Who wants to be a Slumdog waif and stray?…well it seems quite a lot of Indians don’t mind so much despite the best intentions of those who know what is good for them…and you and me.

The BBC has given Miliband a free ride over his ‘Living standard’s crisis‘, pretty much allowing him to get away with murder whilst making headline grabbing claims for policies that even the most ardent fan would admit don’t hold water and are solely intended to grab those headlines and make Miliband look like he is driving the narrative and is a really good, caring guy….come the election and a possible Labour win and they will all be quietly shelved.

Money and higher spending are always the road to happiness….unless the BBC is in a contrary mood and is lecturing us about ‘consumerism’ and wanting too much.

Having to pull in your belt for a bit, spend less on fags and beer, and your lifestyle has been shockingly curtailed by an uncaring Tory government.

Call the UN. Call the special rapporteurs to investigate this breach in your human rights!

Thankfully not everyone has yet fallen for that line of thinking…..the BBC leapt to the defence of India when critics attacked it for spending a billion pounds on its space programme….and in doing so revealed an amusing tale of rebellion and independence from the depths of the Indian slums in From Our Own Correspondent:(about 11:40)

For India, its mission to Mars is an opportunity to come out top of a new Asian space race. Justin Rowlatt examines the question: couldn’t the cash instead have been used to lift many Indians out of poverty?

The ‘Slumdogs’ weren’t interested in the charities’ charity so much….claiming,  literally from  the gutter, that ‘Life’s not that hard’.

The charities couldn’t persuade the children and youths to come off the streets and into their care …they wanted their freedom.

I guess there’s some things money can’t buy.

Strange that the BBC continually gives so much credence to the claims in this country that families on anything up to £70,000 a year benefits are in poverty and are therefore unhappy.

The BBC has often helped to spread the belief that the next generation is going to be poverty stricken whilst the baby Boomer generation live the Dolce Vita.

BBC journalists have gone as far as to ask why the young aren’t out on the streets ‘protesting’…whatever that might mean.

In 2011 Alvin Hall reported in a similar vein:

Alvin Hall: The generation poorer than their parents

Many young people in Britain are set to be in a worse economic position than their parents, but is there any sympathy among older generations and is their cause gaining support from politicians?

“I’m 100% livid, I think that’s the best way of putting it. We’re going to get more angry than we are now.”

Twenty-five-year-old City worker George Lewkowicz is mad about the economy.

He is typical of many young Brits under the age of 30 who have come to realise that their financial prospects are substantially less bright than that of their parents’ generation.

Today, George predicts this disquiet is only set to escalate:

“There is this huge population of older people who have essentially had it all, and my generation are then paying for their retirement.”

When this dawns on people, George argues, “the riots will happen”.

Personally I have yet to see evidence of that ‘poverty’…when the ‘youth’ are carting around £500 phones it kind of makes a mockery of such claims.

The Sunday Times suggests Hall and his kind are blowing smoke up our backsides:

Relax, Boomers, the kids won’t be bust.

The children of today will be far better off than any previous generation, according to one of the country’s leading economists.

Sir Andrew Dilnot, chairman of the Statistics Authority, believes technological advances mean young people have never had it so good and life will continue to improve for several more generations.

What else is interesting is the claim that whilst we maybe materially better off ‘our moral lives have been damaged…….by divorce, separation and lack of responsibility for community’.

And who exactly brought that about?   Those who set out to destroy the family, deny responsibility for our own actions and respect for authority…and the turning over of all responsibility for your own life to the government.

Amongst others it was all those Trotskyist and Marxist revolutionaries who worked for the BBC  in the sixties…..trying to implement all those things that Ralph Miliband was so enamoured of…….as a Marxist.  Even Joan Bakewell admitted she was so minded, suspected by the BBC hierarchy of wanting to overthrow the government.

Dilnot tell us that matters are not actually worse but that expectations have changed…we expect more and more…and who drives those expectations?…..the Media.

No one wants to work in a factory now…they have all seen that getting on the ‘Telly’ and becoming a celebrity is the easy way to fame and fortune without having to grind out a living.

The BBC and the Left continually demand an improvement in living standards as Miliband does now…..and yet where does the money come from for that?  The jobs all go to cheap old China.

Day in day out the BBC gives enormous airtime to any charity that stakes a claim on government spending…always demanding more.

Listening to the BBC report these charities’ claims  over the last two weeks and you would know that poverty is the cause of so much harm…..

Poverty means choosing heating over eating, and not eating causes obesity (no really), and obesity causes a housing shortage as fat people can’t fit into normal houses, and living on the streets causes cancer from the fumes of automobiles,  and cancer patients can’t get into hospital as they’ve all been closed down because they can’t afford the energy price rises, so patients are left in the streets to die…their decaying and rotting bodies giving off gases that cause climate change and doom the planet.

And all because of poverty.

Oliver Twist had nothing on these Charity scroungers….and Dickens nothing on the BBC for spinning a good tale.

Is ‘Falkirk’ the Scottish tragedy that no one at the BBC dare mention any longer in case disaster follows?

Disaster that is for Ed Miliband:

Why Falkirk is a ‘cesspit’ for Ed Miliband

On the 5th November, which seems to be the last time the BBC visited this story, Nick Robinson had this headline:

Falkirk – the row which simply won’t go away

The BBC however does seem to be very keen to make it go away.

Again in the 5th the BBC reports this:

Labour leader Ed Miliband has refused to commit to a fresh inquiry into allegations of vote-rigging by the Unite union in Falkirk.

He insisted he had taken comprehensive action and acted “swiftly and thoroughly” in the case.

and add this:

A Labour spokesman on Monday said the party had re-interviewed an important witness, Lorraine Kane, but she had said nothing to justify reopening the inquiry.

Now that’s just not true…..she said she had not withdrawn her evidence as claimed by Miliband in order to try and end the investigation of Unite’s activities:

On Monday, the Daily Mail revealed that Lorraine Kane, the whistleblower who first alleged she and her family had been signed up as Labour members without their consent, had rejected Unite claims that she had withdrawn her testimony.

Another witness who claimed Labour’s biggest funder was embroiled in vote-rigging is standing by her account – piling more pressure on Ed Miliband to reopen an inquiry into the scandal.

Michelle Hornall is one of several who claimed to have been signed up as Labour members without their knowledge by the union Unite.

For two weeks now there has been revelation after revelation, all pretty damning and highly damaging for Miliband and yet little from the BBC.

Compare the coverage of this with that given by the BBC when Labour claimed the Tory’s Aussie spinner, Lynton Crosby, was influencing policy in favour of his own business interests :

David Cameron’s election strategist has denied Labour claims of a “shocking conflict of interest” over his lobbying firm’s work on behalf of private health companies at the time of NHS reforms.

A relentless barrage of smears came from the BBC about Crosby, slinging enough mud in the hope that some sticks whatever the real truth.

(And contrast that also with the BBC’s complete refusal to cover claims made about Tim Yeo’s green interests)

and nowt on this from the Daily Mail, and front page on the Sunday Times all day :

Now Unite union boss Len McCluskey faces investigation into claims his election included 160,000 ‘phantom’ members on the ballot – including some who had DIED

Even Labour’s own supporters are doing their own investigations and analysis….shame the world’s most powerful broadcaster and news gatherer can’t be bothered…….

UNCUT: The real reason Labour is petrified of re-opening the Falkirk inquiry

It is politically unsustainable for the party to continue insisting all is well when figures as senior as Alistair Darling are calling for the inquiry to be re-opened and news reports related to Labour are increasingly dominated by this one issue.

And on the evidence that has emerged from the cache of over 1000 Ineos mails that were passed to the Sunday Times, the party appears to be wilfully averting its gaze. Ed Miliband was wrong today when he said that no new information had come to light on Falkirk.

Quite apart from whether key witnesses have or have not withdrawn their original complaints, if the Sunday Times e-mails are true there are several other potential rule breaches now in the public domain that merit further examination by the party.

Why would the Labour leadership indulge in such an apparent act political of self-harm by pretending nothing has changed on Falkirk?

The answer is that there is a far greater fear of the consequences for Ed Miliband if the inquiry is re-opened and a civil war with Unite ensues.

Beyond the potential financial cost to the party of withheld union donations, the leader’s office is scared about what will happen at the special conference next year on Ed Miliband’s proposals to reform the union link………

It means that although the majority of CLP delegates are likely to back Ed Miliband’s reforms, almost half are in the left camp and likely oppose the Labour leadership’s plans.

Without Unite or one of the other big unions backing the reform proposals, a crushing defeat at the special conference beckons for Ed Miliband.

This would ignite a media meltdown. It’s difficult to imagine a situation where the weakness of the leader was more viscerally demonstrated than to be defeated in such a manner. The contrast with Tony Blair and the 1995 special conference would be brutal.

This is the nightmare scenario which is scaring the leader’s office and is why they are petrified of re-opening the Falkirk inquiry.

or maybe:

The suggestion being whispered is that Mr Miliband’s refusal to hold another inquiry can be explained by the need to keep Len McCluskey satisfied. Mr McCluskey is furious about the attacks on Unite’s integrity and claims rather implausibly that the whole scandal is a Tory plot. That defence is not particularly credible; there are not many Tories in Falkirk.

“I really hope a deal hasn’t been done,” said a worried Labour MP yesterday. “In which Ed agrees not to reopen the Falkirk inquiry and Unite says it will fund the election campaign. I really hope that isn’t what has happened. But it is starting to look like it.”

The BBC looks like it has closed ranks and is giving Miliband a huge amount of protection from a ‘bad Press’ whilst at the same time headlining every new Labour policy claim such as his latest effort:

Miliband: Ban children’s TV loan ads

Payday loan adverts should be banned during children’s TV shows, in the same way those for junk food are, says Labour leader Ed Miliband.

Astonishing that Paxman is allowed to get away with his political comments, especially as he is one of the BBC’s most senior political interviewers….here he is not talking about a past election but the next one and is expressing what are self-evidently highly political views…

Paxman says that we “ignore the democratic process at our peril” and believes people should vote. However he is also damning about the opportunities on offer when the people of Britain go to the polls to chose the next government.

“At the next election we shall have a choice between the people who’ve given us five years of austerity, the people who left us this mess, and the people who signed public pledges that they wouldn’t raise student fees, and then did so – the most blatant lie in recent political history.

“It won’t be a bombshell if very large numbers of the electorate simply don’t bother to vote. People are sick of the tawdry pretences.”

Yet again he is wrong as he was with Cameron and the WWI commemoration….for which he owes a very public and big apology to Cameron:

Downing Street is demanding a ‘full and public apology’ from the BBC’s Jeremy Paxman for calling  the Prime Minister a ‘complete idiot’ over his plans for the First World  War centenary.

Paxman claims it is ‘a choice between the people who’ve given us five years of austerity, the people who left us this mess‘

But it was being left in ‘this mess’ (nice to see he admits it was Labour wot done it) that made some form of ‘austerity’ inevitable.

It’s not a choice.

The very fact that Paxman agreed with Brand meant he couldn’t interview him properly…as shown in the actual ‘interview’ in which Paxman didn’t bother to challenge Brand in the slightest.

Rather than telling Paxman to pipe down the BBC are going to town on his comments:

Viewpoints: Do MPs agree with Brand and Paxman?

and this:

Jeremy Paxman: Like Russell Brand, I didn’t vote

It does seem they really have lost the plot and forgotten any idea of their public service remit…not to mention the legal requirement to report events impartially.

The BBC (& others) have been enthusiastically hyping the storm in the Phillipines as the strongest in history…then moderated it to ‘one of the most powerful‘….but still giving wind speeds  incorrectly:

The storm made landfall shortly before dawn on Friday, bringing gusts that reached 379km/h (235 mph), according to the US Navy’s Joint Typhoon Warning Center, with waves as high as 15m (45ft), bringing up to 400mm (15.75 inches) of rain in places.

WUWT gives the figures as reported by the Phillipine Met Agency:

That’ll be 235 KPH….not 235 MPH!

The BBC has now updated that report…still calling it ‘one of the most powerful’:

Typhoon Haiyan – one of the most powerful storms on record to make landfall – swept through six central Philippine islands on Friday.

It brought sustained winds of 235km/h (147mph), with gusts of 275 km/h (170 mph), with waves as high as 15m (45ft), bringing up to 400mm (15.75 inches) of rain in places.

And as for that ‘one of the most powerful’…even that is wrong….

Terrible though this storm was, it only ranks as a Category 4 storm, and it is clear nonsense to suggest that it is “one of the most powerful storms on record to make landfall ”

How is it that the BBC got it so badly wrong?  Even Category 5 storms aren’t that rare….so why the hype?

And why are they still reporting it in such apocalyptic terms relative to its strength?  I note that many reports have ‘world’s strongest storm…of 2013’..…but that certainly wasn’t what was said on the radio,   the ‘of 2013′ was missing….usually having ‘on record’ instead.

Is it just more evidence that the BBC’s environmental journalists are prepared to lie in order to keep pushing the global warming produces ‘extreme weather’ theme?

Many people have died in the storm but should their deaths be used to promote the BBC’s political and environmental agenda just as they used the deaths of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan to campaign against the wars?

To my mind, the BBC have taken a perverse delight in the conviction of a UK Marine for killing a Taliban terrorist. Their airwaves have been full of the pious passing judgement on the actions of this soldier and yet, as we draw closer to Remembrance Sunday, part of me remembers that war IS hell, it IS savage and brutal, and many many British soldiers showed no mercy to the Nazis when they fought for our freedom.

It sickens me to witness the MSM in general, and the BBC in particular, pretend that the Queensbury Rules exist in the theatre of war. We send our lions into battle and then deny them the right to kill before they are killed. Naturally, BBC pacifism runs deep and no time deeper than the approach to Remembrance Sunday, The Taliban do not fight in uniform, they are not signatories to the Geneva Conventions, they show no mercy to our soldiers and yet they must be delighted to see the loathing of our military that those like the BBC exude at every opportunity.

Here you go, a new thread to take us across the weekend. Start to detail the bias HERE.

From the Daily Mail:

The BBC is too big and too left wing and should lose some of its licence fee, the Corporation’s former head of TV news has warned.

Roger Mosey claimed the BBC had wrongly kept critics of Brussels, benefits and immigration off the airwaves and veered to the left on many issues.

He said it would ‘enrich the nation’ if rival commercial broadcasters had access to some of the licence fee to take on the BBC’s dominance.

Writing in The Times, Mr Mosey said that while the corporation faced widespread competition in network television, its market share of 70 per cent of all news consumption on both TV and radio was something that ‘even long-term loyalists find uncomfortable’.

He suggested that while the BBC’s stance of co-ordinating its editorial content across the organisation was a good thing, it can ‘lead to homogeneity’ and conformity.

Mr Mosey said: “On the BBC’s own admission, in recent years it did not, with the virtue of hindsight, give enough space to anti-immigration views or to EU-withdrawalists; and, though he may have exaggerated, the former Director-General Mark Thompson spoke of a ‘massive bias to the left’ in the BBC he joined more than 30 years ago.

Editors’ views are ‘influenced by like-minded peers’ and co-ordination of policies across programmes can lead to homogeneity, he warned.

‘That can be intensified by regulation that sees there being “right” and “wrong” answers.

‘The BBC Trust speaks the language of diversity but in its edicts it promotes conformity, whether it’s about an agreed approach to the science of climate change, “correct” terminology in the Middle East or the way a documentary about benefits should be constructed.’

The BBC asks:

Kristallnacht 75 years on: How strong is anti-Semitism in Germany?

And reports:

“The significantly strongest agreement with anti-Semitic prejudices is found in Poland and Hungary. In Portugal, followed closely by Germany, anti-Semitism is significantly more prominent than in the other western European countries. In Italy and France, anti-Semitic attitudes as a whole are less widespread than the European average, while the extent of anti-Semitism is least in Great Britain and the Netherlands”.

Which is a bit inconsistent with this:

One person told the BBC she had experienced far worse prejudice in Britain than she had at home in Germany – in a Cambridge college, ham was sometimes placed in her postbox.

…and never mind that Jews were advised that it would be better for them to emigrate from the Netherlands:

Dutch politician urges Jews to ’emigrate to US or Israel’

Former European Commissioner Frits Bolkestein says no future for Orthodox Jews in Holland because of ‘anti-Semitism among Dutchmen of Moroccan descent’

Not a mention of Sweden or Norway.

Norway could soon come top of another ranking: as the first country in Europe to be Judenfrei or Judenrein (the Nazi terms for the ethnic cleansing of Jews). 

What I found was a mixture of cowardly cultural relativism, examples of rabid Jew-hatred and a liberal Left that had joined forces with radical Islamists.

No mention of Islam and the massive rise in anti-Semitism due to the influx of so many Muslims to Europe by the BBC (as admitted by Mehdi Hasan….‘Our Dirty Little Seceret’….‘anti-Semitism isn’t just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it’s routine and commonplace.‘)….just a mention of ‘youths of Middle Eastern appearance‘…..

A year ago, Rabbi Daniel Alter was attacked by a group of youths of Middle Eastern appearance as he walked with his young daughter. “They made threats of violence against female members of my family, including my seven-year-old daughter who was by my side,” he says.

And then there is this…

It has made him change his life. Seventy-five years after Kristallnacht, he feels he can no longer wear his skullcap openly in some areas of Berlin, and covers it with a hat. And he has re-doubled his efforts to visit schools and talk to children – often alongside an Imam from a mosque.

On first reading I took it to mean they were touring Muslim schools and mosques perhaps with an Imam to castigate the non-Kufars.

On second reading I actually think the author was trying to suggest a link between anti-Semitism and Islamophobia….and make out that Muslims are ‘the new Jews of Europe’.

Strange when you consider it is Muslims driving out Jews from so many places in Europe.

The BBC, God bless ’em.

Funny what they choose to turn a blind eye to.

‘anti-Semitism isn’t just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it’s routine and commonplace.‘

The BBC’s Roger Harrabin sounded pretty desperate yesterday morning on the radio as he yet again pushed a very one sided version of climate change…helpfully he has written it all down as he helps in the fight to keep the Green show on the road:

Wavering on UK climate policy ‘not justified’

Britain is playing its part in a worldwide bid to reduce emissions and should not weaken its proposed cuts, says a report to the UK government.

The Committee on Climate Change says no change in global science or policy justifies a slackening of effort.

The report was compiled after Chancellor George Osborne said the UK’s competitiveness might be put at risk by leading the world in curbing emissions.

The CCC research challenges this assumption.

Harrabin also highlighted China’s apparent great leap forward on CO2 reduction…..Bishop Hill thinks he may be exaggerating:

And Bishop Hill goes on:

According to this article at Bloomberg:

The [Chinese] government aims to have 100 gigawatts of wind-power installed capacity and more than 35 gigawatts of solar power by 2015…

With a population of 1.34bn, 100 GW of wind power represents about 72 W/capita. The UK currently has 8445 MW of wind for a population of 63 million, which is 134 W/capita. So we are already doing roughly double what China is expected to achieve by 2015.

For solar, China’s 2015 figure of 35 GW represents 26 W/capita, while the UK has about the same already.

And according to the EU the UK was ahead of the game on meeting the 2012 Kyoto CO2 reduction targets.

But what about that Climate Change Committee?

Our Role

The Committee on Climate Change (the CCC) is an independent, statutory body established under the Climate Change Act 2008. Our purpose is to advise the UK Government and Devolved Administrations on emissions targets and report to Parliament on progress made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and preparing for climate change.

Independent.

Really?

We know that its Chairman, Tim Yeo had to step aside due to questions about his vested interests in renewable energy businesses….what about the others on the Committee?

Sir Brian Hoskins:

Over the last four years Sir Brian (Hoskins) has been instrumental in establishing the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College London, as an important centre for climate change research.

Ahh…the Grantham Institute…at Imperial College London.…one of the propaganda nerve centres for promoting man made climate change.

Robert McCredie May, Baron May of Oxford:

Again…..Imperial College London…

He now holds joint professorships at Oxford and Imperial College London….When asked if religious leaders should be doing more to persuade people to combat climate change, he stated that it was absolutely necessary….

“A supernatural punisher maybe part of the solution.”

“Given that punishment is a useful mechanism, how much more effective it would be if you invested that power not in an individual you don’t like, but an all-seeing, all powerful deity that controls the world,” he said

“It makes for rigid, doctrinaire societies, but it makes for co-operation.”

Such a system would be “immensely stabilising in individual human cultures” and societies, he pointed out.

Is he neutral on climate change…Maybe not:

One of Britain’s most eminent scientists has attacked President Bush for acting like a latter-day Nero who fiddles while the world burns because of global warming.

Lord May of Oxford, the president of the Royal Society and former chief scientific adviser to the Government, said the Bush administration must accept the case has been made about the link between man-made pollution and climate change. Continuing to deny the impact of human activities on the environment may ultimately have catastrophic consequences for everyone on the planet, he said.

Lord May will also castigate elements within the British media who promote “misleading” opinions about the true nature of the scientific uncertainties surrounding climate change.

“If the public are misled into thinking climate change does not pose a serious potential threat, some policy-makers could more easily find an excuse not to act. 

Lord May accused the Daily Mail of waging an undeclared propaganda war against the science of climate change… the Daily Mail gives undue prominence and support to the views of an extreme fringe, and misleads its readers about the state of our knowledge”

How about Lord Deben?:

David Cameron, who last month nominated Lord Deben (formerly John Gummer) as the new chairman of the influential and supposedly “independent” Committee on Climate Change, set up to advise government on energy policy under the Climate Change Act. This is despite the fact that Lord Deben’s array of environmental business interests includes chairmanship of Forewind Ltd, a consortium of four energy firms planning the world’s largest, and most heavily subsidised, offshore wind farm in the North Sea.

And what about his mate Tim Yeo?

MP paid £400,000 by green firms slams climate change peer… for hypocrisy exposed by the Mail

• Tim Yeo has complained about Lord Deben’s undisclosed green interests
• Mr Yeo has been paid more than £400,000 by three green companies
• Lord Deben is chairman of firm which connects windfarms to National Grid

Jim Skea:

Jim [Skea] has strong links to policy processes. He is a founding member of the UK’s Committee on Climate Change and is Vice-Chair of Working Group III (Mitigation) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In the past, he was a member of the Commission on Environmental Markets and Economic Performance and acted as Launch Director for the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership. Jim is also a non-executive director of the Blackrock New Energy Investment Trust plc.

So he works on the IPCC?  Very independent….and not forgetting his Green business interests.

and comes from Imperial College London…

and is Director of the Economic and Social Research Council’s Global Environmental Change Programme.

The same ESRC that has close connections to the Grantham Institute and the famous Lord Stern

Professor Lord Stern of Brentford, Chair of the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy who also runs the……

Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy wins second phase funding from UK Economic and Social Research Council

The University of Leeds and London School of Economics and Political Science have been jointly awarded more than £5 million by the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) to support a second phase of the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, it was announced today (17 September 2013).

Professor Samuel Fankhauser: Co-Director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and Environment – LSE.

He also works for the business Vivid Economics which advises on climate to government and business:

The economics of climate change has taken centre-stage for energy-intensive industries and governments across the world. We are established thought leaders in this field, levering our expertise on competitiveness, strategy, infrastructure, resources and innovative policy.

We provide advice on policy design at national and international level, on commercial strategy and planning, mitigation of emissions, adaptation to climate change, investment, infrastructure, innovation and economic growth, with a thorough understanding of related financial and scientific issues.

Professor Dame Julia King non executive director of the Green Investment bank

We are committed to addressing the very serious issue of the ever growing demands on the planet’s natural resources and building a strong and sustainable legacy for future generations.

In order to meet this green challenge there are ambitious and legally binding targets which the UK must meet.

Paul Johnson serving on the council of the Economic and Social Research Council. (as above)

Professor Lord Krebs and David Kennedy seem to be the only ones without any serious vested interests in  green business or promotion.

The Committee on Climate Change..…

Independent then?

I think not.

Nice though of Harrabin to give so much credence to anything they say.