necessarily improve, they got a nice bigger and shinier one in 2014, we’re yet again to see the results and whether that’s actually improved it. And so I think we’d like to see a bit more competition, we’d like to see these things opened up, and we’d like to see the Met Office, as I say, get back to focusing on what it should be doing, and I think that’s around predicting severe weather, you know, flood patterns and so forth, which necessarily it doesn’t do as much as it might do now.

Quentin Letts: I asked Helen Chivers how accurate the Met Office’s predictions were.

Helen Chivers: On average, we’re accurate – if you look at a great big basket of, you know, sunshine, rainfall, temperatures – round about 80% of the time. That, actually, is a really good figure, because weather is not a simple thing to forecast – the atmosphere is chaotic, it’s a really complicated thing to try and forecast. And we’re not only trying to forecast it for today or for the next hour, we’re trying to forecast it for weeks and months and years and hundreds of years ahead, so it’s a really complicated thing to do. And we verify our forecasts all the time for all of our customers, so for the aviation industry we’re verifying what the winds have been at 25,000 feet, um, for the Maritime Coastguard Agency we’re looking at how accurate were the gale warnings, the shipping forecast, and for – let’s say, winter maintenance on the roads, we’re looking at how was the temperature and the ice forecasts on the roads, how accurate were they. So, you know, we measure it in all sort of different ways, depending on who the customer is.

Quentin Letts: You mention there that you are forecasting centuries ahead, or trying to have an idea of what’s going to be happening in a couple of hundreds of years. This is where some of your critics say you are far less reliable. Peter Lilley MP has shown us a document from ten years ago where you were forecasting for now that it was going to be a lot warmer than it actually is, and this was leading to a certain alarmism, a political alarmism, of the sort that a scientific body really shouldn’t be getting into.

Helen Chivers: Yeah, I mean, we provide the best evidence-based science that we can provide, and of course, you know, science changes and technology moves on, and as things evolve and as you understand how the Earth system – so the connection between the atmosphere and the oceans and what’s going on, on land – all of that knowledge is evolving, so things change over time.

Quentin Letts: Very good to hear those caveats, I might say – we don’t often hear those –

Helen Chivers: No, true.

Quentin Letts: – when we hear Met Office people telling us we’re all in a terrible gloom and doom, and like Noah, you lot are saying, you know, “Leap for your Arks, because the floods are coming”. I mean, it is getting almost Biblical, some of the stuff coming out of the Met Office.

Helen Chivers: Sometimes, but I think that’s more on –

Quentin Letts: It is, getting more Biblical, you agree, good, a point of agreement.

Helen Chivers: I think sometimes it – but it depends how you interpret it, of course.

Quentin Letts: But how can you interpret the top Met Office executives earning more than the Prime Minister? I’d expect them to know all about the gold at the end of rainbows – it’s in their bank accounts.

Helen Chivers: We have a total revenue of around about £200 million – this is a big company, providing services to the UK and services globally. And you have to, like any business, attract the best people. Now, we are bound by our salary structure.

Quentin Letts: You could be paid much, much more, of course, were the Met Office to be privatised. [Helen Chivers laughs.] Would that be a good idea?

Helen Chivers: Would it be a good idea? I think, because of the range of the work that we do and the huge volume of information that we have to operate with, here – so we’re providing data free that’s available on our website, we’re doing forecasting for space weather and how that might impact on technology, we’re doing all the safety of life information that I’ve been talking about. Every review of how we operate has said that it wouldn’t be possible to privatise us.

[Soundtrack of Crowded House: “Weather with You”.]

Quentin Letts: That “barbecue summer” fiasco betrayed ambition among the isobars, a hunger for public attention, a desire deep in those Barograph Berties to be noticed. This is an urge better resisted. It’s hard to place a value on the secret work the Met Office does for the Ministry of Defence. Emergency planning, a seat on Whitehall’s COBRA crisis committee, warnings to mariners, cooperation with international allies in times of ash clouds and so on – such work demands our respect. But how does that sit with sexed-up press releases, ditzy autocuties and yes – with politically risky interventions on climate change, said by some fellow scientists to be plain wrong? As the shipping forecast might put it, sober predictions of short-term precipitations, good. Longer-term visibility and political lobbying, poor. And that’s your weather.

Harrabin…the man who misled the world



The only person who makes up facts is Harrabin, along with his mates at the East Anglia climate centre amongst so many others who promote the idea of man-made global warming…especially due to CO2……the world may be warming but is it due at all to CO2, or if it is to what extent?  No proof CO2 is the driver of any warming, the available proof is to the contrary…CO2 is a result of warming.

Harrabin and his chum, Dr Joe Smith, succesfully rigged BBC reporting on climate change to practically exclude climate change sceptics from the debate.   The infamous seminars set up by Harrabin and Smith were given the nod by one Lord Hall Hall…then Director of News at the BBC.  The Tyndall Centre explains why it sponsored Harrabin…..to close down the debate…..

Email 2496 explains why the Tyndall Centre funded the Harrabin/Smith seminars – the Real World seminars of the Cambridge Media and Environment Programme
Mike Hulme:
Did anyone hear Stott vs. Houghton on Today, radio 4 this morning? Woeful stuff really. This is one reason why Tyndall is sponsoring the Cambridge Media/Environment Programme to starve this type of reporting at source

From a BBC insider…

‘Following their lead [Harrabin and Smith’s] has meant the whole thrust and tone of BBC reporting has been that the science is settled, and that there is no need for debate,’ one journalist said. ‘If you disagree, you’re branded a loony.’

Harrabin boasts of the power and influence he has wielded and scarily wants to replicate his duplicity around the globe…

“The seminars have been publicly credited with catalysing significant changes in the tone and content of BBC outputs across platforms and with leading directly to specific and major innovations in programming,” – Dr Joe Smith
“It has had a major impact on the willingness of the BBC to raise these issues for discussion. Joe Smith and I are now wondering whether we can help other journalists to perform a similar role in countries round the world” – Roger Harrabin

Remember it was Harrabin who whipped up the Twitterati into a frenzy when Quentin Letts upset the Green Gestapo…

‘BBC journalists are meant to be impartial, but climate change hack Roger Harrabin is whipping up criticism online among Greens of a programme made by his own employer. Radio 4’s What’s The Point Of . . . ?, looked at alleged politicisation of the Met Office.

The show was made by the Mail’s Quentin Letts. ‘From what I can gather, Comrade Harrabin has blown his top,’ Letts says. ‘All the hot gas he is producing may rupture the ozone layer.’’

And as QL tells us himself…

‘All hell broke out. Cataracts and hurricanoes! The Met Office itself was unfazed but the eco-lobby, stirred by BBC environment analyst Roger Harrabin, went nuts.’


If you flip this graph horizontally and vertically and then add additional graphics to it you can see that it actually reads ‘Allah loves Roger Harrabin’…..

Image result for global temperatures