There’s this from the Telegraph:

Scrap the Climate Change Act to keep the lights on, says Owen Paterson

And this from the Mail:

Britain will run out of electricity unless it axes green target, warns ex-Minister

And then there is this from the BBC:

…a big fat nothing.

Still when they get round to it here’s the format….a quick run down of what Paterson claims, then a range of ‘credible’ voices disparaging him and his views, then Ed Davey will pad out the rest of the report, ie nearly all of it, with his pro-green claptrap assuring us that the lights will shine even brighter when generated by attaching electrodes to climate sceptic’s doodahs and making them lick the skin of toxic toads, and that otherwise we are all doomed.

You know it all makes sense….or you would know if the BBC reported it.

Interesting take on the world from the BBC.

It has been telling us recently that Turkey is in a dilemma concerning ISIS.  On the one hand it doesn’t want a terrorist state on its borders, on the other it doesn’t want to see the Kurds becoming more established and powerful.

So Turkey has plumped to support ISIS…probably not too hard a decision for the Islamist Erdogan who no doubt fancies resurrecting the Ottoman Empire.

But it was that suggestion that Turkey didn’t want a terrorist state on its borders that caught my ear.

Such a stance might also reflect the opinion of Israel as it faces the reality of what a terrorist state on its borders looks like….one run by Hamas, an organisation that has been declared a terrorist organisation by the EU and the USA….and yet supported by the likes of BBC journalists such as Jon Donnison. (Here he is still pumping out pro-Muslim propaganda and anti-Western or Jewish material)

However you won’t hear the BBC framing Israel’s ‘dilemma’ in those terms….Hamas are of course ‘militants’ or ‘resisters’ in the BBC’s Newspeak lexicon.

Robert Peston wants to take over the world…the BBC has spent years railing against the ‘world’s policeman’ role taken on by the West but all change now, apparently it is a vital part of a healthy and wealthy world….and it gives the BBC another stick to beat ‘The West’ with as, for example,  Ebola is declared all the fault of ‘The West’ by the BBC…

The West’s failure to pre-empt Ebola

In a globalised world, neither money nor viruses [or Islamist terrorists…ed] are great respecters of national borders. They both tend to move with the movement of humans, and they are both hard to detect when humans want to hide them or don’t know they are carrying them.

That is why effective global governance – institutions that make decisions in the interests of the world, not competing nations – are so increasingly important for our health and wealth (by the way, don’t pipe up about the environment and global warming being another example – yes of course that’s right).

This seems to be a BBC approved theme as I heard a Beeboid utter similar sentiments during the week….

‘Isn’t it awful that the West didn’t apply resources to defeat Ebola decades ago!!?’

The BBC has  a bit of a cheek on two counts when taking that line…firstly as mentioned it opposed any move by America and Britain to conduct a liberal interventionist set of policies…and secondly the BBC utterly refused to tackle the question of immigration and any threats that might pose to the resident population, either socially, culturally, economically, politically or in realtion to health.

Farage has been denounced for his belief that immigrants with lethal diseases should not be allowed into the country and now we find that TB in Britain is rising so fast that we will soon have more TB sufferers than the USA.…and immigration is the cause of that as TB was essentially eradicated from Britain….as the Sunday Times reported today…and ironically ‘we’ seem to be exporting it back to Pakistan.

The Mail actually takes Farage’s side in the HIV debate….

Immigrants, HIV and the true cost to the NHS: Should the ‘International Health Service’ be treating patients who come here with the killer disease

Whatever the arguments, the fact is that care is very costly and takes a long time.
Also, once here, it is hard to remove any migrant or asylum seeker with HIV or any other life-threatening ailment.
This is because of the way in which the NHS generously operates and because failed asylum seekers from countries with poor healthcare systems can claim that returning home would condemn them to a ‘certain death’.
They often go to court to fight any decision to repatriate them, on the grounds it would breach their human rights.
Britain has proud record of giving sanctuary to refugees – whatever problems they may bring with them.
Yet the question remains: should Britain – and our now International Health Service – be responsible for the expensive, life-long treatment of illnesses of countless migrants from every part of the world?

The BBC has the nerve to report this, Labour ‘shares’ immigration concerns, insists Harman, without one mention of Labour’s mendacious role in flooding the country with millions of immigrants swamping schools , hospitals, prisons and housing services.

The BBC reports that Harman says ‘Labour must talk more about immigration and demonstrate that it was not just listening but “shared” people’s concerns about its impact on jobs, pay and public services.’

The problem is that when Andrew Neather’s revelations came out about Labour’s lies and what was essentially a form of ethnic cleansing the BBC utterly ignored what would have been a political bombshell that could have destroyed Labour.  Neather admitted the policy was a deliberate attempt to literally change the face of Britain and it was to be done regardless of the cost in jobs and social cohesion in the UK.

Now Peston witters on about global government and Ebola but the BBC is happy to hide the dangerous health concerns that immigration raises in order to keep the borders open and the poeple in ignorance…and it turns out, in danger.

Even today there is no mention of the TB report on the BBC…and when, if, it eventually does report you can guarantee any link to immigration will be ‘managed’ out of the story.

The BBC blames the West for the rise of Ebola…perhaps it should have a look in the mirror and see who is partly responsible for the rise of TB on our own doorstep.

Douglas Carswell in his victory speech in Clacton denounced the ‘cosy consensus, corporate politics’ that believes the only place to be is in the ‘centre’ of the political spectrum and which creates what is in effect a ‘one party state’ where the electorate don’t get a real choice and their views on subjects such as immigration or Europe could be safely ignored because a politician would know that no other party would introduce effective policies that would deal with these issues as the electorate would like…therefore he could safely ignore the electorate whilst perhaps, to keep the mob placated and quiescent, making a few suitably pro-active anti-immigration comments with no intention to implement them….and able to do this because the most powerful and influential part of the news media, the BBC, will not challenge those non-policies on immigration and rigorouly explore the issues…..it always tells us of the benefits but consistently fails to mention the severe downsides of immigration.

Part of the problem has been that the dominant Liberal Media has driven the agenda and almost forced the Tories to move leftward as Cameron decided that he had to ‘decontaminate’ the ‘nasty party’ so that the BBC et al would give it some favourable coverage…turns out he was badly wrong as Clacton proves.

The BBC has been all too ready to impose its world view upon us and force everyone else to dance to its tune.  Part of the problem with the BBC is that it is made up of people who come mostly from the same backgrounds, who have almost identical views on the world and whether by design or not, shape the BBC’s output to fit with that mindset.

Nick Cohen thinks that is harmful and that the ‘Arts’ gene pool is too limited….not enough from the ‘shallow end’.

The privileged few are tightening their grip on the arts

In writing this piece, I do not mean to disparage the young, privately educated journalists I see around me, the sprigs of the Fox and Irons families, the commissioning editors of the BBC and the staff of the National Theatre and Royal Opera House. They are all nice people. But there’s the rub. They are too fucking nice for Britain’s good. Their niceness is a noose that is strangling our ability to talk to ourselves and to the world.

In other words all we get is the usual ‘group think’ which only talks to itself about itself and their own issues, or of other issues, but purely from their own point of view.

You can see the effect it has had on politics with Cameron attempting to turn the Conservatives into a BBC approved centrist party delivering all things to all men…and ending up delivering nothing but a liberal approved consensus  politics…a position ironically so much derided by the same BBC commenators who say they want conviction politics but who also deride the ‘nasty’ Tories and their right wing policies…now better known as UKIP….this is after all the BBC who now holds Russell Brand up as the next political Messiah with his anti-politics message.  The BBC’s corralling of politicians into the centre ground has been the defining factor in turning politics into a non-contact sport where everyone basically has the same ideas without ideology, conviction or principle.

Janet Daley explains the problem with that consensus politics propped up and defended by the BBC as part of its progressive project, its Charter ordained imperative to ‘sustain citizenship and civil society’ (Though just who decides what that Society should look like seems to be left to the BBC…which is the problem):

There is to be no arguing or debating with its assumptions because those who oppose it are simply beneath contempt: fascists, reactionaries, bigots, provincial know-nothings. And this derisive dismissal cuts right across party lines. Compare Gordon Brown’s description of the Labour-voter who dared to express her anxiety about immigration as just a “bigoted woman”, with the sentiment expressed recently by a Tory commentator that the Clacton voters who could not accept the party’s modernising agenda should be ignored until they die off. This is a degree of open, undisguised contempt for the electorate that is unlike anything I have seen in my lifetime.

I thought the basic principle of democracy was that leaders were elected who would embody the will of the people, not that the people had to comply with the will of the leaders or be rejected as unworthy.

That contempt for the People is only possible where the dominant state broadcaster controls the message…..essentially if something isn’t on the BBC it can be safely ignored by politicians.

Here is Roger Scruton’s take on what has happened to politics and the Conservative Party:
[In the Progressive Liberla’s world] no freedom is absolute, and all must be qualified for the common good. Until subject to a rule of law, freedom is merely “the dust and powder of individuality”. But a rule of law requires a shared allegiance, by which people entrust their collective destiny to sovereign institutions that can speak and decide in their name. This shared allegiance is not, as Rousseau and others argued, a contract among the living. It is a partnership between the living, the unborn and the dead – a continuous trust that no generation can pillage for its own advantage.
Our situation today mirrors that faced by Burke. Now, as then, abstract ideas and utopian schemes threaten to displace practical wisdom from the political process. Instead of the common law of England we have the abstract idea of human rights, slapped upon us by European courts whose judges care nothing for our unique social fabric. Instead of our inherited freedoms we have laws forbidding “hate speech” and discrimination that can be used to control what we say and what we do in ever more intrusive ways. The primary institutions of civil society – marriage and the family – have no clear endorsement from our new political class. Most importantly, our parliament has, without consulting the people, handed over sovereignty to Europe, thereby losing control of our borders and our collective assets, the welfare state included.

[The conservative party] seems unaware that in the hearts of conservative voters, social continuity and national identity take precedence over all other issues. Only now, when wave after wave of immigrants seek the benefit of our hard-won assets and freedoms, do the people fully grasp what loss of sovereignty means. And still the party hesitates to reverse the policies that brought us to this pass, while the old guard of Europeanists defend those policies in economic terms, seemingly unaware that the question is not about economics at all.

However, thinking is an unusual and precarious exercise for Conservatives.
This is not because they are more stupid than their socialist or liberal rivals, although John Stuart Mill famously declared them to be so. It is because they believe that good government is not grounded in abstract ideas but in concrete situations, and that concrete situations are hard to grasp. Abstract ideas like equality and liberty have a spurious transparency, and can be used to derive pleasing theorems in the manner of Jean-Jacques Rousseau or John Rawls. But applying them raises the question: to what or to whom? Which group of people is to be made more equal, and who is to be made more free?
Those are not questions to be answered in the abstract. They are questions of identity: who we are, and why we are entitled to use that very pronoun – “we” – to describe us.
governments are elected by a specific people in a specific place, and must meet the people’s needs – including the most important of their needs, which is the need to be bound to their neighbours in a relation of trust. If we cease to maintain a “specific people in a specific place”, then all political principles will be pointless, since there will be no community with an interest in obeying them. That is why, in all the post-war political debates in our country, Conservatives have emphasised the defence of the realm, the maintenance of national borders, and the unity of the nation. It is why they are now entering a period of self-doubt, as the nation disintegrates into its historically established segments, while European regulations dissolve our boundaries.
Abstract ideals, Conservatives argue, are inevitably disruptive, since they undermine the slow, steady work of real politics, which is a work of negotiation and compromise between people whose interests will never coincide.
Seeing politics in that way, however, Conservatives are exposed to the complaint that they have no positive vision, and nothing to offer us, save the status quo – with all its injustices and inequalities, and all its entrenched corruption. It is precisely in facing this charge that the real thinking must be done. In How to Be a Conservative, I offer a response to this ongoing complaint, and in doing so distance Conservatism from what its leftist critics call “neoliberalism”. Conservatism, I argue, is not a matter of defending global capitalism at all costs, or securing the privileges of the few against the many. It is a matter of defending civil society, maintaining autonomous institutions, and defending the citizen against the abuse of power. Its underlying motive is not greed or the lust for power but simply attachment to a way of life.
If we look at the big issues facing us today – the EU, mass immigration, the union, Islamic extremism, the environment – we will surely see that the Conservative view rightly identifies what is now at stake: namely the survival of our way of life.

Conservatives are not very good at articulating the point, and left-liberal censorship intimidates those who attempt to do so. But it is a fault in the socialist and liberal ideas that they can be so easily articulated – a proof that they avoid the real, hard philosophical task, which is that of seeing civil society as it is, and recognising that it is easier to destroy good things in the name of an ideal than to maintain them as a reality.

UKIP romped home in Clacton and put the frighteners on Labour in Heywood and Middleton.

The BBC are not happy.

The Today programme dragged in Matthew Parris (08:53), a man they know has a visceral, almost psychotic, hatred of UKIP and anyone who wants to limit immigration.  The BBC no doubt expected some bile and were not disappointed as Parris pronounced UKIP’s, and right wing Tories’, immigration and Europe policies as nutty and the Party as bigoted and racist.

Parris admits he doesn’t have to be respectful to voters in Clacton…and indeed he isn’t…showing complete contempt for them saying ‘This part of Britain is simply wrong about immigration and Europe.’

Parris’ prescription for how UKIP should proceed in future if it wants to win more seats…..

‘Stop looking like a bigoted, nasty, rightwing party.  Carswell’s already beginning to feel uncomfortable.’

The BBC immediately took up that line about Carswell feeling uncomfortable with UKIP’s immigration policies, almost instantly repeating it on 5Live using Carswell’s victory speech as evidence…….the Guardian also uses the same interpretation….

In a clear sign that he will use his position as Ukip’s first elected MP to ensure that it acts as a tolerant agent of change, Carswell said his party must have a broad appeal.

“To my new party I offer these thoughts. Humility when we win, modesty when we are proved right. If we speak with passion let it always be tempered by compassion.

“We must be a party for all Britain and all Britons, first and second generation as much as every other. Our strength must lie in our breadth. If we stay true to that there is nothing we cannot achieve.”

I would suggest that he isn’t saying he is uncomfortable with UKIP’s immigration policies, that is a disingenuous and deliberately misleading reading of his words by the BBC et al who are subtly trying to put the boot into UKIP’s policies….after all he’s just joined the Party and has long argued for immigration control.

The BBC also came up with a couple of other interesting thoughts….UKIP voters are all white, old and working class….well as UKIP took 60% and 39% of the votes in the two by-elections  that would have to have been a remarkably unique turn out.

Guess that is just the BBC wishing to dismiss UKIP’s support as ignorant, racist and out of touch people who haven’t caught up with the modern world.

The second ‘interesting thought’ (12:10) was that Carswell’s victory wasn’t in fact a vote for UKIP but for a very popular local MP, Douglas Carswell.

That is undermined by a simple look at Heywood and Middleton where UKIP almost stole the election from Labour and their voting perecentage increased by 60%.

That might suggest it is the policies that people are voting for and not just the person…never mind that in 2010 UKIP didn’t put up a candidate in Clacton and  supported Carswell….presumably because he had views that aligned well with theirs.  A vote for him was a vote for UKIP’s policies in essence…the BBC is yet again trying to spin against UKIP.

A very Orwellian rewriting of events by the BBC.

I look forward to the Now Show tomorrow…..three weeks in a row when they trash Miliband?  UKIP is always trashed regardless.

Can’t help thinking the BBC sides with Pietersen in relation to his claims about the England team.

Adrian Chiles said he loved Pietersen’s book and then gave him an easy interview…later admitting he probably was too much influenced by his excitement for the book.

George Riley told us he didn’t care about the facts just the effect the revelations had on England’s reputation…but surely that would rest upon whether Pietersen’s facts were facts…and not I’m really interested in Riley’s opinion..surely he’s there to give us those facts rather than his own personal concerns about events.

Then we had another BBC sports reporter whose name I missed, saying he backed Pietersen and it was all the ECB’s fault.

Not sure on what basis he came to that conclusion.

If you’d listened to 5Live’s coverage of this story you’d be fairly badly informed about events….which as 5Live is the ‘sports’ channel for the BBC you might think that wasn’t a gold medal performance.

For instance the BBC on 5Live kept highlighting certain claims by Pietersen but didn’t reveal any contrasting information that might paint Pieteersen as a hypocrite or plain wrong….even though the ECB’s leaked document was mentioned 5Live didn’t quote anything of relevance from it and it wasn’t until I read it in the newspaper that I got a fuller picture and a different perspective on Pietersen’s claims.

Pietersen criticised Swann and Trott for going home early but he himself was reported to be looking to duck out of a match…

“Prior to the Perth Test, an England team physiotherapist approached AF to inform AF that KP had told him that KP was looking to do anything to go home after the Perth Test if England lost the match to go 3‐0 down. KP allegedly told the physio that if England lost the match, his knee was “going to be really playing up”.

 

Pietersen claims senior players bullied junior ones by shouting at them if they dropped a catch and yet he himself did something similar….

After playing a terrible shot to get out in one of his innings in the Fourth Test, KP returned to the England dressing room and in front of the younger England players, shouted “you lot are useless”.

 

Pietersen claims Andy Flower had it in for him…perhaps because Pietersen had it in for Flower…trying to get him sacked….

AF told KP at the end of the meeting that he was amazed that after 7 years of working together and AF bending over backwards for KP, that KP would talk to AF like that and be so incredibly disloyal as to try to get rid of AF like that behind AF’s back. KP then left AF’s hotel room.”

 

Pietersen said that one England player, Matt Prior, wasn’t good enough…the fact that England hadn’t taken up his contract proved it….

“I don’t think I could have been that wrong because he doesn’t have a central contract any more. England are finished with him.”

Well England haven’t taken up Pietersen’s contract…so that must prove he wasn’t good enough in many respects…scoring runs is not the sole criteria to be judged in a team game…England are finished with Pietersen.

When Piers Morgan (Clarkson punched him…hurray) slagged off England Pietersen laughed and told them to get a thicker skin….which perhaps is an irony considering Pietersen’s own diaphanously thin skin….

“It riled the team and management that KP allowed Piers Morgan to belittle AC [Alastair Cook] and the team on social media. When asked by some of his team mates to get Piers Morgan to stop tweeting about the team, KP laughed at the players and told them to get a thicker skin.”

Pietersen’s book is a hatchet job designed to attack the England team, put Pietersen back in the limelight where he ‘belongs’, to paint himself as a victim and make him lots of money….no coincidence that another player said Pietersen would play for any country that offered enough money, so expecting any loyalty from him might be somewhat foolish.  Pietersen said of Matt Prior….“He’s back-stabbing, he’s horrendous, he’s bad for the environment.”  That surely is more descriptive of Pietersen himself than anyone else…which is why he was given the boot….regardless of his batting prowess.

You might be expected to be able to rely on the BBC to report in a more even fashion and to point out the hypocrisy and fallacies in Pietersen’s claims rather than seemingly to side with him and support his view of events which the facts don’t seem to fully back up.

However the BBC’s Jonathan Agnew does give us a far more nuanced look than I have heard from the rest of the 5Live team saying Pietersen’s book was ‘a stream of unhappiness, suspicion and accusations. ‘

Just a shame the rest of 5Live seem to be in awe of Pietersen.

The BBC has treated us to a lot of Islamist propaganda recently, a lot of it from CageUK.

Allowing such people onto the airwaves is a good thing.  It allows us to hear their arguments and understand what are the reasons for the various actions taken by such people and then lets us assess the rights and wrongs of the situation.

Or it would be a good thing if the BBC did its job and actually engaged them in debate and challenged their views.  All too often however the BBC does not do that, frequently presenting them as charity workers, community leaders,  religious scholars and academics.  They are then allowed to get away with presenting their views without any robust challenge giving them credibility and authority they don’t deserve and twisting the narrative to their own agenda.

Yesterday we had yet another Cage mouthpiece, Moazzam Begg, on the Today programme  (08:10)

Sarah Montague was interviewing him and surprisingly gave him a hard time repeatedly asking him if he supported ISIS….which he refused to answer directly…indirectly he admitted he did support ISIS by saying we should negotiate with the Taliban, Al Qaeda and ISIS…thereby indicating he believed these were legitimate organisations with aims and a status that we should recognise and accept.

Begg was claiming that he could have got Alan Henning released but that the government refused his help….therefore it is the government’s fault that he was killed.  Begg being an Islamist propagandist you can discount that completely…and indeed Montague did seem suitably sceptical about his claims.

Montague did, as said, seem to conduct a reasonably tough interview that revealed Begg in his true light…Begg it has to be said does not give a good interview.  Perhaps he should stay off the airwaves and stick to writing where he might seem less oily perhaps.

The problem is, as always with the BBC, when it comes to the news bulletins that then pick and choose which part of an interview they will highlight.

The bulletins chose to report  Begg’s claims straight, and R4 made them the headline news…unfortunately the context and whole feel of the interview was lost and Begg’s slippery dissembling and evasiveness, which would have revealed the true nature of his claims, went missing, meaning any listener would have been misled as to the real truth of those claims…..all highly relevant if you believe  that the government and society marginalises and ignores Muslims….as the BBC tells us is so…and yet does little to improve Muslim’s understanding of the truth.

Begg also claimed he knew who was holding the hostages….personally I don’t think an interview on the Today programme is sufficient here if he is telling the truth and yet refuses to reveal who those people are.  The best place for Begg might be lying on his back with his head in a bucket of water.

That aside, war with the Islamists isn’t being fought merely in the deserts of the Middle East, it’s on the airwaves and in the newspapers here at home.

The Islamists are still winning…they have shaped the narrative….this morning I heard Peter Allen telling us that Muslims are radicalised because they are disenfranchised, angry and marginalised….and yet we know that’s not true…..only yesterday a Muslim was arrested who had been offered a place at King’s College London to study medicine...and how many times have we been told Muslims love being British?

Until the BBC understands what the underlying basis of the radicalisation is we won’t get a proper debate on the problem and the solution.

They could start with the fact that all Muslim terrorists are Muslim and an examination of the Koran and its commands.

Don’t hold your breath, unless you have your head in a bucket of water that is.

You used to know where you were with Victoria Derbyshire ensconced on her 5Live show, it was safe to surf the airwaves knowing that you wouldn’t come upon her unexpectedly.

That’s all over now she has gone free range.  Nowhere is safe.  Like a Taliban IED she is out there somewhere buried in the schedules just waiting for the unwary listener to tune in and be not so blown away.

Listening to Radio 4 yesterday, and you may be able to imagine the horror, I heard the words ‘The broadcaster Victoria Derbyshire has kept a diary since she was a child.’  They opened up a whole world of  nightmarish possibilities to be inflicted upon us….what had she instore for us?

But I had a reprieve…she had no intention of letting anyone pry into the contents of her diaries, it was to be other people’s diaries that she’d be exploring….the relief was shortlived however as the first guest was revealed….Labour spinmeister Alastair Campbell.

What is it with Campbell and the BBC?  They just can’t get enough of him.  And it’s not as if both he and his diaries aren’t already well known.  So why bother?

Why bother all the more so when you realise that there are only two programmes by Derbyshire on diaries…the next and final one is on writer Fraser Harrison who only kept a diary for a year and doesn’t believe they should be published.  So why bother with him?

Finding someone living who wants to explore their diaries on public radio must be difficult but there must be someone out there who would be willing and more importantly be much more interesting and much less well known already than Campbell.

It looks like the BBC have cast around for a project for Derbyshire to keep her, and Campbell,  busy.

Shame the BBC didn’t buy ‘Big Brother’….Derbyshire, Nigel Farage, Tommy Robinson, Evan Davis, Andrew Neal, Mehdi Hasan and Sarah Montague locked up together for weeks on end.  I’d pay to watch that. And 24 hours a day we’d know where Derbyshire was and could safely surf the airwaves knowing we wouldn’t be ambushed by her in the remote parts of the network where we thought we were safe….or maybe send her here…

The Now Show has either had a word of advice about the meaning of impartiality in the run up to the general election next year or it has seen that Ed Miliband is so atrociously bad as leader of Labour that they could remain silent no longer.

For the last two weeks The Now Show has put the boot into Miliband.

It was especially unimpressed by his failure to remember to mention the economy in his big conference speech.

Curiously though The Now Show itself failed to mention the other topic Miliband ‘forgot’ to mention…immigration….usually a topic they are very eager to mention…in relation to UKIP…a party that would love to change the gun laws so that they could shoot more immigrants…says ‘The Now Show’.  I’m certain there would have been a lot of mileage for a satirical comedian in the news that a Labour party that lied about opening the borders and flooding Britain with immigrants now didn’t want to talk about it.

After all, Alice Gross, age 13, would still be alive today if Labour hadn’t allowed in all and sundry from Europe….and the BBC hadn’t spent 10 years covering up for Labour.

Perhaps Evan Davis would like to explain the benefits of uncontrolled immigration to Alice Gross’s family.

The BBC’s Start The Week had a look at how we should respond to climate change…starting from the position that climate change is happening, it is man made and it is the West that has caused it.

There was much talk of climate justice, changing the moral economy and compensation for the third world, those innocent victims suffering the consequences of the industrial world’s pillaging, exploitation and destruction of the environment and world’s resources.

All the guest speakers were on board the climate change band wagon, Naomi Klein would in any other sphere of life be declared an extremist, possibly a terrorist, for her views and intentions to destroy the Western world’s economy and incite revolution and an uprising of the people….but the BBC loves her.

Curious that Lord Lawson is missing from this conversation, after all the BBC declared he definitely hadn’t been banned from the air waves, and this was the perfect topic for his declared interest which is, not necessarily the science of climate change, but which policies we adopt in reaction to it…hence his think tank…The Global Warming Policy Foundation.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation is unique. We are an all-party and non-party think tank and a registered educational charity which, while open-minded on the contested science of global warming, is deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated.

We are in no sense ‘anti-environmental’. There is a wide range of important environmental issues, which call for an equally wide range of policy responses. Our concern is solely with the possible effects of any future global warming and the policy responses that may evoke.

The BBC obviously bowed to pressure from the professional green lobbyists such as Bob Ward (not a scientist) to keep Lawson off air….though no problem bringing on a Bangladeshi writer and novelist, Tahmima Anam, to talk about climate and policies the West needs to adopt…more money for Bangladesh please.

Not the first time the BBC environmental reporting has bowed to such pressure…Harrabin famous for his altering of a report to suit a green activist.

The very cowardly, unethical and unprofessional BBC pumping ot pure propaganda for the climate lobby.