Middle of the week, end of the month, and so time for a new OPEN Thread. Play nicely, no abuse but detail the bias from the comrades…..

I don’t think that Lord Howell said anything he needed to apologise for but thanks to the predictable baiting in the Lords from Labour, picked up and magnified by the BBC, he ended up saying sorry for suggesting that “desolate parts” of the north-east with no obvious natural beauty could be potential spots for tracking. Maybe he should have said the north-west? The BBC seized on this with glee and given the BBC opposition to a/ fracking in particular and b/conservatives in general, they have sneered at this for the last 24 hours. Following the logic put forward by Labour and echoed by the BBC  it appears that every inch of the UK is so beautiful that we cannot frack anywhere. How curious.

The BBC Trust, on the basis of a complaint from one man and his dog, has declared that the BBC, or at least John Humphrys is a right wing government stooge:

‘Is the BBC biased’ has done a write up of Sunday Morning Live….it concludes that overall it was a fair effort on the part of the BBC….I haven’t seen it yet so can’t comment myself.

 What is interesting is part of the programme that they have transcribed.

I have in a previous post suggested that most Muslims don’t actually like Islam…..the real, fundamental, follow all the rules Islam….they are in fact ‘Islamophobes’.   They are born into the religion, they are obliged by their community to ‘keep the Faith’ but it is more cultural for them, more lip service than devotion, they’ll take the social and perhaps the spiritual parts of Islam but say no thanks to the wife beating, gay baiting and hand chopping etc.

They might express a desire to see Islam ‘reformed’….that is, have those violent, supremacist and genocidal  parts of the Koran and Sharia excised.

If so they would be denounced as ‘Islamophobes’ were they to appear on the pages of this blog no doubt, as the desires they have for the reform of Islam are the very same concerns that are expressed on this site by posters as they argue the BBC should take a more critical look at Islam, only to be charged with ‘islamophobia’….an irrational hatred of Islam….despite the criticism of Islam being based on reasoned argument and endless proofs from the Koran and the Hadiths themselves.

With that in mind here is part of the write up of the SML programme:

‘We heard from Sheikh Dr Muhammad Al-Hussaini who said that the British people “no longer believe the Islamist peace double discourse from British Muslim leaders.” In one of those “wow!” moments that thrills the heart, Sheikh Muhammad argued that “the literalist, supremacist use and abuse of scripture by violently extremist Islamist groups…isn’t so far actually different to the same kind of literalist supremacist readings of the same kind of scripture by, if you like, sort of mainstream extremist Islamist groups like the Muslim Council of Britain and Jamaat-e-Islami front organisations like the the Islamic Foundation.” He went on to argue that the violent texts in Islam need to be moderated by Islamic scholars and said they should follow the example of Jewish scholars who have long moderated the texts of Deuteronomy. He then went on to denounce the “interfaith or Islamophobia kind of industry”. Mehdi, you won’t be surprised to hear, wasn’t entirely happy about that!’

Anything different in there from what this site says?

No.

And yet  if  ‘John Smith’ should try  to express those views on a BBC programme  he would be quickly cut off and ‘outed’  as a likely EDL member…sin of sins!

Much like, as George R points out, Douglas Murray was smeared by Mehdi Hasan as a ‘supporter’ of the EDL:

Mehdi Hasan and the EDL

Interesting isn’t it…he, Sheikh Muhammad, a Muslim,  says that there is little difference between what the extremists claim and what the mainstream Muslim groups say about Islam.

Much like the FBI offical who told us what the only difference between Al Qaeda and the Islamic community group CAIR (the US MCB equivalent) and the Muslim Brotherhood was:

“The only difference between the guys in the suits and the guys with the AK-47s is timing and tactics.”

In the end they all have the same aims…just different methods of achieving them.

That’s a very important point to remember…one that the BBC and politicians deliberately refuse to acknowledge….because to acknowledge it would mean they would have to do something about it…it would mean suppressing Islam in some form or another.

The non-violent Islamists are just as ‘dangerous’ politically and culturally as the ones prepared to bomb and shoot their way to victory….if you consider Islam itself a threat to democratic, secular/Christian society that is.

The BBC should, if it were doing its job, be examining every word of Sheikh Dr Muhammad Al-Hussaini and be asking just what exactly does he mean?

To do so would mean having to examine Islam and all those tricky little verses about the Jews and Christians being sinners, unclean, to be controlled at the end of a sword.

….and then what?  What if the BBC discovered that this was the true teaching of the Koran, the real meaning of Islam?

That’s why it will never happen.

That and the fact that the ‘Establishment’, from the Royal Family, politicians, businessmen and those in the Media all have close and extensive links to Muslim states……not just through commerce, oil and weapons, but cultural and social ties…a surprising number of the ‘upper crust’ being married to Muslims…George Osborne’s brother for instance.

And of course the final calculation that they make is that should such an eventuality happen, an Isamic takeover, they, already at the top of the tree so to speak, would likely remain there and would not suffer overly much, not having to alter their opulent lifestyles greatly,  judging by the excesses of the Saudi Royal family.

For those at lower levels or the bottom of the tree things might be a lot less pleasant.

Nice though that the BBC keeps giving the floor to an Islamist like Mehdi Hasan without challenging his views themselves.

We hear endless sob stories on the BBC about tenants having to move house due to the governments ‘bedroom tax’….or spare room subsidy reduction if you prefer.

We hear the ‘vulnerable’ are being targeted and discriminated against, the poorest in society victimised and cities being ‘cleansed’ of the poor.

Well you can argue about that endlessly but what about at the other end of the scale….those high earners who refuse to budge from their social housing subsidised by the tax payer?

Guido certainly had several pops at the likes of Bob Crow who has such a home.

But how often do we hear about the government’s ‘Pay to Stay’ initiative where the higher your income the more you must pay to stay in social housing?

Can’t say I have ever heard the BBC mention it.

In the Guardian there are objections to taxing the rich!:

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and others have persevered with ideas of mixed communities and the benefits of mixing households with different income levels in the same physical space. Now it’s full steam ahead for the ghetto.

Inside Housing objects too claiming it is more a political stunt than a proper policy:

Pay to stay has probably already achieved its political purpose in generating headlines about Bob Crow and Frank Dobson. As a housing policy it is at best a contradictory distraction from the real issues. 

And:

‘…on a deeper level it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that this is really about accelerating the Conservative end-game for social housing: reducing it to a residualised rump reserved for the very poorest while leaving everything else to the market.’

Well…er….yes…isn’t that the idea of council/social housing…to provide subsidised/low rent homes for those on low incomes?….or are we to look on the likes of Bob Crow as some sort of missionary?  Before we had well intentioned priests who used to travel to darkest Africa to bring civilisation to the natives…now it’s the well heeled union barons bringing ‘gentrification’ and  fine dining to the ‘Chavs’.

Guess when you are a Tory led government you  just can’t win.

Would be nice to hear Victoria Derbyshire and Co expand their repertoire and at least pay lip service to the fact that the rich are being targeted along with the poorest….the rich of course being hit with proportionately far bigger tax rises than any other income level.

Harriet Harman suggested a cap on ownership of  the media but wanted to exclude the BBC from such considerations:

No, the BBC is not included…there is all the difference in the world between a privately owned broadcaster and a public broadcaster which has its own mechanisms for accountability [ha ha] and no I don’t include it as a monopoly…it’s not a private monopoly.

I put it on one side….the standards the BBC offers are important..it offers a gold standard for other broadcasters…the role of the BBC is absolutely essential…there is no need for protection from the BBC, far from it, we need to strengthen the BBC.

The government may though include the BBC:

The BBC could be included in any potential move to limit media ownership, the Government will announce today.

Culture Secretary Maria Miller will launch a consultation on rules governing media plurality, asking for the first time whether the state broadcaster should be covered.

If the BBC was included in rules designed to prevent any one media organisation becoming too powerful, it could be forced to rein in its dominant news website.

The BBC said:

In its own submissions to Ofcom’s review of media ownership and plurality, the BBC argued that it should be excluded from calculations because of its public service role.

The DCMS said:

‘It also makes sense that when you are trying to ensure that a particular viewpoint does not dominate the media that you ask whether the BBC should be included.’

The BBC more often than not will reveal to us, in the interest of transparency and impartiality, that a think tank is right leaning.

It is a rarity to see left wing think tanks or charities similarly defined.

I have yet to hear The New Economic Foundation so described despite being not just left leaning but out on the fringes of the loony left, the Resolution Foundation or the Rowntree Foundation are never called ‘left leaning’ despite that obviously being the case.

Today the BBC brings us the Million+ think tank, ‘a think tank that also represents newer universities‘ which is telling us that ‘England’s teacher training system ‘broken down’

The system of planning teacher training in England has broken down and risks a future shortage of teachers, a university think tank says.

In her evidence to the committee, Pam Tatlow, chief executive of Million+ – a think tank that also represents newer universities – said School Direct, , which is focused around on-the-job, school-based training, had been introduced “without any robust assessment of its impact on teacher supply”.

Pam Tatlow?   Ever heard that name before?  You might have…she was in the news not so long ago….as a short listed Labour party candidate.

You’d have thought that might just be a bit relevant when you have a person strongly criticising government policy and yet is Labour through and through.

Apparently the BBC doesn’t think that to be the case.

Kebab Time has some taxing questions for Labour…I wonder if the BBC has any…though Labour’s Margaret Hodge threatening legal action if the BBC asked any questions about Stemcor’s tax affairs silenced them pretty quickly….that and the fact that they weren’t very keen to ‘kebab’ her any way.

Kebab Time posts this from the Times:

Will Hodge be demanding Labour cough up some of that £24 million they took from the Unions over the last 3 years…you know…..moral duty and all that…just as she suggests all those commercial companies do…above and beyond their legal requirements?

No doubt there is a completely valid technical reason why Labour dodges tax…..still….moral responsibility and all that…eh?

I imagine the BBC would be just as disinterested if it was the Tory party dodging tax…..the Tories paying, according to the Times, £521,000….Labour nothing…and yet Labour has more funding than the Tories…work that out.

Labour tops party funds league table

Labour remains the best-funded UK political party, reporting income of more than £33m in 2012.

Accounts for 2012 show it received more than the combined figure for the Tories, £24.2m, and the Lib Dems, £6m.

No ‘Labour Tops Party Funding Tax Avoidance League Table’ report from the BBC?

The Energy and Climate Change Committee published its thoughts on energy companies and pricing today which the BBC has concentrated on….but the ECCC also released its latest publications on smart metering.…they will cost us £12 billion…but save us £18 billion….because that’s the way government, publicly funded ,computer projects always work…they always come in under budget and save us money…don’t they?

The BBC has been running quite a few studies looking at the introduction of smart meters.

But one thing it hasn’t told us is this:

Smart meters will be rolled out as standard across the country by 2020.

But there will not be a legal obligation on individuals to have one.

Energy companies will be required to install smart meters and take all reasonable steps to reach everyone. However, we do not expect energy companies to take legal action to fit a smart meter if they cannot get the householder’s co-operation.

That came from the government’s own information and advice site on smart meters.

Nothing to do with BBC bias but it would have been nice to be told such a relevant thing when these meters are so controversial….just a failure to report the basic, essential facts.

The meters are a security threat, not just to your own data but to the national grid….apart from that they are unlikely to reduce your energy use….you may switch using energy at peak times for cheaper periods…but that doesn’t reduce overall energy consumption.

This is how to successfully reduce energy use:

If you really want to reduce energy consumption, extreme social pressure is the way to do it, says Prof Anderson.

A “pervasive surveillance structure” for society with a public hall of shame, singling out worst offending households to ridicule, would work, says Prof Anderson. “But the implications for social liberties are appalling.”

All made possible by the smart meter recording your every move.

Just been treated to Nicky Campbell talking to Ed Davey about energy companies in relation to the Energy and Climate Change Committee’s highly political statement that the companies are not doing enough  to make company profits transparent.

Campbell fully accepted that statement and didn’t challenge it in the slightest and only wheeled in Ed Davey to confirm the statement and back it up with yet more government waffle.

Not a hint that prices have risen enormously because of the government’s green taxes….probably because the ball was set rolling by Ed Miliband and his legal requirement to reduce CO2 by 80% by 2050….and of course the BBC supports that line of thinking.

Not a hint that this might be a politicised response to the energy companies recent statements that it is government taxes that are raisng prices inordinately.

The real question about transparency is just how much extra tax burden is loaded onto consumers by those government green taxes?  Just how many people are forced into fuel poverty by that, just how many died because they couldn’t afford to heat their homes…having to choose…as the BBC so often likes to state in other contexts…between eating and heating?

So yet again the BBC covers up the adverse side effects of green policy….all those green BBC pension funds must be kept solvent ….and covers up for Labour’s Leader just as it did over his ‘Unite scandal’…..refusing to be ‘transparent’ about his knowledge and cooperation with Unite’s vote rigging.

Oh look…here is the ECCC’s summary….the first paragraph:

Rising energy prices are a worry for households across the UK. Since 2007 average prices of gas and electricity have risen by 41% and 20% in the UK in real terms, according to DECC. This has had an adverse impact on fuel poor households and thrown Government targets to eliminate the problem by 2016 off-course.

The main driver behind energy price rises has been wholesale gas and electricity costs, but network charges, energy and climate change policies, and company costs and profits also contribute. In future, DECC estimates that its energy and climate change policies will add 33% to the average electricity price paid by UK households in 2020, in addition to any potential wholesale price rises.

The Government must not forget that rising prices are exacerbating fuel poverty.

Energy is becoming increasingly unaffordable for low-income families living in poorly insulated and inefficient homes. Yet just as the situation for the most vulnerable is worsening, it appears that fuel poverty policy has effectively been frozen. Spending on the problem has been cut in England and some of the Government’s fuel poverty programmes appear to be in hiatus.

Ministers have been unacceptably slow to respond to the Hills Review and take action to stem the problem. It is imperative that the Government’s new fuel poverty strategy, expected at the end of this year, is not delayed any further. It should be published and implemented as an urgent priority.

Note that ‘ In future, DECC estimates that its energy and climate change policies will add 33% to the average electricity price paid by UK households in 2020.’

Note that ‘urgent priority’ for the  government to get on with dealing with fuel poverty…and yet the BBC concentrates on company profits.

Odd how the BBC highlight the bit about company profits, especially as prices are driven up mainly by wholesale prices and not increasing profit margins,  but sidelines the bit about fuel poverty caused by government green policies.

Here the BBC’s web report….note the small bit tagged on at the bottom:

Fuel poverty

The Energy and Climate Change Committee also reprimanded the government for not doing enough to help low-income families struggling with fuel poverty.

The committee argued that the use of levies on fuel bills to raise funds for social and environmental programmes could end up hitting those on low incomes

The BBC misses out the bit about government failures on tackling fuel poverty and the urgent priority to do so.