Morning all! Here we go with an early Open Thread to start the week! The floor is yours ..DETAIL the bias,

In February 1963 Ridley Scott was named in the title credits as “Designer” for a BBC television Tonight programme about the severe winter of 1963.

He went on to famously direct science fiction ‘horror’ films Alien and Blade Runner and recently Prometheus.

The BBC likewise, it might be said, has taken a similar path, producing climate ‘horror’ films based more on science fiction than fact.

The BBC don’t miss a trick.  Their ‘Spring Watch’ programme is highly successful with high audience ratings.  They have expanded the franchise to include ‘Autumn Watch’ and ‘Winter Watch’.

All probably guaranteed a wide and credulous audience of nature lovers who are easily ‘persuaded’ or ‘nudged’ along a certain path …because of course they ‘care’ about the wildlife….so any suggestion that something is harming the wildlife, the BBC hopes, will spur them into action to provide a remedy.

And if that harm is ‘climate change’….
The most recent ‘Winter Watch’ was a curious piece that for a long time had me perplexed.  It consisted of the above mentioned BBC film of the 1963 winter which was one of the severest for decades.

The BBC these days always has an agenda in such programmes….so what was the purpose of this particular Winter Watch?

It could just be a fascinating piece of historical film…it certainly was that.

It could be a subversive thumbing of the nose at Roger Harrabin…after all this was an ‘extreme weather event’ happening in 1963.….long before the scientifically accepted consensus that global warming was only affected by man made causes from the 1970’s onwards.

It could be a cunning ploy to scare the hell out of us with tales of food shortages, power failures and half the bird population of Britain dieing in the cold and blaming it all on climate change and extreme events…..and by inference suggest this is what is coming if you don’t start to reform your behaviour.

Any guesses which one it turned out to be?

Here’s a clue…presenter Chris Packham’s parting words….

‘What an extraordinary story of how we and our wildlife lived through the hardest winter in the last two centuries.

Will it happen again?

Well….given that we’re experiencing more and more extreme weather events which scientists are putting down to global climate change I wouldn’t be at all surprised!’

First…1683-84 is acknowledged as the coldest and harshest winter on record long before the ‘invention’ of ‘man made CO2’.…secondly are we experiencing ‘more and more extreme weather events’?
Thirdly is any of that related to global warming?…and fourthly is global warming related to anything mankind does?  And fifthly is it specifically CO2 that is the main culprit?  Oh and sixthly….has global warming stopped completely, slowed, or merely plateaued?

It might also be useful to remember this :

1955: Britain’s big freeze Deep snow and freezing temperatures continue across Britain leaving many parts of the country cut off from essential supplies.
Temperatures have fallen below 28 degrees Fahrenheit (minus three degrees centigrade) – four degrees below freezing and the lowest for 30 years.

Or of course the winter of 1947.

It does look as if the BBC are plucking any old statistic out of the air and claiming it as extreme and unprecedented when a cursory look at the records show it to be anything but.  So called extreme events have happened  frequently  over centuries whether flooding, drought or freezing cold.

Hundreds of people living on the east coast of Britain have died in some of the worst storms ever recorded.

I can only imagine that there is a plan within the BBC that links all its programmes into the theme of the day.  It maybe Islam, homosexuality, or climate….but it is apparent that programmes from all genres…drama, science, comedy and children’s, are used to promote the current fashionable thinking and to slip the ideas subliminally into our little heads.

They bombard us with these ideas…no longer bothering with the ‘science’ but presenting them as if the ‘science’ is settled…all the viewer has to do is accept that and look to the BBC et al for the remedy.

You now know something is wrong, you know the cause, all that is needed is a plan of action.  And it undoubtedly will include wind turbines.

This was a blatantly dishonest and misleading piece of climate propaganda worthy of any production by Al Gore…..all the more devious because of the particular audience it targeted.

BBC nature programmes, perhaps ironically, have become the new ‘Top Gear’ of the BBC’s output…….where Top Gear used to be about boot space, reliability and economy it has evolved into an entertaining cartoon of itself dealing in acceleration, speed and handling of outrageously expensive supercars.

The BBC nature programmes seem to have similarly evolved now more intent on bringing us devastation, disaster and extreme weather than in looking at the feeding habits of the water vole.

Perhaps we could have less politics and more water vole.

After all…..CO2  exists in the Earth’s atmosphere as a trace gas at a concentration of 0.039 per cent by volume.
…..man produces less than 5% of the world’s total CO2 output, and of that Britain produces less than 2%….or put another way, Britain produces just 0.1% of the world’s total CO2 output…man made and natural combined….Iran produces more CO2 than us (or did before the sanctions kicked in).

And yet we need to close down all our industry and despoil the countryside with ever more expensive wind turbines that don’t work anywhere nearly as efficiently or with the constancy of a regular power station tipping more and more people into fuel poverty as the rich land owners get even richer raking in the government subsidies so generously provided to persuade them of the benefits of the wind turbine.

The BBC needs to stop the propaganda and start looking at the science, and listen to all those who have something to say not just those with enormous vested interests whether  ego, reputation, career credibilty or massive ‘research’ funding.

Clearly the BBC has fallen out with the ‘ever ready with an anti Iraq War quote’ Craig Murray whom they used to wheel in to the studios to give a reasoned and fair portrayal of the war….or not.

Here is his views on the BBC’s ‘impartial’ coverage of the recent events in Israel and Gaza (my censorship of Craig’s Anglo Saxon vocabulary)…..

BBC Vomit

by craig on November 21, 2012 7:23 pm in Uncategorized

You may think that reports of vigilante gangs roaming the streets of London forcing people to comply with a particular religion’s tenets would be big news.

Not for the BBC.

Muslim gangs attempting to turn their area of London into Muslim only enclaves where British law is held in contempt and attacks on non-Muslims making them comply with Sharia law as they do so might catch a news editor’s eye.

It did for the Daily Mail, the Sunday Times, the Times of Israel, and even on the Sub Continent where the Indian Express covered the story…their by line is though…‘Journalism of Courage’…..something notably lacking in the BBC.

If you respond…‘Well it’s only a few fanatics’….my response would be so was the IRA, so were the Nazis.

Joseph Ernst Renan (1823-1892):
Muslims are the first victims of Islam. Many times I have observed in my travels in the Orient that fanaticism comes from a small number of dangerous men who maintain the others in the practice of religion by terror. To liberate the Muslim from his religion is the best service one can render him.

A small group prepared to use violence to intimidate and control a population can easily become dominant given the right conditions.

One of those conditions is that no one speaks out, no one dares to say anything….individuals in case they then become the targets, the establishment for fear of stoking more violence.

Look at Rochdale where everyone knew but kept quiet due to the race or religion of the men involved….and allowed the crimes to go on for years.  Now look at the response to the French intervention in Mali…..the usual suspects are filling the newspapers and airwaves with dire warnings…we must not make the Muslim extremists angry…or they will attack us.

What did Churchill say?  Appeasers are those who feed the crocodile in the hope that it eats them last.

Algeria has the only truly effective response.

This has in fact been going on for a long time…and it is not just the ‘alienated, disadvantaged, the disenfranchised’ Muslim of BBC folk lore who turn to the fundamental tenets of Islam….

I have met Muslim lawyers and academics who have turned to Taliban-style beliefs. These men propagate Wahhabism –  the joyless and backward Saudi belief system followed by
Al Qaeda and espoused by hate preachers such as omar Bakri and his successor
Anjem Choudary.

The rapid spread of rigid, diehard Islam is deeply worrying. Yet
those in power, focused on terrorist cells, seem oblivious to this other peril.
For many of us Muslims, this creeping Talibanisation of childhood is
unendurable.

I could never have imagined, nine years on, that the Taliban
would be claiming to have ‘won the war’ in Afghanistan. Or, much worse, that our
politicians and Muslim ‘leaders’ here would allow their twisted ideology to
spread across Britain. Make no mistake, Taliban devotees are in our schools,
playgrounds, homes, mosques, political parties, public service, private firms
and universities. And if we are to have any hope of combating them, we need to
stop this attitude of appeasement and understand why so many Muslims are
attracted to the most punishing forms of belief, suppressing women and children.

Why are we fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan and indulging Taliban values here?

Even if it offends liberal principles, the powerful must find a way of stopping Islamicists from  promulgating their distorted creed.  If they don’t, the future is bleak for Muslims and the country.

The BBC have put a lot of effort into hounding the EDL for their views on Islam.

But silence from the BBC about what is potentially an explosive and divisive action by a group of Muslim Nazis.

The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters.

BORIS Johnson On Islam:

To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia – fear of Islam – seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke. Judged purely on its scripture – to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques – it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers. As the killer of Theo Van Gogh told his victim’s mother this week in a Dutch courtroom, he could not care for her, could not sympathise, because she was not a Muslim.

The trouble with this disgusting arrogance and condescension is that it is widely supported in Koranic texts, and we look in vain for the enlightened Islamic teachers and preachers who will begin the process of reform. What is going on in these mosques and madrasas? When is someone going to get 18th century on Islam’s mediaeval ass?

DB often picks up on the visceral bias that drips from KATTY KAY, head of the BBC World News in America. Here is her received and tweeted wisdom on Jean Francois Kerry …

Is it just me or is the BBC rather outraged that the Algerian  Government has taken a no-nonsense approach to dealing with Islamic terrorists? I have been following the coverage these past few days and apart from floating the views of those .. ahem.. wise old coves at the F.O. the BBC main meme is to warn of the dangers presented by a robust approach to Jihadi.

I wonder what is the chronic drug and alcohol  abuser Will Self that has so moved the BBC to line him up as Radio 4’s writer in residence? Thoughts?

Dr Phil Jones, July 5, 2005:
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

From: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:xxx xxxx xxxx

Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record.

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can’t.

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tim Johns <tim.johns@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, “Folland, Chris” <chris.folland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009
Date: Mon Jan 5 16:18:xxx xxxx xxxx
Tim, Chris,
I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting
till about 2020. I’d rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office
press release with Doug’s paper that said something like –
half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on record, 1998!
Still a way to go before 2014…..it would be nice to wear their(sceptics) smug grins away.

It seems they were all too right.

The Met Office has downgraded its forecast for global warming to suggest that by 2017 temperatures will have remained about the same for two decades.

However the BBC’s Roger Harrabin is out to limit the damage to the Cause that he so assiduously promotes.

.

With the rapid and unceremonious exit of Richard Black from the portals of the BBC we lost one of the finest examples of a Blogger masquerading as a journalist.  However, his carbon footprint has been more than filled by the lamentable Roger Harrabin whose journalism, like Black’s, is shelved in favour of pro man made global warming propaganda.

Here he shows himself to be no better than a ‘mere blogger’ in a piece that is as slippery as it is weasily in trying to overturn the damage done by the Met. Office admission that there has been no warming since 1998 and that  this may continue until 2017…totalling at least two decades.

I call Harrabin a ‘Blogger’ for two reasons…firstly that his articles are more propaganda than news and secondly ‘Blogger’ seems to be the agreed term, within the BBC at least,  to use now to describe any climate Sceptic….so only fair I return the compliment.

The use of ‘Blogger’ is clearly intended to portray any sceptic as unscientific, unqualified and possibly some sort of lunatic conspiracy theorist…not to be taken seriously.  It is clear that this is a term that has official BBC ‘approval’ and is to be used rather than sceptic,  denier or contrarian…it will be interesting to see if it crops up in other ‘warmist’s’ writing…such as Dr Joe Smith, as well as amongst BBC environmental journalists.

Harrabin makes excuses left right and centre for the Met Office…..telling us that any impression we may have got that global warming may stand still for two decades is wrong:

‘The story was projected into headlines suggesting that the Met Office admitted global warming wouldn’t be as bad as previously thought. The Met Office didn’t say that, but often complex messages get distorted when journalists, or indeed scientists, try to condense them into a handful of words. The BBC faced criticism over its reporting of the issue.

The damage to Met Office credibility, though, was exacerbated by a couple of blunders in its own communication.’

He assures us that it is all the fault of bad communication skills…on the part of the BBC, and by the Met Office itself.

He tells us that there was no conspiracy to hide the data…..they have a ‘plausible explanation’ and that a badly worded caption led to the wrong conclusions.

Apparently not only does Harabin accept such explanations..he should do as he invented them….but he assures us so do the legendary pack of feral Bloggers…..

‘It was badly-worded and led bloggers to conclude that the Met Office were trying to cover up the disparity between forecasts. (They seem to have accepted later that this is not the case).’

He tries to damn climate sceptics  further…..claiming it is not the science but politics that motivates the ‘Blogger’ sceptics:

‘It also drew into the climate debate some libertarian bloggers who fear the impact of climate policies on individual freedoms and who temperamentally distrust authorities.’

‘Temperamentally’…..nicely chosen word that…has all sorts of connotations.

He makes a case for the poor, put upon Met Office researchers who only want to be left alone to do their science:

“Ideally, we would like to just publish our science. But it is clear now that we have to make sure that we time releases carefully. I hate the idea of that – but it looks like it will have to happen. We’ll also have to make sure they are accompanied with explanatory notes.”

Ultimately of course, as always, it is the fault of the Public….who just aren’t educated enough to grasp the reality and complexities of science….

‘Ensuring that the public understand the difference in levels of certainty of these different sorts of science has long been a challenge.

When talking to the media, for instance, some prominent scientists used to use the shorthand phrase: “With climate change the planet will warm by X degrees.” What they meant was “according to our best projections the world will warm X degrees”. There is a difference.’

Hang on….’according to our best projections’……there is a difference?

All the difference in the world…by saying that, Harrabin admits then that the BBC’s stance on the climate science being settled is wrong….as it is merely based on ‘best projections’ not ‘will warm’….so there must be room for people who wish to  challenge the ‘settled science’….the BBC must start allowing ‘Sceptics’ a voice again on the airwaves,  not just the voice of their own highly motivated pro AGW journalist.

Harrabin hasn’t finished though…as usual rounding it all up with a bit of scaremongering to whip us all into line and make us think ‘something must be done’ or we’ll all fry and die……remember last year was the ‘weirdest year of weather’  and ‘extremes’ are the result of global warming (er that has stood still for 15 or so years)……..

‘With global temperatures [last year] ranking “only” ninth in the recordwe suffered dreadful extremes.

We can’t be sure yet which, if any, were made worse by manmade climate change, although a study from researchers in Germany suggests that heatwaves are five times more likely due to current levels of heating.

But let’s not forget that the extremes were produced on a planet that has warmed by “only” 0.7C in a century. Even the arch climate sceptic Richard Lindzen agrees it will warm by one degree or so, but maintains we can be fairly relaxed about that. Based on current patterns others may disagree.

And what if the world warms at least 2C, which most scientists think likely – or 4C which the World Bank thinks probable on current trends.

If we get more and more years like 2012 we face serious challenges.’

‘The consequences of another mismanaged bout of inward migration – for services, for housing, for jobs at the bottom of the economic scale and for trust in politics – are potentially massive.’

Something the BBC refuses to acknowledge or accept.

The rise of UKIP has possibly stirred the BBC into action, encouraging them to cobble together some ‘debate’ on the subject of immigration, Europe and UKIP itself.…all circling around the concept of ‘national identity’.

The essence of this post is the bias in Derbyshire’s very abrupt and one sided view of immigration….but I include more thinking on the subject from David Goodhart (and John Denham) to show how out of step the BBC’s views on immigration and nationality are even with mainstream leftwing ‘progressives’ never mind the majority, I believe, of the British Public..of whatever hue or creed.

 
Victoria Derbyshire started things off last week (56 mins in)….with a statement rather than any argument.  She quoted a list of figures illustrating the rapid flow of immigrants into this country in the last decade or so based on the 2011 Census.

Then she brought in Dr Ludi Simpson from Manchester University to comment….he reassured us that what the survey showed was that ‘The Olympics show we musn’t confuse Britishness with whiteness.’…taking up a favourite theme of the Left after the Olympics.

He then told us that ‘most people are relaxed about immigration’.

Simpson is himself hugely pro-immigration and in denial about the downside to mass immigration…he is also a Labour supporter…and therefore might be expected  not to say anything that would bring Labour’s secretive and destructive immigration policies under any critical scrutiny.
I’m sure the BBC had no idea of his views…..hence they felt no need for ‘balance’, or indeed any need for comment at all from a sceptical view point on immigration in this case.

David Goodhart from Demos however  has a better idea of Simpson’s sympathies as shown in this ironic comment about the Daily Mail quoting  Simpson.….…

David Goodhart ?@David_Goodhart
Ha! Well done Ludi Simpson, quoted with great respect in the Daily Mail – if only they knew!!

‘If only they knew!’…..Well they only had to look at his work…I’m certain the BBC knew exactly what he was like as he has worked for them frequently…..
“I hope that Trevor Phillips and others will consider the impact of their divisive comments, and stop claiming things that are untrue, such as white flight, increasing segregatation and the unwillingness of Muslims in particular to integrate.”

Yes….all competely untrue…just urban legend….really.

This had only originally been a post about that small snippet from Derbyshire’s show….a three minute ‘investigation’ into immigration and its impact on Britain by Victoria Derbyshire using a man who is profoundly pro-immigration to comment.  There were no other voices and no indepth discussion.

This is a slightly more open and honest discussion of the reaction to the recent mass immigration…ironically from the Asian community on the BBC’s Asian Network…who do not find it completely to their liking….something that perhaps could not be said on the ‘white’ BBC?

After Nicky Campbell indulged in a UKIP bashing phone-in  Derbyshire on Monday then goes on to ‘discuss’ the prospect of Romanian and Bulgarian immigration  (1 hr 10 mins)when the rules are relaxed in December…..who did she invite onto the show to comment?  A man from a Romanian recruitment agency…someone not likely to say that an influx of immigrants will prove any disadvantage at all to Britain.

He didn’t disappoint, telling us not to worry, it will be mostly highly skilled professionals who come here…not a problem…they will be highly beneficial, contributing in a positive way to the UK economy.

Well that’s OK then.….we can relax.

Maybe not.….having made the connection to ‘David Goodhart’  I started to look at his work.…he is from the leftwing Demos think tank but his views on immigration and its effects may chime with many readers of this blog……though not with Operation Black Vote who characterise him as more dangerous than Nick Griffin for his views…..‘Perhaps, however a more dangerous individual comes in the shape of the pseudo liberal intellectual David Goodhart.’

His views being that….. we should have an overarching ‘national identity’, that much claimed racism is purely an excuse for failure, that multi-culturalism has failed and is the cause of segregation…..he values diversity but also an overall unity and national state of mind.

It should be noted that, like the BBC, (despite his views on immigration) Goodhart does not admit Labour’s guilt and deliberate scheming to ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity’ in its immigration policy as revealed by Andrew Neather,   claiming it was a result of well intentioned small acts that snowballed out of control.…

‘When historians come to look back on this period in 100 years time they will surely conclude that, as John Seeley said about the expansion of the British Empire, we acquired a whole new population in a “fit of absence of mind”.’

Ironically an article from his own think tank outlines the radical and damaging effects of Labour’s policy, effects that the BBC refuse to acknowledge in any meaningful way….schools jampacked, the NHS creaking, the welfare system bleeding us dry, the roads overflowing, prisons overcrowded and of course the housing system overwhelmed:

 
When Polish and Hungarian citizens were given the right to come here, the radical under-estimation of numbers neutered central and local government responses. It left communities and services unable to cope and stoked resentment. Failure to plan, as the old adage goes, is planning to fail.
If, on the other hand, Government has received detailed predictions but feel unable to share or discuss them then this suggests that either the numbers are terrifying or the Civil Service has under-estimated the numbers dramatically once again. If it is the former – which seems likely considering the extreme poverty and under-developed economies of both Bulgaria and Romania – then planting one’s head in the sand is no strategy at all.
Not only would mass arrivals put huge pressure on (already precarious) local services, it would pose a huge threat to the Government’s narrative on immigration.
Fresh immigration from Bulgaria and Romania is not a problem of this Government’s making. It is a legacy they have inherited. But it is the Government’s problem. The consequences of another mismanaged bout of inward migration – for services, for housing, for jobs at the bottom of the economic scale and for trust in politics – are potentially massive.

Goodhart himself underlines the huge dangers of mass immigration for the existence and survival of the Welfare State, the NHS, schools and State provided housing.……and, to the horror of the BBC no doubt, the benefits of a ‘nation state’ (or a ‘national state of mind!)….

‘Much less secure is the survival of a generous welfare state, redistribution of wealth and a strong bond of citizenship—these are threatened by affluence, diversity and individualism. A great effort of political will is required merely to hold on to the welfare state as it is, and enlightened self-interest is likely to be too thin a basis for it; some sense of fellow feeling and shared collective destiny is necessary too. The nation state, the idea of a national story, even the idea of the British people, have all been in retreat in recent years…..[We must] reinforce the continuing value of the nation state as the only feasible site for the sharing and redistribution of resources on any significant scale, as well as for democratic accountability. For that reason it is particularly in the interests of social democrats to preserve it and shape its future.‘

Here is one response to Goodhart from Labour’s John Denham who admits the damaging impact of mass Immigration on the working class and the need for a strong national identity

‘National identity is important; the left needs to make it part of its project; and we need to start the debate on how to do it. The debate will be difficult; mistakes will be made and offence will be taken. But it must continue.
For most of my political life, the left has assumed that any strong British identity would be inimical to progressive politics. We certainly didn’t think that our national identity was important to creating a fairer, more just society. And there are still plenty of people who hold that view. Much of the left is more comfortable dealing with the traditional agenda of equality, tackling social exclusion and opposing discrimination. In a very clear example of this a speaker from the Barrow Cadbury Trust told the Fabian conference in January 2006 “sort out disadvantage and identity will look after itself.” This is simply not true.
These comfortable assumptions are now tumbling. It is now clear that questions of identity, separate communities and disadvantage interact in potentially dangerous ways. Tackling disadvantage cannot guarantee success in dealing with the other issues: indeed, without taking on the challenges of identity and separate lives it is unlikely that disadvantage can be tackled successfully either.
Some of the sharpest conflicts take place in and around the poorest communities and the labour markets in which they work. Here the impact of new, lower cost migration hits the established poor (whilst making middle Britain better off). Here the competition for public resources and the social wage is sharpest.
Many of the issues that have traditionally been on the agenda for the left and centre cannot be tackled unless we can make progress on our collective national identity.
The process cannot be defined by minorities joining the majority; Britain has changed too much for that. The new British identity needs to tell a story about ourselves that works both for the majority and the minorities.
[Goodhart believes] we should have clearer definitions of who belongs, who does not and what each are entitled to; and we should develop better symbols of Britishness.
I agree with both propositions, but they will be limited in their impact.
We should be far more sensitive to the impact of new migration on the poorest communities and their indigenous workforce. Sound migration controls need to be matched to better labour market regulation. The welfare state does need to be run on clear principles of rights and responsibilities, protected by proper systems to verify entitlement.
But important as these are, they are no substitute for developing the story of who we now are and who we now want to become.‘

It is vitally important to consider such views and opinions for a rounded perspective on immigration and its dangers and disadvantages as well as the benefits which are all too frequently ‘pushed’ by the BBC in its attempts to ‘sell’ us immigration.

In my opinion the disadvantages of mass immigration far outweigh any benefits…and of course it would have been nice if I’d had a say in the policy to start with…….another point against the BBC as it also refuses to acknowledge Labour’s Machiavellian intentions behind its immigration policy….refusing totally to report Andrew Neather’s comments…despite them being, or precisely because they were, of a ‘bombshell’ nature likely to destroy Labour completely if allowed to gain traction in the nation’s conscience….especially amongst the core Labour working class voters so treacherously betrayed by the metropolitan elite of New Labour.

David Goodhart’s writing:

National Anxieties

Too Diverse?

Progressive Nationalism

Replies to David Goodhart

Withdrawn this post as Albaman rightly points out a BBC report I missed.