It’s Monday so time for a new one of these!

Germany is the most powerful nation in Europe, the most economically successful, the one with the most radical green programme…and one that is in the midst of an election.

You might have thought then that this would have been of interest to the BBC:

Germany industry in revolt as green dream causes cost spiral

Germany’s top economic adviser has called for a radical rethink of the country’s energy policies, warning that the green dream is going badly wrong as costs spiral out of control.

It seems not…I haven’t seen any recent mention of German problems with its drive to green the economy and energy sector….as it is seemingly having a massively damaging effect upon the economy and hence may be an election issue you could be persuaded of the case for a bit of news coverage by the BBC….especially as it reflects what is happening in our own economy and domestic fuel prices.

I’m certain the BBC environmental and political, and economic reporters are too busy elsewhere to report on the imploding of the biggest economy in Europe due to green policies….it couldn’t possibly be that they just don’t want you, the Public, to get the idea that all is not rosy in the Green garden.

The BBC does have time to report this outrage though:

Russia ‘seizes’ Greenpeace ship after Arctic rig protest

But if you are looking for a critical analysis of the IPCC’s leaked Fifth Assessment Report on climate change don’t ask the BBC or indeed the Guardian who have both launched pre-emptive strikes to try and stave off the critical sceptics:

This was from the BBC in 2012

 IPCC critical of climate change report leak

Don’t you just love the BBC…not investigating what the leaks say, or what others say about the leaks, but the BBC rushes to tell us what the UN tells us about the ‘leak’ itself and to defend the IPCC’s report whilst undermining any critics.

And the BBC doesn’t do it once…but twice…this from two days ago:

Climate leaks are ‘misleading’ says IPCC ahead of major report

And don’t forget this little white lie:

‘…the so called Climategate affair, in which leaked emails purported to show leading scientists trying to manipulate their data to make the report more damning.

Ultimately, several investigations showed the accusations of manipulation to be false.‘

 Well, only if you believe that those investigations were not a stitch up by the Establishment…which they were.

And then there is this classic from the Guardian:

Big business funds effort to discredit climate science, warns UN official

Climate change summit braced for counterblast from sceptics as report warns greenhouse gas emissions still increasing

Hardly a credible position to take when you consider the billions that are ploughed into the global warming scam by governments, big business and of course the BBC itself which provides extensive and priceless Media ‘cover’ for the corrupt politicians, fellow journalists and other cheerleaders for global warming.

An Israeli soldier is killed by a Palestinian and the story had all but vanished from the BBC website…relegated to the ‘most popular’ but now seems to have been resurrected on the Middle East page.

Interesting to see what they miss out in the report, the very short report….not much interest in a murdered Israeli soldier from the BBC?

A suspect – who Shin Bet said worked with the soldier – has been arrested.

The statement said he had confessed to killing Sgt Hazan in the hope that he could trade the body in exchange for the release of his imprisoned brother.

This information might have been helpful…all the way from the ‘China Daily’:

During the investigation in the Shin Bet, Amar said that the motive for murdering the soldier was to trade his body for the release of his brother, Nur Al Din Amar, a Tanzim Fatah operative imprisoned since 2003 for his involvement in several murderous attacks against Israeli citizens. 

The BBC’s report may be interpreted as seeking to elicit some sympathy for the Palestinian murderer…is there any doubt that he was driven to this desperate act when his brother, undoubtedly we might suppose, had been wrongly arrested and imprisoned by ‘occupying forces’ of the oppressive IDF?

You might want to compare the brevity of that report with the extensive coverage given to some diplomats who were ‘abused’ by Israeli soldiers as the diplomats decided to take part in a Palestinian protest…surely overstepping their authority and role.

A similar coyness and brevity is seen in the BBC’s reporting of the shooting in Kenya.

There seems to be a marked reluctance to mention the ’cause’ being ‘fought’ for by these gunmen.

The BBC refers to al  Shabab but refrains from mentioning Islam or Muslims until half way down the page.

Similarly this report from Pakistan:

Pakistan grapples with rising tide of extremist violence

It tells of attacks on Shias but not why they are attacked…because they are not considered ‘Muslim’ by Sunnis.

And curiously for a general report on extremism in Pakistan it makes no mention of Christians, Ahmadis, Hindus or Sikhs or any other group so targeted…this is the nearest the BBC gets to acknowledging their plight in this report:

Pakistan’s Shia minority, like the rest of the population, will not be protected.

An odd omission when this investigation comes on the same day of this report of an attack on a Christian Church:

Pakistan church blast kills dozens

There is absolutely no reason, or excuse, why references to such attacks aren’t made in the general report about extremist attacks if a much clearer, rounded view of things in Pakistan is to be appreciated. 

There should certainly be a brief ‘nod’  acknowledging these events when reporting similar ones for other communities…after all for over a year the BBC managed to append just about every report from the Middle East with the death toll from the Israeli 2009 Cast Lead operation in Gaza.

Anyone see the labour fest on Marr this morning. We had Lady Tuscany as the warm up act before the great Leader himself appeared. No matter how ingratiating Marr was Miliband was so poor that it really was a delight.

Hi all. Can see that Friday’s thread is fuller than empty promises from Miliband, so here’s a new one for y’all!

I note that Religion of Peace enthusiasts have been so active in the past few days. Whether it was slaughtering 59 people in a shopping mall in Nairobi, or mowing down dozens of Christians leaving a church in Pakistan, or blowing to pieces other Muslims attending a funeral  in Baghdad, the ROP has not left an opportunity to slaughter. Wonder what you reckon to BBC coverage of these acts of Jihad? I noted that they used the word “attackers” to describe the al-Shabaab Jihad boys last night.

Well then, great hatchet job by the BBC on UKIP today, contrasting nicely with their slabbering sycophantic coverage of Clegg and the gang. I caught the BBC 5 live afternoon coverage…the MOST important story in the world for several hours and a great way to ensure UKIP are damaged.  Bloom may not be coming up roses for UKIP but the reaction from the MSM in general, and BBC in particular, has been gleeful.

It was all going so well…and then those chickens started coming home to roost.

Leveson has been ‘disastrous’ says Guardian legal chief

The Guardian’s director of editorial legal services Gill Phillips has said the outcome of Leveson Inquiry has been “disastrous”.

Phillips told delegates: “What Leveson has come up with is the worst of all worlds.

“His attempt to please everybody and avoid being a dusty footnote on a shelf somewhere has led him down a road that has proved to be pretty disastrous.

“We don’t have anything that could be perceived as effective or credible by either side of the debate.”

I imagine that when an inquiry, supposedly wideranging, is actually predicated upon the sole intention of reining in one man and his supposed ’empire’ (it’s all relative….see below) things get distorted and that old law of unintended consequences rears its ugly but inevitable head.

From the Guardian:

Media plurality is now about much more than curbing Rupert Murdoch

The BBC, and online media, are included in the government’s consultation on plurality in the industry. And about time, too

The BBC, notes the DCMS, spends £430m a year on news provision – more than all other UK broadcasting put together. It reaches 86% of the population and accounts for 73% of TV news-watching. How, for plurality purposes, can you pretend it doesn’t exist?

Of course it operates under a pall of officially prescribed fairness and balance. But that, in itself, limits its plurality role. It can’t (see the latest contentious BBC Trust verdict) let John Humphrys loose for an individually crafted report on welfare dependency. It demands facts, figures and equivalencies, not personal perceptions. And the BBC is held to account for what it reports, not for what it leaves out. Sometimes it picks up a newspaper story and runs hard with it. Sometimes not. Sometimes Edward Snowden may as well not exist.

It’s often a negative power, but it is power. You can’t calculate pluralism without it. It’s the same online, as bbc.co.uk scoops up 40 million or so unique visitors in Britain alone. What’s the point of counting paper copies when the Telegraph can boast a combined monthly reach of 10.7 million? When the Guardian notches 12.4 million and the Mail 18.8 million. Even the Sun, at 16.9 million, doesn’t seem such a winner in company like this – and, as the consultation adds, that’s before you drop in the Huffington Post, Google News and more in a market place that obeys few conventional rules.

Guess the BBC didn’t forgive Blair for the Iraq War and Dyke having to fall on his sword, and Blair still relying on Murdoch to get his message across:

From the Guardian…emails in 2006 from Labour during in-fighting over leadership between Brown and Blair camps:

1.58pm from Ruth Turner (Blair’s  director of government relations at No 10):

So BBC chose [MPs] Sarah McCarthy-Fry, Julie Morgan and George Mudie who are hostile rather than Mike Gapes, Ann Clwyd and Karen Buck [who] are reasonable and supportive. This is a campaign organisation and not a news outlet!

3.36pm from Jonathan Powell [Blair’s long-serving chief of staff]:

Did we publish his three foreign policy speeches as a pamphlet? TB wants to send to Murdoch.

Make of that what you will….this is yet another open thread to take you into the  weekend….

BBC Newsreader holds the history of the NHS in his hands…it’s blank just for now….but he’ll soon think of something to fill all those pages. Behind him, he tells us, is a picture of Mrs Thatcher as she wept for what she has done to the country.

I have frequently commented on the BBC’s reluctance to mention Labour by name when talking about the deaths at the Mid Staffs Hospital in many of its articles and discussions about this scandal.

I have now learnt why….Labour was not to blame. Who was responsible for all those deaths?

Mrs Thatcher.

I kid you not.

The BBC, in the shape of their Business reporter, Lesley Curwen, concludes that the enormous number of deaths at Mid Staffs happened because Thatcher imposed ‘management’ upon the NHS and that management failed to speak up and stand up to government when Blair and Labour imposed its reign of ‘targets and terror’ upon them or taking self serving decisions designed to protect their career, therefore…Thatcher is to blame for the deaths at Mid Staffs.

Curwen seems determined to find ways to excuse Labour and plants the blame firmly in management’s lap…and therefore the person who introduced ‘management’.

The programme missed out important, relevant information and seemed intent on ‘proving’ something that it had already decided was ‘fact’.

Curwen repeatedly states her position:

‘For me it wasn’t questions about just what happened on the wards but in the boardrooms and executive offices of the trusts…I want to pick apart the part played by the managers and leaders of the NHS in these failing cultures.’

‘Wards’ and ‘Boardrooms’….what’s missing?  No 10 Dowing Street 1997-2010.　

She wanted to look at….

‘How the modern NHS manager came into being and how the flaws in that long evolution may have played a part in today’s cultural failings.’

Targets produced a culture of bullying and fear. It is clear that management were intimidated and cowed by targets but can this alone explain how they lost touch with the organisation they were supposed to be leading.

I’ve been looking for any clue that might explain senior management failures….a split developed , a fault line between management and the clinicians.

That sowed the seeds in what happened at Mid Staffs where staff expressing concerns were ignored.

So there you go…Thatcher sowed the seeds for what happened at Mid Staffs.

Curwen brings it all bang up to date with a warning about current reforms:

‘Right now the NHS is undergoing its most far reaching change for decades and at the same time is facing an unprecedented financial squeeze.’

An ‘unprecedented financial squeeze’?

What? The government is putting in money not merely ring fencing the NHS.

What planet is the BBC on?

Let’s remember what the Labour politician, Aneurin Bevan, Labour Health Minister, said:

‘Administration will be the biggest headache for years to come.’

So not quite as simple as some like to portray.

The programme is a mixed bag of messages which confuse and contradict….for instance she tells us that managers are to blame…and yet ‘ultimately Ministers pull the strings….maybe that’s why managers hold staff’s feet to the fire to get the performance they want.’

But she rapidly disassociates Labour’s era of ‘Targets and terror’ from management decisions.

She tells us of the introduction of ‘Consensus management’ in 1973 by the then Tory government…this had boards of doctors, nurses and administrators all making the decisions for hospitals….and all having a veto on any decision.

There was in fact too much bureaucracy…to many tiers of administration.

What happened was that often no agreement could be met on what might be the best probable practise so they plumped for the ‘lowest denominator’…the system was ‘deeply flawed’ but the BMA liked it.

It of course involved the very clinicians, the frontline staff that Curwen is now saying should be involved in management….but paradoxically she tells us resulted in something that ‘truly was a monster’ in the 1970‘s.

Curwen then skips over Labour’s stewardship of the NHS during the 70’s…which is odd…as Thatcher based her policy upon that of Wilson and Callaghan…who …em…advocated a ‘value for money’ policy.

The irony of Thatcher’s introduction of management, based upon the ’Griffith’s Report’, was that it was implemented as a consequence of the failures of the ‘management consensus’ regime and 20 deaths at Stanley Royal Hospital due to food poisoning for which no one would take responsibility.

Curwen blames Mid Staffs on Thatcher but the introduction of ‘management’ was supposed to prevent such occurrences…..and might have if it hadn’t been for the ‘era of targets and terror’.

Curwen tells us a ‘them and us’ attitude developed when non-clinical management came in……what she didn’t say was that it was the managers who were ‘demonised’, indeed the RCN ran a massive advertising campaign against them being introduced.

Were nurses and doctors involved in management? Curwen gives the impression that there were very few at all.

However there were certainly many nurses taking on management roles…though that was slow to begin with:

“One old style consultant was heard to say, ‘She used to be our matron, now she’s come back as our boss’.”

Eventually organisations revised the initial management structures that had excluded nurses.

“So to a degree the RCN campaign was successful,” says Mr Rowden, who became a general manager in 1986 after hearing a speech by health minister Kenneth Clarke. “He said, ‘Stop whingeing – anyone can go into general management.’ In three years there were more than 100 nurses in unit and district general manager posts.”

And the doctors and consultants wielded huge power and authority still:

He was quick to grasp the importance of getting on with the “power broker medics” who could block change. “I was told it was impossible to deal with inefficient or lazy doctors directly. If I took on a doctor directly, that would be the end. We did get rid of several, but not by the direct method.”

Ultimately doctors and consultants didn’t want to manage….and even Christine Hancock, originally a nurse and someone who has served in various senior roles in the NHS, including head of the RCN said:

‘In my experience we are the only country where doctors don’t manage the health service….doctors don’t want to manage.’

 Curwen, though interviewing Hancock, didn’t manage to winkle that out of her.

I don’t think Curwen can have read much of what is written about Griffith’s Report judging by her incomplete take on events and the ultimate overall effectiveness of the new management regime.

This is an indepth look at the report with those involved from politicians, civil servants and NHS staff: The Griffith’s NHS Management inquiry: Its origins, nature and impact

And from the Health Service Journal look at Griffiths after 25 years:

Yet no one suggests the NHS should abandon general management, nor even that any viable alternative exists. It has enabled the NHS to attract high calibre chief executives, rationalise management structures and sharpen accountability for how it uses taxpayers’ billions.

“Management is much more an advocate of the patient and public voice than clinicians, because managers play a neutral role in services. They are not a vested professional interest,” says King’s Fund director of leadership development Karen Lynas.

“The NHS is better now at responding to what the public want, and a lot of that is to do with general management.”

The blame for Mid Staffs lies squarely at Labour’s door…staff shortages, not mentioned by Curwen, and the imposition of the ‘Targets and terror’ regime that forced management to take certain actions.

It was not a failure of the concept of management but the distortion of its implementation by politicians out to win the PR war in the studios of the BBC or on the front pages of the news papers with headlines about ever shorter queues and more money going into the NHS…..all based on highly suspect statistics as management was forced to massage the figures to meet the targets…so in fact they didn’t meet those targets and treatment, as we see from Mid Staffs, in reality got worse.

And patients died as a result.

It seems that the BBC not only are intent on continuing to hide Labour’s part in that but seek to spread the blame, or shift the blame,  to the ‘usual suspect’.