Author Archives: Alan

A new definition for your BBC Thesaurus:

Employment rises by around one million new jobs in last two years.

The BBC’s definition on ‘Today’:

‘Unemployment has risen less than expected.’

One way of looking at it.

This item on Today about smog in Iran illustrates the BBC’s easy going attitude towards Iran’s nuclear ambitions (2 hrs 53 mins)…..apparently the smog is all the fault of sanctions imposed upon Iran…..and just as the BBC endorsed the campaign to end sanctions on Saddam Hussein they rarely miss an opportunity to undermine those on Iran or any possibility of a military strike against Iran to stop its nuclear ambitions….a plane crashes a couple of years ago and it’s the fault of sanctions…never mind that it is a Russian built aircraft not supplied by the US.

Sarah Montague was straight in today with the accusation that sanctions were to blame for the smog…however no such excuses were made in 2005 or 2007 (or indeed for the smog in Beijing…do we impose sanctions on China?)….

2005   More than 1,600 people have been taken to hospitals in Tehran as pollution in the Iranian capital reaches critical levels, health officials have said.

Authorities have blamed the severe smog on emissions from the capital’s three million cars, many of which lack modern exhaust filters.
It is estimated that up to 5,000 people die every year from air pollution in the city.

2007  Iran smog ‘kills 3,600 in month’
Cheap fuel encourages car use in Iran, correspondents say, and many vehicles do not meet global emissions standards.
“It is a very serious and lethal crisis, a collective suicide,” the director of Tehran’s clean air committee, Mohammad Hadi Heydarzadeh, told an Iranian newspaper.

So cheap fuel encouraging extensive use by massive numbers of cars which do not meet modern emission standards.  Collective suicide?  or Sanctions?   Some one forgot to mention them.

‘Comparing the boastful narration with its shrugging response to the bug is instructive. In the world of Apple, its devices are magic and any acknowledgement that they’ve failed to live up to that dream is quietly filed on its support site.’

That was of course a comment on Apple’s lack of response to customer complaints…and continues further on to suggest why that is such a problem for such a massively successful company…….

‘….It’s easy to dismiss the Do Not Disturb bug as trivial and in isolation it is, but over time Apple’s response to problems and the number of irritating little errors that pop up in iOS could begin to mount up in the public consciousness.  And while Apple’s successes get massive coverage, it’s mistakes are equally magnified.’

You might have had a feeling of deja vu as you read that, a feeling that some other rather large and ‘magic’ and rather boastfully proud corporation could just as easily be being described.

No prizes for guessing which one I’m talking about.

But here is a classic example of that Corporation’s unwillingness to respond in an honest and open way to questions:

BBC Trust facing calls to publish ‘tax avoidance’ emails
The BBC Trust was today facing calls to publish emails that could show the corporation gave its star presenters an avenue to avoid tax.

…but it refuses to do so.

Kind of strange from an organisation that prides itself not only on its own accountability and transparency but also on its power to hold others to  similar account.

How can it possibly demand answers when it refuses to answer exactly the same questions itself?

Think Different indeed.

One of the BBC’s favourite tricks is to bring on guests that it knows will say the things an ‘impartial’  BBC cannot.

We’ve had the ‘guest editors’ on the Today programme recently and Dr Steve Jones disparaging climate ‘sceptics’….now they bring on the clowns…or rather the cartoonists (2 hrs 45 mins)….Peter Brookes and Steve Bell….who are given free reign to vent their spleens about the government, and UKIP……..a great ruse to allow otherwise unacceptable abuse, invective and political partisanship onto the airwaves….

‘The Thick of it is a comedy that satirises the inner workings of government. But this year with Plebgate, Pastygate and Omnishambles, there were clear parallels with life imitating art. Cartoonists Peter Brookes of The Times and Steve Bell of The Guardian discuss whether this was the year that politics became more ridiculous than satire.’

Some of Bell’s work…..

Jim Naughtie kicks it all off…..

Jim Naughtie:  No doubt a pretty fertile year for a political cartoonist….beyond your wildest dreams isn’t it Steve Bell?

Steve Bell:  This government is stupendously useless, they really are and it’s amazing how everything bounces off them, they just bounce back.…this lot are not going to be re-elected.

JN:  Not so useless if they bounce back though?  You come at this from such an oppositionist point of view that you can tear them to shreds because that’s what you want to do.

SB:  That’s a fair point, political cartooning is a negative thing….but there’s something peculiarly noxious about this lot, this strange sort of blend of Conservatives and Liberals.

JN: Peter Brookes, you must be delving deep into the zoological books to find an equivalent these days.

Peter Brookes:  It becomes more difficult as these people become more ridiculous and animal like.

JN:  They’re a wonderful bunch for you, in all parties [see BBC impartial!], and you’ve got UKIP coming up…that’s got to give you a field day hasn‘t it?

PB:  Oh the pleasure, Nigel Farage, good lord above, something slimy, something creepy, something desperately unpleasant…..something reptilian.

JN:  Cartoonists can say anything.…you need them [this government] to carry on don’t you?

SB:  I don’t want this lot, I want them gone as soon as possible.

Steve Bell of course works for the self-admitted Anti-Semitic Guardian….his own work hardly discourages that view of the Guardian……..

This is someone’s satirical view of Bell…..

And at least Peter Brookes can see the other side as well……

This post brings to light an astonishingly blatant lie by the BBC, one that is intended to smash Thatcher’s reputation and claim she, and the ‘deeply unpopular’ Conservatives, would never have won the 1983 election if the British Public had known the ‘truth‘ about ‘secret’ negotiations to sell out the Falkland Islanders to the Argentinians.

The BBC line is also a betrayal of all who served and fought to retake the Falklands by suggesting their sacrifices were based upon a lie fighting an unnecesary war.

Odd that the BBC should present the negotiations as a sell out…..here are  John Humphry’s recent thoughts:

‘So the time has come for Britain to negotiate. A deal should be struck which establishes Argentinian sovereignty over the islands while allowing the islanders to remain British and which perhaps shares the spoils of oil exploration.‘

The Falklands War was the defining moment for Thatcher that set her on course as the Iron Lady and brought her characteristics as a leader to the fore…a capable, determined and strong  leader in a major crisis.

The BBC aims to destroy that image and reputation…this programme is the latest in a long line of efforts to undermine the Thatcher years and achievements.

To the BBC she is essentially the foundation of the real Tory Party much as Churchill was to Britain as a whole in the war….she represents everything that the Tories value and which put this country back on its feet, and would again given the chance.

The BBC  want to tarnish that image in the belief that if they can destroy her image, one based on real achievement not media spin, they can put the final nail in the Tory political coffin.

The programme, UK Confidential, presented by Martha Kearney, looks closely at the Falklands War….

‘With unique access to secret government papers, Martha Kearney presents a look at the political events of 1982 as told through the Cabinet minutes, Prime Ministerial papers and Foreign and Commonwealth Office documents and briefings that are being released to the public at the end of the year.

Close to 30,000 Government papers containing top secret memos, notes and briefings are included in the release, and the Radio 4 team have been given special access over the last few weeks.

In addition we may well find out details of how the Franks Inquiry into the Falklands War put politicians and civil servants under the spotlight and how those around Margaret Thatcher sought to capitalise on her renewed popularity in the wake of the victory in the South Atlantic.’

The programme has to report the ‘facts’ of course, up to a point anyway….but it is how it interprets them that is important…in this case that interpretation is inclined to be negative, attempting to ensure that Thatcher comes out with little or no credit for her stance over the Falklands….and indeed hopes to pin blame for an ’unnecessary’ war onto her…..claiming either that she fought the war to win an election….never mind that it was the Argentines who started the war, or conversely, that because she was surprised that the Argentines invaded she was out of touch and incompetent.

Kearney tells us what an election winner the Falklands War was…
‘The Tories were deeply unpopular but now as a result of the Falklands factor they [the Conservatives] could look forward to an election with some hope of success.

It was a very important factor in winning the 1983 election.‘

But was that the motivation?

Mrs Thatcher says far more was at stake…
‘Nothing remains more vividly in my mind, looking back on my years in 10 Downing Street, than the eleven weeks in the spring of 1982 when Britain fought and won the Falklands War. Much was at stake: what we were fighting for eight thousand miles away in the South Atlantic was not only the territory and the people of the Falklands, important though they were.
We were defending our honour as a nation, and principles of fundamental importance to the whole world – above all, that aggressors should never succeed and that international law should prevail over the use of force.
The significance of the Falklands War was enormous, both for Britain’s self-confidence and for our standing in the world.’

The Falklands factor had repercussions around the world for how the West was viewed by likely ‘enemies’…..

‘We had come to be seen by both friends and enemies as a nation which lacked the will and the capability to defend its interests in peace, let alone in war. Victory in the Falklands changed that. Everywhere I went after the war, Britain’s name meant something more than it had. The war also had real importance in relations between East and West: years later I was told by a Russian general that the Soviets had been firmly convinced that we would not fight for the Falklands, and that if we did fight we would lose. We proved them wrong on both counts, and they did not forget the fact.’

Kearney goes on to quietly denounce the sinking of the Belgrano which she thinks was ‘illegally’ sunk because it was heading away from the Falklands…..despite these revelations….and the fact that whichever way the ship was heading it represented an enormous threat to the British forces who were supplied and reinforced by sea….sinking it was a legitimate course of action.

Kearney goes on to suggest that the Franks Report into the start of the war was a whitewash…..‘The Franks report exonerated the government, a conclusion critics say is a whitewash.  In the flush of victory there was little appetite for censure.’

It is that last ‘little appetite for censure’ addition that gives away her thinking….that perhaps there should have been censure.

Then comes the Big Lie…..at the end of the programme we get the claim that the Falkland Islanders were sold out by Thatcher in pre-war secret negotiations …and that if the British Public had known of this they would have viewed Thatcher differently and voted otherwise in the election.

‘The Franks Report exonerated the government, a conclusion critics say is a whitewash.  In the flush of victory there was little appetite for censure.  
Kept out of the report was the record of secret talks Nicholas Ridley held in 1980.
Had the Public known how close the bargaining position had been less than 2 years before they went to war would they have viewed the conflict in the same way.

Prof. Paul Rogers (a professor of peace studies)….‘History could have had a different path.’

Simon Jenkins….‘Britain was preparing to sell out the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.’

So the talks were secret and the British Public had no knowledge of them?

Really?

What makes that such an obvious lie is that  the BBC has had access to these documents and has been preparing this programme for weeks….

‘Close to 30,000 Government papers containing top secret memos, notes and briefings are included in the release, and the Radio 4 team have been given special access over the last few weeks.’

And yet literally 30 seconds on Google will turn up this from 1980 revealing that the Falkland Islanders themselves knew of the negotiations, were involved in them and that they were discussed in Parliament…so much for ‘SECRET‘:

Ridley and Leaseback
Extracts from the House of Commons debate of 2 December 1980
(First published in the Falkland Islands Newsletter No.9, December 1980)
The background to the proposal by FCO Minister Nicholas Ridley that sovereignty of the Falkland Islands be transferred by the United Kingdom to Argentina, who would then lease back the Islands to the UK for an agreed period of time, can be found in ‘A Brief History of the Falkland Islands’ on this portal
I therefore visited the Islands between 22 and 29 November in order to consult Islands councillors and subsequently, at their express request, all Islanders, on how we should proceed. Various possible bases for seeking a negotiated settlement were discussed. These included both a way of freezing the dispute for a period or exchanging the title of sovereignty against a long lease of the Islands back to Her Majesty’s Government. The essential elements of any solution would be that it should preserve British administration, law and way of life for the Islanders while releasing the potential of the Islands’ economy and of their maritime resources, at present blighted by the dispute. It is for the Islanders to advise on which, if any, option should be explored in negotiations with the Argentines. I have asked them to let me have their views in due course. Any eventual settlement would have to be endorsed by the Islanders, and by this House. ‘

Should that not have been enough there is this report from the Times, again from 1980, two years before the war:

Britain puts forward four options on Falklands
By Michael Frenchman
There is good sense in some of the options which Britain is putting forward on the Falkland Islands, particularly the lease-back formula. Under this plan, sovereignty over the islands would be ceded to Argentina but Britain would lease back the islands, either without a time limit or for say, 99 years.
It remains to be seen whether the islanders will agree with this or any of the other ideas which the British Government is canvassing after having taken soundings with the Argentines. The dispute over sovereignty has gone on for more than a hundred years.
Mr Nicholas Ridley, Minister of State at the Foreign Office, who is having talks with the islanders, apparently believes that a solution may be achieved by outright transfer of sovereignty, by transfer and lease back, by freezing the dispute for 25 years, or by taking what would be a drastic step and breaking off talks altogether.
An outright transfer would be politically unacceptable. The lease-back idea, on similar lines as for Hongkong, is the one Whitehall has been suggesting behind the scenes for some time. A freeze would merely defer the decision. A break-up of talks would probably lead to a confrontation.
During the past five years the population has declined from just over 1,900 to 1,720 (a census is imminent). Most of them are directly descended from the original British colonists, others have, come to the islands since the colony was founded in 1833.
1980 Nov 28 Fr Commentary (The Times)

Was there ever a clearer case of the BBC misleading the listener about one of the major events in British history with the intent of smearing a politician whose reputation  they have spent 30 years trying to destroy?

The Today programme is letting go of the controls and allowing the Great British Public to work the machine in the guise of guest editors.

Or not.

The guest editors are the usual bunch of ‘safe hands’ who can be relied upon to toe the party line and not rock the boat……

Sir Paul Nurse who believes strongly that scientists have a duty to speak out about science in public life and challenge pseudoscience (ie climate sceptics!)….and is of course strongly pro AGW.

Melinda Gates. Wife of Bill Gates…..happily in line with BBC ethos of tackling poverty by the rich, and the British government, giving away all their money to poor countries….

‘Since retiring as the company’s general manager of information products in 1996, Melinda Gates has focused on philanthropy. The foundation, which was founded in 1994 and renamed in 2000, seeks to tackle extreme poverty and enhance healthcare throughout the world. “I am very excited about the opportunity to guest edit the Today programme,” she says. “I hope to highlight the amazing progress that has already been made in improving the lives of the world’s poorest people, and the vital role that UK generosity and African leadership have played.’

Benjamin Zephaniah……who must be paying PAYE by now at the BBC he’s on so often…..no need to say anything about him.

Al Murray, Pub Landlord….. in real life nothing like his on-stage persona……

‘The comedian could not be further removed from his outrageous alter ego. In place of the boorish pub bore, Murray is a sensitive, intelligent Oxford history graduate with a most un-Landlordly interest in learning and literature. Unlike his rabidly right-wing creation, the comic says he could never bring himself to vote Tory.  There is, i’m very glad to report, a huge gulf between performer and performance. Murray is quick to underline that ‘there is a strict gap between me and the Landlord. It’s not even a fine line – it’s a Grand Canyon!’ ‘

And finally the token non lovey type…journalist Ann Leslie…someone from whom BBC journo’s, so called, could learn a lot…. though she is politically non partisan and  did support the Iraq War and Bush.…..her husband was a BBC studio manager…..

‘She did, however, back the Iraq war, thereby contradicting her newspaper’s editorial line. ‘I don’t vote any particular line. I was against the Kosovo war because I believe it delayed the departure of Milosevic. I was in favour of the Iraq war from my experiences seeing the Shias being pulverised and I came to the conclusion ” and I didn’t know about WMD, who did? ” that we would have to dislodge Saddam Hussein sometime because he certainly had the intention to get WMD. He was an off-the-wall psychopath.’

The catastrophic aftermath of the Iraq war has, in part, led to Leslie’s growing disenchantment with George Bush, a politician she had long admired. She used ‘subterfuge’ to get a one-on-one interview with the US President when he was running for the White House in 2000. ‘We got on like a house on fire,’ says Leslie. ‘He’s a very, very sharp man. He has a speech problem, which his father had too. But he has great instinct. I’ve been a great cheerleader for him, but recently he appears to have lost the extraordinary instinctive ability to connect with his own people. Having said that, I loathe the anti-Americanism that newspapers like The Independent go in for. I despise the moral equivalence that Bush and Blair are ‘war criminals’. How many mass graves are we digging up outside Esher, of people who have opposed Thatcher or Blair?’ ‘

We all know the BBC has decided that the ‘science is settled’ with regard to climate change being man made…..strangely however the BBC constantly tells us that science is a ‘process’ (a line no doubt picked up from Dr Joe Smith) and that science is all about doubt and questioning results.

The BBC for some reason does not think that applies to climate change despite there being no ‘proof’ of a significant CO2 link.

The BBC is also pretty adamant that ‘climate sceptics’ are a bunch of unqualified bloggers or lunatics with no climate science credentials to back up their claims.

The BBC is however prepared to listen to Stern, an economist, or Ed Miliband, a graduate in politics, economics and philosophy…or Al Gore or George Monbiot, a zoology graduate turned journalist, or Paul Nurse, a geneticist,  or indeed the late Richard Black and the still present Roger Harrabin…journalists, very definitely not climate scientists….not scientists at all.

Not being scientists means you are not a scientist….and a geneticist is just as ‘unqualified’ to speak about climate change as a shelf stacker at Tescos…or as ‘qualified’ if you like…..it does not mean you cannot read and understand what climate scientists report…and come to your own valid conclusions based upon that information….as every politician in government has to.

The BBC seems to have once again admitted the value of public scrutiny of ‘science’ and the fact of uncertainty in that science….in this Today programme…… (8:41) in which Tom Feilden talks to David Spiegelhalter about people’s perceptions of science…..just a shame that they seem to be struck by the old Orwellian ‘Double Think’…the ability to honestly believe something and yet deny it at the same time…..here telling us of the uncertainty of science and the need for openness by scientists and public scrutiny of their work…but refusing to allow that in the case of climate change…..

TF:  We have misconceptions about science…we always think that science can give us the right answers all the time and of course almost by definition science is the other way round…that scientists work in areas where ambiguity and uncertainty is rife…..However many resources we put into it there is always uncertainty attached to it.

If the answer is for scientists to be more open about the gaps in their knowledge and for the media to resist the temptation to push for greater certainty then the message whether it’s about earthquakes or climate change is going to get harder to interpret.…but perhaps the days when men in white coats could offer smug reassurance and be believed have long one…

DS:  ….and that is  no bad thing.….That paternalistic view is no longer an adequate response.….
TF:  But it is going to be messier…if society is going to have to shoulder more of the responsibility for interpreting the information coming from science.

DS:  Yes.…it is messier…but I think it is more honest and the way that science has to go.

Spiegelhalter seems a safe bet for the BBC (much like Steve Jones examining ‘impartiality’) having been a presenter on a previous programme and a Fox News sceptic…

‘Tails you win: the science of chance’ aired on BBC4 at 9pm on October 18th. The video trailer is up on Youtube

David Spiegelhalter ?@undunc
Staggering fiddled graphics by Fox News http://bit.ly/Tah3IV  – wonderful teaching material

Amusing end to the programme with Evan Davis revealing his New Year’s resolution….‘To allow a bit more nuance and some balance..at least for three weeks.’

Yes, in this season of good will to all men the BBC’s Jeremy Bowen extends the hand of friendship towards the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.    (0810)

Many people doubt their democratic intentions…Bowen tells us that some people go so far as to suggest their actions are a ‘blow against Democracy‘….but he thinks not….this is merely the birth pains of any new state…the Egyptians are merely ‘learning how to be democratic’.

Much in the same way the Germans learnt how to be democratic in the 1930’s.

No free speech, no free judiciary, the media being locked up, no separation of government from religion, no Christians or Liberals on the Assembly……..obviously the Muslim Brotherhood has a lot to learn about Democracy…on the other hand you could say they have learnt only too well….as Turkey’s Erdogan said about democracy….democracy was like a bus: “You ride it until you arrive at your destination, then you step off.”

End of the line….All change…into Burkas!

A bit of a paradox really…the BBC has put a lot of effort into issuing ‘warnings from history’ about ‘Austerity’  being a harbinger of a new Fascism rising in Europe….but let’s face it, the likelihood of another Htler and everything that entailed in Europe is zero…..and yet the very real likelihood of  similar regimes taking power in the Middle East is played down…..and you have to ask what would be the consequences for Jews in the Middle East if the Muslim Brotherhood do finally take over completely and the peace treaty is scrapped.

On that cheery note  I  (and Jeremy) wish you all a very merry Christmas and happy new year.

This R4 programme is unfortunately not available to listen to anymore…
Lawrence of Arabia: The Man and the Myth …but this was one of the BBC’s ‘Trojan Horses’…a programme masquerading as one thing whilst actually being a ‘vehicle’ for something else entirely.

Clearly from the title you get an idea of what to expect…but you’d be wrong……far from being a history of Lawrence of Arabia it was another of the BBC’s  warnings, or lessons, from History about the dangers of Imperialism, Colonialism and War…..and in particular the illegitimacy and injustice of the creation of Israel.

As the BBC said… ‘It shines a sharp light on the pre-occupations of our own times…..his (Lawrence’s) post-Imperial vision might have shaped a rather different Middle East today.’

Well that’s pretty much nonsense…as Lawrence was fairly  pleased with the post war arrangements….

‘The settlement which Winston (mainly because my advocacy supplied him with all the technical advice and arguments necessary) put through in 1921 and 1922 was, I think, the best possible settlement which Great Britain, alone, could achieve at the time.’

‘As I get further and further away from things the more completely do I feel that our efforts during the war have justified themselves and are proving happier and better than I’d ever hoped.’

Neither of those statements, from letters to trusted friends, reveals a man who thinks that the post war settlement was a terrible outcome for the Middle East.

‘Lawrence mounted a bitter campaign in the British press – which impressed the Colonial Secretary, Winston Churchill. Lawrence reluctantly joined a new think- tank whose brief was to carve out a just settlement for the Arabs.

In March 1921, Lawrence travelled to Cairo with Churchill, to create a new settlement. With the Arabs they created a new order. Feisal, recently banished from Syria, received the throne of Iraq and British troops were removed.

Feisal’s brother, Abdullah, received the throne of Transjordan. Lawrence was convinced this settlement gave the Arabs all Britain had ever promised.

Finally, his long war was over. ‘

The BBC’s ‘facts’ which are used to colour this narrative and support its line are also dubious….the programme tells us Lawrence treated officers with contempt, as buffoons….but far from it…he was on very good terms with many officers and maintained good relations with them and senior politicians, such as Churchill, after the war right through till his death.

The programme told us he loved dressing up as an Arab and that he was a showman seeking attention…he would have loved the ‘limelight‘….well his own writing says he only adopted Arab dress in order to fit in….and as for seeking attention he in fact went out of his way to avoid it….refusing to publish his books, refusing to allow a film of the books to be made, refusing to talk to the Press and having himself posted to India whilst in the RAF to avoid more exposure.

The BBC tells us Lawrence initiated a new way of war, that he was a pioneer of fighting behind enemy lines…..the BBC had the grace to mention the Boer Commandos but dismissed them for some reason as not being real guerrilla fighters….never mind Roger’s Rangers, or the native American Indians used by both sides in the American War of Independence as scouts and raiders.…or the Spanish Guerrillas in the Peninsular War (the origin of the word‘ Guerrilla‘)…or….well, you can go back through history to find that guerrilla warfare has been fought as long as there have been wars.

‘Guerrilla warfare can be traced back to Sun Tzu, in his The Art of War (6th century BCE).  Some authors argue that his example directly inspired the development of modern guerrilla warfare.’

The programme also says the secret to fighting any war is ‘hearts and minds’…..really?  A somewhat over rated belief.…one that is more a sound bite for politicians and media…..the reality is money (and success) talks.…

‘Lawrence wrote of his meeting with Allenby, “He was hardly prepared for anything so odd as myself – a little bare-footed silk-skirted man offering to hobble the enemy by his preaching if given stores and arms and a fund of two hundred thousand sovereigns to convince and control his converts.” ’

The Indians agreed to fight for Britain in the WWII because they were promised independence if they did…..not out of love or sentiment for the Raj….pure self-interest…and why not of course.

 
That’s all window dressing though…the main aim of the programme was to get onto the structure of the Middle East today…or more specifically the creation, and continued existence of Israel.

 
The BBC tells us that a map of the Middle East as Lawrence would like to have seen it had been discovered a couple of years ago…the BBC tells us that if only the map had been followed we would have no problems now (erm…no Israel).…unfortunately what the map reveals is that the Middle East is not too dissimilar to that intended.…it also reveals the intention to create several ‘States’ or nations…and not an over arching Arab ‘Empire’.
The map also shows that Lawrence intended these ‘sovereign’ states would still be under British ‘guidance’….and no doubt the map was not a final draft but merely a working suggestion, from the basis of which, the final borders could be eventually drawn.

We were told that ‘Palestine cannot be shared with others…it is for the Arabs.…they are a ‘nation’ ’…and the creation of Israel would have dire consequences.

Sykes -Picot and the Balfour Declaration both get the usual airing.….and the blame for all the ills of the region placed firmly in the Western court…in particular with Britain……but let’s look at the reality…the Middle East has been reasonably peaceful since its post WWI restructuring…..relative to say Africa or even Europe (WWII, Balkans, NI…and the Cold War, exported around the World).  Many new states were created that still exist today and have run successfully, however you may define success, under one regime or another.

The BBC have chosen as one of their main contributors Rory Stewart….who is a well known anti-war advocate, and anti Liberal-Interventionist……he is hardly a voice of reason and impartiality when it comes to the Middle East and any agreements ‘imposed’ by Western powers…..He criticises the agreements but the Arabs got a lot of what they wanted….who gets everything?…in particular the creation of Saudi Arabia, the Arab Kingdom….and if not ‘imposed’ and enforced and protected by Western powers what would have happened?  Complete chaos and war.
Much of Europe is the creation of redrawn maps after each war….so why does the BBC attack a similar process in the Middle East……or is it just one country in particular…Israel…that creates a ‘problem’?

What is it about Israel that is a problem?  Israelis are ‘Semitic’ just as the Arabs are, and have roots in the region that go back thousands of years….Jordan was created out of at least half of ‘Palestine’.…and yet no one raises an objection or voices an opinion that Jordan should be part of a new ‘Palestinian’ state.  So why is the creation of Israel such a problem?

It boils down to the Jewishness of the Israelis…..it’s pure, outright ‘racism’ or rather discrimination  due to religion….had the Israelis been Muslim like their Jordanian neighbours or their parallel ‘Muslim Zionists’ in Pakistan then I doubt any objections would have been raised at all about the creation of ‘Israel’.

It is simply a hatred of Jews, the usual Muslim ‘apartheid’ attitude to non-Muslims, that is driving the conflict…and it is the BBC which is one of the supporters of this attitude, continually attacking the creation and continued existence of Israel in programmes like this, which does so much to legitimise violence against Israel itself and Jews around the world.

Just another BBC anti-Israel programme trying to slip in under the radar.

Climate scientists in Germany are saying forget the attempts to reduce emissions…..instead concentrate on attempting to deal with the effects of climate change…however that change is generated…. in other words exactly what Bush and the Americans were saying a decade ago….and for which he has been extensively abused and mocked by the clever folk of the BBC…..they loved the computer models which the sceptics have always criticised as being unrepresentative of reality and that seems to be the considered view here as well…..

“The situation is absurd,” says Sebastian Wiesnet of the University of Bamberg. “It would be more forthright, with respect to voters, to step back and think about how global climate protection could really be implemented.” Efforts to actually prepare for the effects of climate change, he says, could not only be implemented more quickly, but they would also be cheaper than emissions reduction efforts.

“The current discussion is much too fixated on greenhouse gases,” says Frank Uekötter, an environmental historian. He refers to the recent climate conference failures as the “phase of inaction.”

Instead, many say that measures aimed at dealing with the inevitable consequences of climate change must become central.

Any sort of move away from the 2 degree Celsius target, of course, would be politically risky. To many, it would sound like an abdication and a retreat from decades of pledges to finally launch a global effort to combat global warming. But researchers are beginning to come to the conclusion that there might be no other way.

Today’s computer-simulated climate models, the foundation of all UN climate negotiations, represent the “almost complete disregard for reality,” says Werner Krauss, from the Helmholtz Geesthacht Center for Materials and Coastal Research.

“A world is being saved that only exists as a model.”

Will the BBC report this?  They consistently fail to report on major stories from Germany that indicate wind farms and green policies fail disasterously and at great expense.

Even if the science is ‘settled’ (and it’s not) there must still be a debate on how to deal with the ‘reality’…..aim for greenhouse gas reductions….and as yet there is no proof that these gases are the cause of global warming….or invest in projects to ‘adapt to, improvise and overcome’ the consequences of any change in climate.

The BBC cannot duck that one……it is surely the next big debate……my money is on them continuing to push the green house gas agenda….reputations, egos and careers, not to mention vast amounts of cash, are at stake based on their CO2 theory being the right one.

….but it seems that even the IPCC are hedging their bets now.

Perhaps people should start checking what odds they might get at the bookies for when the climate lobby finally admits that CO2 isn’t the cause of global warming….I’d guess three years from now max.