This morning on the Today programme  (51 mins)we had the pleasure of Labour’s Margaret Hodge …..not to be questioned as to the tax dealings of her brother’s company Stemcor, or her use of family trusts, but to be given free rein to slander and malign the Coalition’s attempts to deal with tax avoidance.

She was allowed to claim that the Coalition had no policies, no staff  or investment to tackle the problem and that it was all essentially being done on the back of an envelope….there should be more resources..’just think John for every one pound invested we get 10 back!’

John Humphrys said nothing and let her get away with that without interruption or comment.

Humphrys then brought on Danny Alexander and interrupted constantly.  Humphrys demanded to know why Alexander was running such a shambolic and ineffective operation….why didn’t he know about certain tax dodges?

‘Somebody should have known…why didn’t you know??

Alexander revealed the truth that of course the government and HMRC were looking intensively at such schemes and were successfully putting a stop to many of them…they have invested £1 bn and will be taking in £9 bn extra tax revenue because of the measures implemented.

John Humphrys stamps on Alexander when he says that this is far better than under Labour.

It seems OK for Hodge to lie through her teeth without challenge but mention Labour and you get slapped down pretty sharpish.

Humphrys realises he is onto a loser and falls back on a rather pathetic attempt to make the Coalition look bad….asking  ‘you, the Coalition, keep saying you are doing things…why haven’t you done them?’

What a hopeless interview….Humphrys must know exactly what measures the government has taken to tackle tax avoidance…..and if not why not?

‘Today‘ is supposed to be our premier news programme. 

You’d get more news, and more accurate news, from a crystal ball.

This may be of interest to the more expert of our readers who can probably show me where I have gone wrong in my calculations…the BBC are pretty quick to highlight apparent success of power generation by ‘renewables’…but should they be digging a bit deeper…are wind turbines any where near as good as even the very modest claims that are made for them?

Having seen the BBC report on Scottish renewables I had  a look and checked some of the figures…not being a climate expert, or technically literate or brilliant with numbers this may be all wrong but have  a look yourself:

Scotland produces 126% of its power needs.
Of that 26.8%  is generated by renewables.

Around 36% of ‘consumed’ power comes from renewables.

The rest comes from conventional sources.

Consumed power is obviously 100% of Scotland’s needs  and yet it generates 126%……the surplus is exported.

Those figures suggest that conventional sources still produce 99.2% of power generated  as renewables produce 26.8% in total.  (You could claim renewables only produce 0.8% of Scottish power depending how you report the figures)

Therefore Scotland is paying for all the renewable sources on top of its conventional capacity which could by itself still keep the lights on in Scotland.

Scotland gets money back for its exported power…but is it at a price that repays the investment in renewables that produce it?  And what happens when they have closed the sources of that power down…the revenue stream that subsidises renewables dries up?
It is also apparent that wind farms are not producing anywhere near the power that they promise…it is hydro that is producing the bulk of the renewable power and in a far more efficient way…and that is considering hydro is itself only (I believe) 25-30% efficient…whilst the Scottish government claims wind is uniquely 40% efficient in Scotland.
In 2011:

Onshore wind capacity = 3.6 Gw…..it generated 7,004 GwHr
Hydro capacity …………= 1.5 Gw……it generated 5,332 GwHr

Giving a generation figure per Gw of capacity:

OSW….1945.5 GwHr/Gw capacity
Hydro…3554.7 GwHr/Gw capacity
Hydro is more expensive but it looks far more efficient at converting capacity to actual power.

I could be wrong…check it yourself…used this site (one unlikely to downplay the ‘success’ of renewables) for the figures and also this site from the Scottish Government.

Whilst CO2 reduction is the only game in town it seems that the wind turbine is not the answer.

No one has told the BBC yet…or they certainly aren’t telling us.

Some more wide open acres of blog to note the BBC’s foul play for those not out enjoying the sunshine.

Up to 20,000 patients may have died unnecessarily under the care of the NHS.

Whilst they have been given a decent burial the BBC seems to be attempting to bury the bad news…or at least the Labour Party’s involvement in it as the government of the day.

The BBC has consistently, across different platforms, avoided using the word ‘Labour’ when talking about this subject…even in a 10 minute interview with Labour’s Andy Burnham..no mention….that’s just not possible is it?

The impression you may get is that it is under the Coalition’s government that all this happened.

The refusal to even mention ‘Labour’ can only lead to one conclusion…th BBC intends that whilst they can’t avoid the dates being linked to Labour nothing else will be…it can only be an organised,  concerted effort, considering it is being carried out across different platforms and from different reporters, that this ploy is operating to distance ‘Labour’ from any blame.

No mention of ‘Labour’ at all in this frontpage report

No mention of ‘Labour’ in this interview with Sir Brian Jarman.

No mention of ‘Labour’ in this interview on the Today programme  (08:32)with Labour’s Shadow Health Minister Andy Burnham.

What sort of euphemisms did John Humphry’s use instead of Labour government?

The ‘Department of Health’

Or information was brought ‘to attention of senior NHS officials’

Andy Burnham was ‘Secretary of State’ or ‘former health minister’…..or it was ‘Your government’.

Never one single mention of the word ‘Labour’.

This is what Professor Sir Brian Jarman told us:

His attempt to collate information on death rates was ‘unpopular with ministers and was resisted for years’.

They didn’t like the fact that he was gathering the statistics.

In 2007 he issued a report but the Labour government added this phrase…

‘We advise readers to take no notice of this data.’

Humphrys laid all the blame at the feet of David Nicholson…who undoubtedly played his part…but who was in charge and who set the targets culture up?

A Lancet report suggests that troops coming back from the frontline are more likely to be violent.

Nicky Campbell is running a phone-in asking:  ‘Does the Army mess you up?’

When we have Muslim suicide bombers telling us they are acting in the name of Islam does the BBC ask:  ‘Does being a Muslim mess you up?’

No…it says they are madmen or criminals perverting that glorious religion.

The BBC is all too keen to kick the Army or the Police…which is odd really when you read from the BBC’s own report that in fact those in the Army are less criminal than civilians:

‘Overall criminal activity was slightly lower in military personnel than in people of the same age in the wider population. Some 94% of men returning from combat zones will not offend.’

That story gets 2nd billing on the Frontpage…the one below gets no report at all on the website…….

By coincidence the Muslim Brotherhood have released a document decalring the UN’s statement on the rights of women will destroy society as it goes against the tenets of Islam.

The BBC’s response on 5Live…to bring on a ‘women’s rights’ campaigner…a Muslim, who declares the Muslim brotherhood have it all wrong…Islam isn’t like that at all.

From the Washington Post:

‘Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood say UN document on violence against women violates Islamic rules.’

It seems that the story only made an appearance on 5Live to push the BBC’s very own interpretation of Islam…..it’s a wonderful, enlightened, peaceful religion that embraces tolerance for other religions and empowers women.

 Via Bishop Hill

This video demonstrates perfectly why the BBC’s refusal to engage in debate about climate change is a damning breach of trust as it abandons its own values and responsibilities to ‘inform, educate and  entertain’.

There are three main questions that need to be answered when talking about climate change:

1.  Is climate change happening?

2. If so what is causing that change?

3. Is any such change good or bad for the planet?

You almost have to answer that last question first in reality because only if you do that can you decide a course of action should mankind then be found responsible to any extent.

If climate change is in fact mostly beneficial is it the sensible thing to take drastic actions that have seriously detrimental effects on the economy, lifestyles and well being of the population…especially when other nations carry on regardless?

Regardless of what is causing climate change the BBC should be allowing a wide variety of voices and opinions to be heard instead of the usual advocates clammering to close down industry.

Is fossil fuel in fact, as suggested in this video, the saviour of Planet Earth from an ever growing population, saving forests from being hacked down and increasing crop yields incredibly.  And is CO2 more food than pollutant for the planet?

At the very least the BBC must reappraise the effects of climate change……benefit or detriment?

Compare and contrast the two very different reports on the same subject, MEPS reject the cuts negotiated recently in the EU budget, one from the Telegraph,

MEPs reject EU spending cuts and demand extra £1.7bn from British taxpayers

MEPs have rejected cuts to European Union budgets agreed at an all-night summit last month and have demanded that national governments pay an extra £14 billion in spending for this year.

and one from the BBC.

MEPs want renegotiation of EU budget deal

Euro MPs adopted a resolution saying they would only accept the deal on certain conditions.  They want governments to settle outstanding budget bills, to avoid the risk of a shortfall.

The MEPs also want a flexible 2014-2020 budget, so that money not spent in one area can be used in another if needed.

The BBC’s version ‘understands’ the MEP’s point of view and suggests it is a reasonable  and fair way forward.

The Telegraph’s version is more open and shows that the MEPs are intent on imposing the rise in budget of near 12% that they originally wanted….a group of MEPs feathering their own nest and trying to build the power base of the undemocratic EU which wants to impose yet more taxes, increase the budget and limit further accountability of itself.

It is customary for news providers to only bring us the bad news…bad news sells.

As former American vice-president Spiro Agnew said:  ‘Bad news drives out good news.’

The BBC has become a pioneer of a new type of journalism in which only good news is broadcast….at least when the news comes from Germany.

Germany is a happy land, happy to be in the Euro, happy to have divested itself of its reliable nuclear power and gone for wind instead….they can always buy in extra power from France’s nuclear industry, the Germans happily assimilate their immigrant population without trouble and Germany looks on with paternal pride as Italy, Greece and Spain bow to Teutonic common sense and apply the austerity poultice to their economies without complaint.

It would serve no purpose to convey bad news all the way from Germany just for your delictae ears.  There is none anyway.
And this is just a misprint in Der Spiegel:

Is Germany Killing the Environment to Save It?

The BBC don’t seem interested in what seems a major wrinkle in the Green debate.

It might be over the top to suggest the BBC is censoring particular types of stories but it looks as if it almost certainly definitely does.

However the BBC does bring us uplifting, heart warming and inspirational tales of struggle and personal courage as in this tale of an immigrant battling Germany’s Nazi past:

Germany’s n-word race debate

Seven-year-old Timnit Mesghena is an avid reader. In the evenings, she and her father like to sit on the sofa in their flat in Berlin and read to each other. They present an easy picture of family happiness.

One of their favourites is the classic children’s book, The Little Witch, an enchanting tale of a witch who flies and birds who talk.

But one day they reached page 94, and a difficult word came up. It was neger, describing a black boy. It is true that it can mean “negro” in German, but it also means the utterly offensive “******”. When the book was written, the former may have been true – but now it is more like the latter.

Timnit’s father, Mekonnen, had no doubts. He is black, originally from Eritrea, and found the word completely unacceptable.

“It made me very angry,” he says. “I know that people use that word to insult me or to give me the sense of not belonging.”

Always fascinating what catches the eye of the BBC editors.

Richard Black ?@enviroblack
@LeoHickman The rules of the #climate battle are currently being set by the sceptics/deniers – progressives have yet to learn from them

 
Roger Harrabin will get a rap over the knuckles from the BBC’s PC police for this one:

roger harrabin ‏@RHarrabin

It seems that Johnny Foreigner owns much of UK fracking rights. Quelle surprise. http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/newsdesk/energy/investigations/who-owns-rights-drill-gas-uk …

It seems OK to open the borders for any old ‘Johnny Foreigner’ as long as they don’t Frack….a bit o’ terrorism,  that’s OK…British democracy has obviously failed you.  A bit of crime, that’s OK.  A bit of trafficking of women for sex…we’ll look the other way.  Undercut the natives on the job market…good for growth.  A million pound council house for your 10 kids, who might not even be yours….that’s your human right.  You want to drill for gas?  You’ve got to be kidding….Just who do you think you are coming here with your foreign money and fancy ways?

Good old BBC…sticking up for the underdog and culturally oppressed.

I was looking at the Twitteratti to see how news of the recent release of the last tranche of Climategate emails was going down…..apparently the BBC has yet to catch up with that one.

WUWT has an initial taster:

Remember that non-existent Medieval Warm period (as well as no more snow)?  It seems that even in 2001 they were rather more aware of its existence and significance than they admit, and not ‘local’ as Black et al argued but global:

This from an email from Dr. Edward R. Cook to Mann & Co:

>there are unresolved (I think) inconsistencies in the low-frequency aspects
>of the hockey stick series compared to other results.
Jan then
>averaged the 2 RCS chronologies together to produce a single chronology
>extending back to AD 800. It has a very well defined Medieval Warm Period –
>Little Ice Age – 20th Century Warming pattern, punctuated by strong decadal
>fluctuations of inferred cold that correspond well with known histories of
>neo-glacial advance in some parts of the NH.
It also
>revealed somewhat more intense cooling in the Little Ice Age that is more
>consistent with what the borehole temperatures indicate back to AD 1600.
>This result also bolsters the argument for a reasonably large-scale
>Medieval Warm Period that may not be as warm as the late 20th century, but
>is of much(?) greater significance than that produced previously.

So, at this stage I would argue that the Medieval Warm Period was probably
>a global extra-tropical event, at the very least, with warmth that was
>persistent and probably comparable to much of what we have experienced in
>the 20th century. However, I would not claim (and nor would Jan) that it
>exceeded the warmth of the late 20th century. We simply do not have the
>precision or the proxy replication to say that yet. This being said, I do
>find the dismissal of the Medieval Warm Period as a meaningful global event
>to be grossly premature and probably wrong.

Black is no longer a member of the BBC enviromafia but he’s still worth a look as he amply demonstrates the BBC mindset and we can learn a lot about his approach whilst at the BBC to reporting and what he might have taught his new Adepts at the College of Churnalism:

Had to laugh at this one as he pointed fingers at other journos….

Richard Black ?@enviroblack
@markpmcc Leveson… ‘a cultural tendency…to practice journalism which on occasion is deliberately, recklessly or negligently inaccurate’

And this where he blames Thatcher for the Crash….in the article referenced neither Thatcher nor the Tories are so blamed:

Richard Black ?@enviroblack
Britain: a nation in decay http://bit.ly/ZBbQhW  @guardian – Thatcherism scrapped strategic planning, and no govt since has put it back

In the year 2000 the economy was back in the black with no debts as Gordon Brown followed Tory economic policy handed to him in 1997….a legacy he then went out and spent, many times over.

Oh and this astonishing claim:

Richard Black ?@enviroblack  Thatcher as research chemist invented CO2… released into ‘wild’…..Gone rogue…world doomed #ThatcherKilledPlanetEarth!

Might just have made that last one up.

Astonishing…a new political party in Germany and the BBC still ignores it one day after its official announcement….after all ‘German news magazine Focus found that 26 percent of Germans would be willing to vote for an anti-euro party’ :

‘The Alternative for Germany, or AfD. Founded by a group of businessmen, economists, politicians and journalists, this political party has a simple platform. They argue that the euro has subverted democracy and undermined the rule of law, particularly the Maastricht Treaty’s provision against bailouts.’

A party with perhaps 26% of the vote isn’t worth a look I suppose….Labour fortunately took 29% of the vote whilst the Liberals polled a meagre 23% in 2010…oh look…the Liberals had the balance of power and are in government.

Maybe 26% isn’t too bad after all…maybe worth a look eh BBC?