As Durban fizzles out – much to Richard Black’s chagrin– and the wheels spectacularly fall off the renewables frenzy, Christopher Booker has summed up brilliantly the saga of how the corporation has abandoned its impartiality. There’s no hiding place from his searchlight; what has happened has been a deliberate, sustained climate alarmist campaign sanctioned from the highest levels and pursued with a vigour that would have impressed even Goebbels and Speer. The stench is now firmly at the door of the trustees, those “independent” citizens who are supposed to be the watchdogs of the BBC’s £3.5bn budget and its journalistic integrity.

This morning, to me, Tony Newbery of Harmless Sky – whose impressive work Christopher Booker’s paper is based upon – has posed the most interesting question about their behaviour in this massive breach of the Royal Charter. For years the trustees claimed they had commissioned the Jones report into their science coverage only because it was part of a regular cycle of such reviews – it was not linked at all to mounting evidence of bias in their output and deliberate sidelining of sceptics. But Mr Newbery has spotted that Roger Harrabin, in his defence of his seedy links with the UEA Tyndall Centre, has let the cat out of the bag and given lie to their posturing. He said in a recent interview:

Climate sceptics seeking more space on the BBC helped provoke the Trust’s investigation into science impartiality but the Trust said we were already giving them too much space – not too little.

This means that without a shadow of a doubt, the trustees have known all along that they are engaged in a window dressing exercise and cynically commissioned the Jones nonsense both to cover their backs and to ram home even further that they did not give a stuff about sceptic opinion.

Could that be because at least three of them – Lord Patten, Diana Coyle and Anthony Fry – have direct pecuniary interests in the climate change scam? And I note that the latest trustee appointment (on December 1), Lord Williams of Baglan (who worked for the BBC World Service and then became a UN envoy) is also a climate change fanatic. The fact that he worked for the UN is enough to damn him, but he also lists among his financial interests membership of the international advisory board of CITPAX, a body that claims it supports peace, but in reality is engaged in climate change propaganda at the core of his activities.

To me, the BBC trustees are nothing more than a cosy club of climate change activists. Richard Black and his chums are scurrying around doing their bidding.

Not Taking Sides

We don’t take sides!” is a cry repeatedly heard from certain biased organisations that operate under banners of impartiality.
On the other hand, the foreign secretary isn’t constrained by such a banner. Nevertheless William Hague says the government isn’t taking sides on the intricacies of Egyptian politics.
We do take sides,” he admitted moments later, “on behalf of democracy!
Democracy must always be entirely for the good, it seems, even if the electorate have been brainwashed from birth into voting for distinctly undemocratic governments, as in the case of ‘democratically elected’ Hamas. Did I catch Hague praising the smooth-running and successful outcome of the elections in Tunisia? By Jove I think I did.
After strongly advocating motherhood and apple pie in Egypt and free and fair elections, preferably overseen by….. someone or other, Hague declaims:
We’ve seen successful elections in Tunisia, a new government is now being formed in Libya, important reforms are taking place in Morocco and Jordan, and so we should remain on the optimistic side of what’s been happening in the Arab Spring, albeit that there are many conflicts and difficulties along the way.
There’s a little test for Libya coming up, isn’t there?” asks Humph alluding to ‘unSaif’ Gaddafi jnr.
Blah blah blah, international standards.” says Hague.
Syria? “ asks Humph.
Ambassador delegate,” mumbles Hague. “pressure!” “Arab League! “Sanctions!” he drones.

Humph is meek and mild today. “What about Iran?” he ventures.
Waffle, waffle, waffle” goes Hague.
We don’t take sides, even in the (hidden) face of such female candidates as Muna Salah, whose manifesto is “Women Are Deficient in Intelligence and Religion, and It Is Not Permissible for Them to Be in Authority” Does Call me Dave know?

Is this ‘sitting on the fence’ malarkey official BBC policy now that florid featured Lord Patten is in charge? Has Humph been told to calm down dear? Only I’ve been looking at a report about Patten’s recent speech in which he is quoted as saying:
”The BBC is unable to conduct investigations into some of the most important stories of the day – including phone hacking – if they could be construed as having a political bias,
Poor old them. Hampered by those pesky impartiality obligations.
As a publicly funded broadcaster whose output is so directly intrusive, there are some areas where we ought to be particularly careful in our journalism or even decline to follow where newspapers or online journalism may properly lead,” Lord Patten said.
Penetrating observation that. Their output certainly is “so directly intrusive,” and that’s why so many people are hoodwinked and influenced by its barely hidden agenda.
Despite the BBC’s tradition of investigative journalism, it could not have paid for the information on MPs’ expenses as the Daily Telegraph did, nor pursued the hacking story at News International as remorselessly as the Guardian campaign did.”
However, as was reported the other day, information ‘the BBC couldn’t be seen to pay for’ can be obtained indirectly, through third parties such as independent programme makers who can conveniently fall on their swords when outed.

Then comes the familiar old chestnut:

Patten also used his speech to take a side-swipe at politicians who criticise the BBC over alleged breaches of its impartiality. “We have been attacked from both the left and the right,” he said, pointing out that the frequency with which the broadcaster is accused of political bias justifies its choice to not engage in some vital journalism.”

If only the BBC really did choose not to just engage in some vital journalism, and engaged, instead in all vital journalism, not just the kind that fits in with their bias.

Nick Cohen has: “Over at the Leveson inquiry a smug Lord Patten – there is no other kind — said the BBC could not possibly be biased because left wingers attack it on some occasions and right wingers attack it on others.

By continually using this excuse they’re comparing apples with pears to try and justify the wrong-headed, deeply flawed, smug, superficial conclusion that they invariably bandy about in order to give short shrift to all their critics.
Giving Cohen the benefit of the doubt, I’ll assume it’s just ‘for the sake of argument’ that Cohen is also giving Patten the benefit of the doubt, by continuing oddly, thus:

“The BBC holds the ring, he implied. Uncontaminated by the ideologies of extremists, and possessing indeed no bias or ideology of its own, it speaks for moderation and reason.”

‘Taking the centre ground’, Cohen continues, ‘offers no protection against deranged ideas’ , citing the current vindication of former critics of the euro, once perceived as “crazies”, whereas in the light of the crisis in the eurozone, ‘advocates of moderation and reason’ (in this case the BBC) are revealed as the dangerous utopians.
Personally I can’t see the BBC or Lord Patten as centrists or moderate purveyors of conventional wisdom, but I know what Cohen is getting at. There are, however some perceptive comments below the line.
I would like to know why no-one on the BBC seems to question the government on their apparent complacency over the rise of Islamist parties in the aftermath of the Arab Spring. Is that part of the constraints imposed by the impartiality obligation? Or is is part of the constraints imposed by their politically correct, pro Islam, left-leaning consensus, which runs right through the organisation from top to bottom like a stick of rock?

As the BBC’s output is so directly intrusive, is it any wonder that the left is the new centre, and the BBC can claim to be moderate and reasonable?