“We are going to frame the issue of climate change as more of a distributional issue,” said Dr Petersen.

Remember this very negative report about gas from Harrabin, ooh what, 3 days ago?…

UN set to warn countries over ‘dash for gas‘

Governments are likely to be warned next week that a “dash for gas” will not solve climate change.

A draft report for the United Nation’s third panel on climate change says gas cannot provide a long-term solution to stabilising climate change.

Gas is only worthwhile if it is used to substitute a dirty coal plant – and then only for a short period, it says.

The report will offer ammunition to the Department for Energy and Climate Change, which has fought attempts from the Treasury to switch more of the UK’s energy sources to gas with the projected “shale gas revolution”.

The UK hopes to emulate the success of the US, where shale gas has slashed energy prices and stimulated manufacturing.

A big, eye catching claim…..Pretty clear which way his report is leaning…..any chance he is against the use of gas?

Let’s see what the UN’s IPCC actually says  (page 23) [getting to be a regular thing with Roger…having to read the original as opposed to his interpretation]:

GHG emissions from energy supply can be reduced significantly by replacing current world average coal-fired power plants with modern, highly efficient natural gas combined-cycle power plants or combined heat and power plants, provided that natural gas is available and the fugitive emissions associated with extraction and supply are low or mitigated (robust evidence, high agreement).

So the IPCC says green house gases can be reduced significantly by using gas to generate power instead of coal.

Not the inference that you might take, and were meant to take, from Harrabin’s headline….where is that overwrought warning about a ‘dash for gas’?

As the latest BBC report admits:

One of the surprising endorsements in the report is natural gas.

And….

Natural gas is seen as a key bridge to move energy production away from oil and coal.

Ouch.   A surprise for some certainly.  Roger should stick to reporting rather than proselytising.

However not a mention of the word ‘Fracking’ in those BBC reports….the IPCC uses the phrase ‘natural gas’ but of course everyone knows this means mainly gas from Fracking these days…and you might expect the BBC to make a comment along those lines…but guess what….it sticks religiously to ‘natural gas’.

The Telegraph reports (and the BBC doesn’t) this comment from the IPCC about fracking:

Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the working group that drew up the report, said it was “quite clear” that shale gas – extracted through the controversial process of fracking – “can be very consistent with low carbon development and decarbonisation”.

The Daily Mail reports:

Fracking can help to slow global warming admit UN scientists… and so can nuclear power

The Times also has a striking headline:

Shale Gas could stop the world from overheating.

And yet the BBC’s science reporters are avoiding the word Fracking, or Shale Gas in relation to this….and Harrabin’s pre-emptive report was no more than a ploy to try and set the impression that Gas is bad.

Not unlike his mate Matt McGrath who suddenly finds green subsidies, and the subsequent additional cost added to fuel prices, very interesting….now highlighting the cost to the taxpayer of green subsidies claiming getting rid of wind farms will push up costs…whereas the BBC showed no interest previoulsy when claims were made that green taxes were already making energy too expensive…..

Plans to curb wind turbines onshore will push up electricity bills

And note these two interesting statements from the report:

Issues of equity, justice, and fairness arise with respect to mitigation and adaptation. Countries’ past and future contributions to the accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere are different, and countries also face varying challenges and circumstances, and have different capacities to address mitigation and adaptation. The evidence suggests that outcomes seen as equitable can lead to more effective cooperation.

In other words the developed nations must pay large sums to the poorer ones for their historic climate crimes……

“We are going to frame the issue of climate change as more of a distributional issue,” said Dr Petersen.

The problem, as ever, is who foots the bill?

“It is not up to IPCC to define that,” said Dr Jose Marengo, a Brazilian government official who attended the talks.

“It provides the scientific basis to say this is the bill, somebody has to pay, and with the scientific grounds it is relatively easier now to go to the climate negotiations in the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) and start making deals about who will pay for adaptation.”

So the science is settled…and they have also decided who is responsible and therefore who must pay.

And what will you have to do personally? (apart from handing over your taxes so that a kind politician in the UK can hand it over to a corrupt one in what UKIP might call ‘bongo bongo land’)…

Behaviour, lifestyle and culture have a considerable influence on energy use and associated emissions, with high mitigation potential in some sectors, in particular when complementing technological and structural change. Emissions can be substantially lowered through changes in consumption patterns (e.g., mobility demand and mode, energy use in households, choice of longer-lasting products) and dietary change and reduction in food wastes.

So…lower your consumption, lower the amount of food you eat and change the type of food, don’t travel anywhere, use less energy at home…essentially change your whole life.

Don’t worry though…if you don’t get a say in all this the BBC’s Roger Harrabin is on hand to ‘hold the dodgy politicians to account’ and challenge their outlandish claims for you…oh…no he isn’t…he’s working with them to destroy your way of life.

Is BBC bias important?   You can bet your life, and your lifestyle, it is.

Harrabin is still out there smearing those who do not believe….

In one report he states:

[Pickles has banned windfarms because of pressure from the right wing press suggests Harrabin…..]

Communities Secretary Eric Pickles has staged a minor coup over coalition energy policy.
Conservative newspapers have been demanding a cap on onshore wind farms, but the Lib Dems have refused to agree…..the Liberal Democrats, accused him of playing politics….

Unfortunately he offers no proof and the truth is that it is backbenchers who have been complaining…because their constituents, voters, don’t like windfarms…MPs are good with numbers, we know that, and can do the maths, especially in marginal seats…..any urgings from the Press will make little difference unless they are reporting what the voters are really thinking.

But nice of Harrabin to dismiss the concerns of the general public so readily to suit his own agenda.

In another he claims:

One senior Conservative told me many of his backbench colleagues were heavily influenced by the Mail on Sunday’s campaign to define climate change as a con trick.

A ‘One senior Conservative’ says Harrabin, snitched on his not so green colleagues.

Let me guess….could he possibly be Tim Yeo, head of the Energy and Climate Change Committee with many vested interests in keeping the climate change narrative on the boil and an ardent fan of the green monster?

And where’s the proof again?…It is merely Harrabin peddling anonymous barbs that coincidentally, and happily,  suit his own purposes.

Harrabin uses a choice selection of perjorative terms with not so subtle inferences….’Campaign’ and ‘con trick’.

The Mail frequently prints both sides of the AGW debate….but Harrabin’s use of ‘Campaign’ is meant to indicate that the Mail is attacking the science regardless of the truth and probably with some agenda.   As for ‘con trick’….if any of the facts printed by the Mail indicate a deliberate attempt to mislead the public by scientists or politicians that can hardly be interpreted as the Mail trying to falsely claim it is a con trick….because it would be a con trick.

Just another couple of examples of Harrabin’s sly approach to undermining and denigrating those who want to actually examine the evidence and make judgements based on that rather than being force fed a ‘Received  Wisdom’ that is based more on belief than scientific rigour.

Remarkable isn’t it….climate sceptics are denounced as unqualified bloggers or lay persons with vested interests and therefore shouldn’t be able to criticise the consensus or be given due weight by the BBC…..however someone who supports that consensus, however unqualified, is welcome to comment…in fact the BBC will go out of its way to assure you that such a person is a ‘simple, unqualified, layperson’ merely concerned about journalistic accuracy and the health of the planet with no axe to grind….so much so that they might give them a platform to tell their story.

Dr Joe Smith (CMEP) explains:

Channel 4’s Great Global Warming Swindle cut through what Ofcom termed the ‘current orthodoxy’ in media treatments of climate change.

I’d recommend that anyone in any doubt about the reasons to complain about the programme view the full complaint at Ofcom Swindle complaint .

But the story behind that complaint is interesting in itself. A concerned member of the public got up off his sofa after viewing the film and spent the next 18 months convening a massive effort by leading scientists that went through every frame of the film detailing its inaccuracies. His story appears on the BBC News Website .

Indeed it does:

Opinion: A reluctant whistle-blower

Channel 4’s The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary, broadcast in March 2007, broke Ofcom rules, the UK media regulator has ruled.

Dave Rado, who co-ordinated a formal complaint to Ofcom, explains why he felt compelled to challenge the programme’s contents.

‘I’m simply a person, unconnected with any environmental or scientific group, who believes that a public service broadcaster should not be allowed to deceive the public about science – particularly on issues that have profound implications for our future.’

How odd then that this simple person, Dave Rado, unconnected with any environmental group, should spend 18 months running a campaign against C4…and yet be quite so complacent about the BBC using green lobbyist material as ‘fact’…….

Here suggesting it’s dodgy but if in a good cause……

Himalayan glaciers ‘melting fast’, BBC:

“Melting glaciers in the Himalayas could lead to water shortages for hundreds of millions of people”

‘Admittedly this article has the disadvantage that it quotes a WWF study – it would be nice to find a similar one that was independent of any lobby group. But it’s mainstream stuff and worth quoting if you can’t find a better one on the Himalayas’ glacier melt and the likely effect of this on neighbouring countries.’

Rado isn’t quite all he seems but keeps his life and connections to the greens well hidden….but the BBC’s Richard Black (naturally) let’s the cat out of the bag:

“The programme has been let off the hook on a highly questionable technicality,” said Bob Ward, former head of media at the Royal Society, who played a prominent role in co-ordinating objections to the film.

Guess how many of these objections were sustained by Ofcom? Just seven out of 265, none of them relating to factual errors but to minor technicalities relating to procedure….despite that Black claims...’Human hands are driving climate change, Ofcom acknowledges’…and…’I think this is a vindication of the credibility and standing of the IPCC’  Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC.

Ofcom actually said:

It is not within Ofcom’s remit or ability in this case as the regulator of the ‘communications industry’ to establish or seek to adjudicate on ‘facts’ such as whether global warming is a man-made phenomenon, nor is Ofcom able to reach conclusions about the validity of any particular scientific theories.

In other words Ofcom didn’t ‘acknowledge human hands are driving climate change’ as Black claimed.

So climate propagandist Bob Ward ‘played a prominent role in co-ordinating objections to the film’…..but still, Rado is a reluctant whistleblower, a simple, concerned citizen……

oh yes and…….‘As original complainants against the programme, we are appealing against this aspect of the Ofcom ruling on the grounds that the programme did breach the Broadcasting Code by misrepresenting facts and views, and in doing so it undermined trust in broadcasters and harmed the audience by misleading it on an important issue.’
Bob Ward and Dave Rado

….however this isn’t the only complaint he has made about climate reporting:

Complainant Name:
Mr Dave Rado

Clauses Noted: 1, 2

Publication: The Mail on Sunday

Complaint:
Mr Dave Rado of Colchester complained that articles published in the newspaper inaccurately claimed that the “green credentials” of the Toyota Prius were undermined by its use of a battery containing nickel.

Here he is again on a pro-climate website:

Dave Rado at 09:14 AM on 1 November, 2007

To say that climate change is definitely not even partially responsible for the loss of glacier ice mass on Kilimanjaro is an inaccurate misrepresentation of the science. As Raymond Pierrehumbert’s article that you linked to made clear, it is likely to be at least partially responsible.

Here he is urging Greenpeace to run a campaign in Feb 2007:

So far from being as the BBC describe him, a ‘reluctant whistleblower’ he is a serial complainer and activist…and why a ‘whistleblower’?  A word designed to give him some moral legitimacy …he’s hardly a whistleblower…he doesn’t work for C4 and the programme wasn’t a secret to be ‘whistleblown’ about…it was broadcast on national TV!

So the BBC is massaging his image for effect to give him some credibility as someone completely unconnected to the climate lobbyists.

He has set up a website in fact to further his campaign:

He claims this about his complaint……

The complaint is not an attack on free speech (see “About Ofcom” for more details). It was filed because the complainants believe public service broadcasters have a duty to maintain minimum journalistic standards, and that the public has a right to expect broadcasters, and especially public service broadcasters, not to set out to mislead us. Although billed as a “science documentary”, the film was in fact a slick, and very clever propaganda piece.

And yet, as stated before, he has absolutely no concerns about the BBC broadcasting what is known to be false claims about the Himalayas based on green lobbyist mis-information.

And the BBC had no concerns about him actually being a green activist and not merely a simple concerned citizen seeking to improve public service broadcasting standards.

Ofcom’s ruling on accuracy of the Global Warming Swindle:

In summary, in relation to the manner in which facts in the programme were presented, Ofcom is of the view that the audience of this programme was not materially misled in a manner that would have led to actual or potential harm. The audience would have been in no doubt that the programme’s focus was on scientific and other arguments which challenged the orthodox theory of man-made global warming. Regardless of whether viewers were in fact persuaded by the arguments contained in the programme, Ofcom does not believe that they could have been materially misled as to the existence and substance of these alternative theories and opinions, or misled as to the weight which is given to these opinions in the scientific community.

Ofcom Decision: A Humiliating Defeat for Bob Ward

Summary on the Program Complaint
In relation to the program complaint, it’s hard to imagine a more thorough stuffing of the complainants. They were lucky they didn’t have to pay costs.

Hardly the impression you get from the BBC’s (Black’s) excited reporting of the ruling.

oh…and:

Viewers expect to be adequately informed about matters in the public interest, including of course minority views and opinions. As the European Court of Human Rights has made clear, subject to certain exceptions the principle of freedom of expression applies not only to:

“… information or ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb; such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no ‘democratic society’. Freedom of expression …is subject to a number of exceptions which, however, must be narrowly interpreted and the necessity for any restrictions must be convincingly established”.

I see any definition of ‘dangerous climate change’ as a political act not a scientific fact.

Who said that?  Dr Joe Smith in a moment of weakness…he being Roger Harrabin’s sidekick at the climate propaganda unit CMEP.

James Lovelock was the Green’s hero….when he claimed the earth was in peril from man’s exploitation.

Not so much now.

Lovelock has become the hate figure, the apostate, of the green alarmist campaign….he must be put to death….in a ‘credibility’ sense.

Having recently been airing his new caution about climate change the guns are being turned upon him.

I wonder if the BBC will be making room in the schedules for him to defend his position as they do for others like Miliband and the green ‘goddess’ Julia Slingo who far from being a mere scientist at the Met Office relaying back to her bosses the weather she has become a campaigner for the climate change lobby.

When she was torn to shreds for her false claim that extreme weather is a result of climate change the BBC set up a nice little show for her to allow her to ‘explain herself’ and the ‘science’ on ‘The Life Scientific’:

Julia Slingo

Jim Al-Khalili’s guest this week is Dame Julia Slingo, the chief scientist at the Met Office. The conversation ranges from her childhood wonder of clouds to climate change’s part in this winter’s floods.

Slingo, and that other favourite of the BBC, Sir Brian Hoskins  have now written to the Sunday Times to denounce Lovelock  as ‘flying in the face of science’….this from Hoskins who claims the Deep Oceans are absorbing the heat and hence we have the Great Pause (or slowdown as Harrabin prefers to trickily label it)…despite the IPCC explicitly denying they had any research or data that showed the heat being absorbed by the oceans….

The IPCC’s Thomas Stock told us  (09:58) that the current warming hiatus could not be predicted because:

‘There are not sufficient observations of the uptake of heat, particularly into the deep ocean that could explain this hiatus.’

‘Likewise, we have insufficient data to establish a relationship between the causes of the warming….There is not enough published literature to allow us to study this.’

So no data.

But plenty of er, less than convincing facts from the BBC.

And never mind that none of Slingo’s work mates agree that the floods and storms can be linked to climate change.

Prime Minister climate change opinion not backed up by science, says Met Office

“It’s impossible to say that these storms are more intense because of climate change.”

or….em…

Paul Davis, chief meteorologist for the Met Office said that very strong winds much of the UK experienced which was caused by jet stream.
“December has been the windiest spell since 1969, but unprecedented perhaps not. It probably feels unusual because the last few winters have been fairly settled and cold and we haven’t had the story conditions that just experienced.”

or…em….

Direct from the Met. Office:   There’s currently no evidence to suggest that the UK is increasing in storminess.

Slingo and Hoskins write that ‘The latest IPCC report makes clear the calamitous impacts of such a future.  It is for society to judge whether the risks of climate change are large enough to take action to reduce them.  Lovelock’s current position implies that these risks have now reduced; climate science suggests not.’

Science eh?  Not as if science seems to feature very strongly in any of their considerations…it is now more a matter of faith and believing…..and if you don’t believe the Inquisition will set out to burn you out.

Here they admit that:

‘It is impossible to assert categorically that the sort of climate changes envisaged in The Revenge of Gaia either will or will not occur.  Rather, climate scientists attempt to estimate the risks of different levels of climate change.’

However that’s not true…..this ‘risk assessment’ is merely the latest tactic to get around the inconvenient fact that the science doesn’t prove anything…there is absolutley no proof that CO2 is the main, or any, driver of climate change.

‘There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.’  Dr Patrick Moore…co-founder of Greenpeace

And to the likes of Slingo there is no debate to be had…as you can see…..she has declared that the risk is so high that we must act….and any critics can just STFU.

So ‘society must decide’ becomes ‘we select few’ must decide….and with the BBC closing down genuine debate that is made all the easier.

Note…when Lovelock wrote his book in 2006…and as seen above Slingo refers to it as if it still represents the green view……so Lovelock obviously was, and still is, considered qualified to talk about the subject….when he sides with the ‘consensus’.

Now however, when he ‘cools’ on the subject he is ‘out of date’….‘Lovelock’s opinions on this subject sit uncomfortably with modern scientific understanding of the climate system.’

Note that ‘modern’…..so his old theory is believed to be still ‘current’ and credible whilst his later ‘modern’ theory is not in fact ‘modern’ but unscientific and not in line with ‘modern’ science.

How times change eh?

“Lovelock will go down in history as the scientist who changed our view of the Earth…. The Revenge of Gaia is the most important book ever to be published on the environmental crisis.” — John Gray in 2007

Or as Paxman described him just last week:

‘One of the world’s top public intellectuals, a titan of post-war science working outside mainstream scientific institutions coming up with some of the most original ideas of our time.‘

Confused?  Don’t expect the BBC to explain it….Jim Al Khalili certainly didn’t tackle Slingo on it.

And I’ll finish off as I began with Dr Joe Smith…just so you know where he is coming from:

Public service media have a responsibility to equip society for a long and difficult conversation about how we reduce the likelihood of climate change, and how we prepare for the environmental changes that past emissions have locked us into. Anything less and the public are being swindled.

But not  a long and difficult conversation about the science….that’s settled.

It was fine, the BBC believed, to fling the Bible into the rubbish bin but not the Koran.

It seems that type of thinking is not just for Christians….the BBC is quite ready to report ‘concerns’ about certain communities, Buddhists in Burma were denounced as religiously inspired killers not long ago whilstthe BBC was claiming Islamic terrorists are ‘perverting the religion’, and now it seems elections in India have raised more concerns at the BBC…. about Hindus…

Prominent Indian artists and academics have written an open letter warning against the possible election of Hindu nationalist politician Narendra Modi.

So you can be a ‘Hindu nationalist’….can you be a Muslim supremacist in the BBC’s world?

….and Sikh Politicians being people with suspect views.

 Indian media criticise Mulayam Singh Yadav’s ‘anti-women’ remarks

Quite justified concerns you may admit….but why does the BBC not exhibit such openness and concern about other politician’s words?…….

‘The Socialist Party’s Maharashtra unit chief, Abu Azmi, who said that women who have sex outside marriage should be punished by death, even if they are raped.

“If rape happens with or without consent, it should be punished as prescribed in Islam”, Mr Azmi told the Mid-Day website.

“The solution is this: any woman, whether married or unmarried, who goes along with a man, with or without her consent, should be hanged. Both should be hanged. It shouldn’t be allowed even if a woman goes by consent.”

Difficult to report that without the qualification about Islam…I’m sure the BBC will come up with a suitably reworked wording that manages to convey the ‘fact’ that this is not in fact Islamic.

No doubt the BBC are even as you read this looking for a community spokesman who will be more than happy to make that claim for the BBC….for the good of communtiy cohesion.

Something of interest:

Sixty-six years after the country witnessed a bloody partition on religious lines and freedom from foreign rule, religion continues to play a dominant role in shaping its political destiny.

At a time when the nation is on the threshold of the next general election, leaders of different political parties seek to artificially raise heat and dust over a religious issue that has in the past provoked terrible communal discord across the length and breadth of the country.

In the BBC’s words…‘A Warning from History’

A couple of days ago Michael Rosen was on the BBC with this:

Journalese

Why are thugs always vile, market towns always bustling, blondes bubbly and tirades foul mouthed? With the help of ex Editor Eve Pollard, journalist Robert Hutton and Professor John Mullan, Michael Rosen takes a look at the language and the cliches of news journalism

Rather ironic considering his ill-considered, cliché ridden left wing rant in the Guardian (another cliché!) causing a minor stir …

Craig at ‘Is the BBC biased’ spotted this extraordinary letter from an impartial BBC employee to our new culture secretary:

Dear Mr Javid,

We’ve never met, but that’s because I work in “culture” and you have spent most of your adult life so far in banking.

It’s very difficult to see from your Wikipedia entry or from the kind of information put before us by Huffington Post how you are qualified to do this new job as culture minister.

You’re an ex-banker who made millions during the fatal bubble of the early 21st century; you were at a bank that has been fined for rate-fixing. You know all about this kind of money. The fact that people like you got up to all sorts of greedy lending and fiddling is why we’re in the crisis.

And yet the party you belong to keeps telling us that the reason we’re in the crisis is because “we” spent too much money on health, education, social services, benefits and – yes – culture. Anything that was paid for out of taxation seems to have caused the crisis, according to your party. Lies, all lies, but that’s the sort of “culture” we have to put up with from your party.

…..you are someone who benefited from the false boom, the very same boom that caused the crash, and to continue the chain, which is what has given your party the excuse to slash public services and cut waged and unwaged people’s standard of living, and further enrich the mega-rich.

Oh…bit of a slip there…..’ the false boom, the very same boom that caused the crash‘?

So that’ll be the the false boom, the very same boom that caused the crash under Labour’s regime of light regulation….you know…the ‘golden age’ announced by Gordon Brown.

None so blind as those who will not see….and a BBC journo, of  a sort, to boot.

And what of this?……‘the party you belong to keeps telling us that the reason we’re in the crisis is because “we” spent too much money on health, education, social services, benefits and – yes – culture.’

No, the party he belongs to tells us the reason we’re in the crisis is because Labour spent too much money that we didn’t have…not that we spent too much on health etc…a subtle difference that I’m sure a sophisticated and intelligent, cultured man like Rosen would appreciate.

Rosen continues:

No matter you are of working-class origin and your cultural background is a million miles from the Etonian toffs, you are now part of the class (yes) that runs the ludicrous world of the mega-rich gamblers who have caused millions of people across the world to lose their jobs and welfare.

So I’m not holding out any hopes.

Yours,

Michael Rosen

Ah…the old them and us class warfare.

Of course Rosen (Oxford Uni educated) can detach himself from the pampered, self indulgent, holier than thou crowd that inhabits the BBC…can’t he?

Rosen wasn’t so ‘Marxist’ when it came to accepting the position as the ‘Children’s Laureate’ from the Establishment…nor numerous other honorary positions and awards.

Rosen failed the vetting process at the BBC in the 1970’s and was dumped from its employ.

Shame the BBC doesn’t have such high standards now…impartiality being in its DNA apparently.

A reminder for forgetful little old Michael:

Gordon Brown in June 2005 giving the Chancellor’s annual speech to the City at the Mansion House. Addressing the bow-tied ranks of money-changers, he paid lavish homage to ‘your unique innovative skills, your courage and steadfastness’. They had his personal thanks ‘for the outstanding, the invaluable contribution you make to the prosperity of Britain’. 

‘As the world has changed, as industrialisation spread from Britain round the whole world, you have changed too – adapted and innovated, so that you prosper still – indeed as never before. With London today …..host to a greater number of foreign bank branches and subsidiaries than any other city, the City of London continues to lead the world.’

Having hosed them with adulation every time he visited the City, Gordon Brown surpassed himself when he returned in 2007 to deliver his final Mansion House speech as Chancellor before he moved into Number 10. ‘A new world order has been created,’ he proclaimed. Britain was ‘a new world leader’ thanks to ‘your efforts, ingenuity and creativity’. He congratulated himself for ‘resisting pressure’ to toughen up regulation of their activities. Everyone needed to follow the City’s ‘great example’, emulate this ‘high value-added, talent-driven industry’. ‘Britain needs more of the vigour, ingenuity and aspiration that you already demonstrate.’ Thanks to their ‘remarkable achievements’, we had the huge privilege to live in ‘an era that history will record as the beginning of a new Golden Age’.

or a ‘false boom’ as Michael prefers to call it….whilst blaming the Tories.

Ed Miliband has been visiting Israel.

Does Nick Robinson ask Miliband any difficult questions or any about his attitude towards ‘Israel’?

No.  What Robinson does do is give Miliband an open platform to say what he likes without challenge, in other words a cosy little ‘fireside’ chat revealing to us just how wonderful Ed really is…not just wonderful but wise and thoughtful, statesmanlike….in essence a bit of free pro-Miliband publicity in the run up to an election…..ala Desert Island Discs style when he was again allowed to ‘polish’ his, and his father’s,  public image courtesy of the BBC.

Robinson blows smoke up Miliband’s backside as he ends by raising the ridiculous comparison that Miliband is the new Thatcher:

NR: “You know what I am asking you. Are you going to be Labour’s Margaret Thatcher?”

EM: “Well no you don’t make those comparisons. I want big change in the country, people yearn for big change.”

NR: “If a commentator called you Labour’s Margaret Thatcher then you wouldn’t much mind?”

EM: “Well you can call me a radical. That’s what I want to be. That is the kind of prime minister that I want to be.”

Radical?  An opportunist coward springs to mind. The man who backed Unite’s little election rigging scam until it was made public at which time Miliband decided he had to reform Labour’s Union connections….a ‘brave move’ trumpeted loudly…which  er….made the unions more powerful…..and Syria?  He ran for cover when he thought he would lose the vote having previously backed the threat of military action.

As for the Thatcher comparison…is that an ex-Young Conservative mocking Miliband or a now BBC reporter gone native trying to make a favourable comparison and make Miliband look more acceptable to some who like a bit of ‘conviction politician’ in these days when they all look and sound alike?

What does Miliband think about Israel?…….Robinson doesn’t delve too far but tells us that…..

Ed Miliband now talks often of his Jewish heritage (though not faith because he is an atheist) but he has never been a cheer leader for Israel.

He’s reluctant to call himself a Zionist.

‘Never been a cheerleader for Israel’?

Curious…the Independent has a far more explicit and revealing write up of his views:

“We want to encourage the two-state solution that we in the Labour party believe in.”

“I come here conscious of my family history and with a deep sense of gratitude to Israel for what it did for my grandmother, who spent 30 years living here. Israel was sanctuary for her from the most indescribable grief.”

Mr Miliband told the students his family history “makes me aware of the challenges Israel faces, the dangers of anti-Semitism and of people who question its right to exist”.

“I don’t think boycotts are the solution to the complex problems Israeli and Palestinian people grapple with.”

A year ago, Mr Miliband was asked at an event of British Jewish leaders whether he was a Zionist, or Jewish nationalist. He replied: ‘’Yes, I am a supporter of Israel.’’

Or from the Jewish Chronicle:

Israel is the Jewish Homeland

Mr Miliband described Israel as “the homeland for the Jewish people” during a meeting with Hebrew University of Jerusalem students on Thursday.

“No one should be under any illusions about the Iranian regime, and we are not. Everybody is absolutely clear and understands the deep concern there is in Israel about what the Iranian government has said about Israel and about its intentions. It isn’t just Israel’s concern; it isn’t just a regional concern; it’s a very significant global concern.”

Yep…guess Robinson is right…Milband does not support Israel at all.

So…two state solution, Iran a threat to Israel, no boycotts, the right to exist, increasing anti-Semitism and Israel as the Jewish homeland….a sanctuary.

All ‘controversial’ and  rather difficult for the BBC.  Best not to mention it.

But do mention   ‘Just how broken the Middle East is, Mr Miliband saw on the top of a hill just above the Gaza Strip.’

So that’ll be Israel’s fault then that the Middle East is ‘broken’?

Why no mention of this part of Cameron’s Easter Message on the BBC?:

As we celebrate Easter, let’s also think of those who are unable to do so, the Christians around the world who are ostracised, abused — even murdered — simply for the faith they follow. Religious freedom is an absolute, fundamental human right.

Britain is committed to protecting and promoting that right, by standing up for Christians and other minorities, at home and abroad.

The BBC’s take on Cameron’s views on religion…..

David Cameron has spoken of the “peace” and “guidance” he finds in his Christian faith.

In a rare comment on his religious beliefs, the prime minister stressed the importance of teaching children about the religious aspects of Easter.

The BBC quotes Bloomberg:

According to reports on the Bloomberg news service, the prime minister made no reference to gay marriage, a policy overseen by Mrs Miller but which threatened to damage his government’s relationship with the Church of England, in his comments.

But not all Bloomberg…..only the very selective chunks…..

The BBC deciding to report that Cameron made no reference to gay marriage….but strangely managing to miss Bloomberg’s mangled reference to what Cameron actually did say about the persecution of Christians despite Bloomberg’s big headline:

Persecuted Religion

He committed his government to fighting persecution of Christians abroad.

“It is the case that Christians are now the most persecuted religion around the world,” Cameron said. “We should stand up against persecution of Christians and other faith groups wherever and whenever we can.”

Because we all know it’s Muslims who are the most persecuted don’t we….’we’ being the BBC.

And for the BBC the easter Message is just a cynical political stunt:

It’s a message from an instinctively “county Tory”, a Conservative from a rural background, that will appeal to the party heartlands; where some feel bruised by what they see as liberal, metropolitan concerns such as gay marriage.

The BBC give Labour a free pass as they propagate their ‘research’:

School places: Labour warns of primary school ‘crisis’ in England

One in four councils believe there is a “real crisis in primary school places” looming for this September in England, according to Labour’s shadow education secretary.

But why is there this ‘crisis’?

Could it be that it is Labour who created it by flinging open the borders and generously offering the world a free education?

Yes I think it might be…but not because the BBC mentions that….didn’t mention it in 2013 either when Labour again were allowed to get away with dodging the blame…..they mentioned this:

The demand for places has been driven by the birth rate rising more quickly than at any time since the 1950s.

….but not why the birthrate has shot up….or that immigrants bring in their children as well….though there is this clue:

London has the greatest need, accounting for 37% of the extra primary places required, according to the NAO.

London, with a massive inflow of immigrants.

The Telegraph tells the truth:

Competition has been intensified by a rise in the birth rate combined with an influx of migrants.

The BBC is quick to mention immigration in regard to education when it suits their pro-immigration agenda:

Immigration rhetoric putting off overseas students – peers

Not getting a school place for your child is not the only cost of mass immigration……another being the actual financial cost of this huge swamping/exploitation of the education system…

Highest ever number of school staff

The number of teachers and support staff working in England’s state schools has risen to a record level of 1.3 million people.

These annual census figures show there are about 220,000 more full-time-equivalent teaching and assistant posts in schools compared with 2005.

Essentially the cost of all those new recruits on the public payroll is the result of immigration.

Say £10,000 a year each, a very conservative estimate….that’s £2 billion every year just on the wages….never mind new classrooms or schools, free school meals, books, interpreters and so on.

But the BBC continues to give us a onesided narrative that immigration is hugely beneficial to us.

Having a mooch through the Feedback site I see Roger Bolton has a few thoughts on the internal workings of the BBC such as this about Woman’s Hour:

As you well know BBC programmes are supposed to be impartial but I’m not sure if that can be said of Woman’s Hour, at least when it comes to feminism. Woman’s Hour is in fact a powerful advocate for women’s empowerment.

Then there was this:

Feedback: Presenters’ views about the BBC

Bolton’s comments on this must have made him popular with his colleagues:

Presenters like John Humphrys are now on the staff. Should they be silent?

I will try and say something controversial on the issue.

It is this…..

Don’t take too much notice of what presenters say because most don’t know much about the issues involved.

I speak as someone who has been on both sides of the fence, a former BBC executive (dispensed with in politically sensitive times) as well as a presenter.

The latter are primarily performers, preoccupied with the content of the programmes they are presenting. If they have a strong journalistic background they probably think most management is a waste of time and see its representatives as roadblocks to be driven around.

Many know little, and care less, about budgets, training and other issues. So don’t pay too much attention to them, or me.

BBC executives are, of course, self-interested when discussing the future of the organisation that feeds and clothes them, but many do care passionately about the BBC and public service broadcasting. Some presenters are just self-centred.

Wonder if Bolton got any ‘feedback’ on that.