The BBC has made it their mission in life to seek out corporate corruption, greed and vested interests lining their pockets at tax payer’s expense….Coca Cola, McDonalds, G4S all being recent targets of the BBC’s anti-capitalist outrage, never mind bankers and oil companies.

Richard Black was very eager to ‘expose’ the Heartland Institute’s finances when he thought they were dodgy, or he could represent them as such.   Black went to town on the Institute smearing them as far as he could….unfortunately for him most of it was rubbish…and Black was forced to admit it…though only by pressure from the Public who made him admit that the Heartland documents were stolen…however he still omitted to reveal that the central document was actually a forgery.  Why? Because of course Heartland publishes sceptical reports on climate change. A crime in the BBC book.

However Black and the BBC are utterly silent when, as mentioned before, a Tory MP is shown to have massive vested interests in promoting pro-climate change legislation and industrial policy…that MP being Tim Yeo….not to mention Lord Deben (AKA John Gummer).

The money swirling around is astonishing…and of course most of it comes from government subsidies at the end of the day to green industries that are not paying their way.

Christopher Booker in the Telegraph and Guido have related the whole sorry saga…..you cannot fail to think that this is entirely wrong…that two of the most influential men in the government in relation to climate change are also in a position to make large sums of money from decisions they themselves make in altering government energy policy.

Curious indeed how silent the BBC remain months after this story first surfaced….not to mention that Cameron’s father-in-law makes £1000 per day from wind farms on his land…at any other time the BBC would be raining hell upon him and his son-in-law.

It seems that the BBC’s commitment to the uptake of renewable energy and climate change propaganda means that they subsume all journalistic principles and corrupt themselves in order to prevent any awkward questions being asked about just exactly where all the money is going and who is benefiting.

Yeo may say he has declared some of these interests…but that didn’t stop the BBC going to town on Jeremy Hunt for his belief that the BSkyB bid should be allowed to go ahead before he was put in charge of the decision making process.  And of course Hunt was not making up to £200,000 per year out of his declared interest.

As Guido says: ‘Given that Yeo makes over £100,000 each year from private green investments, using his role to lobby on behalf of the industry for subsidies represents a serious conflict of interest. This is the Chairman of the Energy Select Committee. Replace the words “green” with “oil”…‘

Unprincipled, Unscrupulous, venal, corrupt?

The ends justify the means.

Here are a few links to Booker and Guido:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9498568/The-tangled-tale-of-Lord-Deben-and-a-dodgy-Severn-barrage.html

Tim Yeo’s Heathrow to China Bonanza

Video: Another Heathrow Dough Blow for Yeo

Taxi Trouble Mounts for Tim Yeo Eco City Vehicles CEO Signed Age Limit Deal

Why Tim Yeo is Really Upset About Green Cuts

These are some more extremely interesting stories about the effect that adopting renewable energy solutions is having upon German industry and just how effective wind farms really are (Needless to say they are not on the BBC):

Germany’s new “renewable” energy policy

‘It is amazing how biased the international media is when it comes to reporting on energy generation, specifically electricity.

In mid-August, Germany opened a new 2200MW coal-fired power station near Cologne, and virtually not a word has been said about it. This dearth of reporting is even more surprising when one considers that Germany has said building new coal plants is necessary because electricity produced by wind and solar has turned out to be unaffordably expensive and unreliable.

He is also worried that his country could become dependent on foreign imports of electricity, the mainstay of its industrial sector. To avoid that risk, Altmaier has given the green light to build twenty-three new coal-fired plants, which are currently under construction.

Yes, you read that correctly, twenty three-new coal-fired power plants are under construction in Germany.’

Energy Revolution Hiccups Grid Instability Has Industry Scrambling for Solutions 

Sudden fluctuations in Germany’s power grid are causing major damage to a number of industrial companies. While many of them have responded by getting their own power generators and regulators to help minimize the risks, they warn that companies might be forced to leave if the government doesn’t deal with the issues fast.

It was 3 a.m. on a Wednesday when the machines suddenly ground to a halt at Hydro Aluminium in Hamburg. The rolling mill’s highly sensitive monitor stopped production so abruptly that the aluminum belts snagged. They hit the machines and destroyed a piece of the mill. The reason: The voltage off the electricity grid weakened for just a millisecond.

Workers had to free half-finished aluminum rolls from the machines, and several hours passed before they could be restarted. The damage to the machines cost some €10,000 ($12,300).

In the following three weeks, the voltage weakened at the Hamburg factory two more times, each time for a fraction of second. Since the machines were on a production break both times, there was no damage. Still, the company invested €150,000 to set up its own emergency power supply, using batteries, to protect itself from future damages.

“It could have affected us again in the middle of production and even led to a fire,” said plant manager Axel Brand. “That would have been really expensive.”

Ambitious Goals

At other industrial companies, executives at the highest levels are also thinking about freeing themselves from Germany’s electricity grid to cushion the consequences of the country’s transition to renewable energy.

byBishop Hill 

Wind produces more CO2 than gas – the numbers

Ever since Gordon Hughes’ report noted that wind power was more likely to produce more carbon dioxide emissions than gas, I have been looking for the figures behind the claim. In the comments, someone has now posted some details that seem to meet the bill. Although these are not Hughes’ own numbers -they were submitted in evidence to Parliament by an engineer – I assume they are similar.

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/8/18/wind-produces-more-co2-than-gas-the-numbers.html

Remember that 11 year  old boy who managed to evade security and check-in at Manchester and board an aircraft…remember how ‘shocked’ the BBC et al were?

Funny how completely unshocked they are when illegal immigrants from very  dodgy parts of the world slip in here and make themselves at home.

It seems from David’s post that Mardell is having a bad day…or I suppose a normal one for him.

Talking about the Republican Convention Mardell of course uses it as an excuse to talk about Thatcher…sorry force of habit…Thatcher always gets the blame…no, Bush of course, and Hurricane Katrina.

Apparently it was the Republican’s ‘callous incompetence’ that Mardell wanted to highlight.

Funny…I thought it was Mayor Nagin’s total incompetence that resulted in unnecessary death and suffering.

But then of course he’s black, and a Democrat, so BBC SOP…look away, blame the white guy…especially if he’s Republican.

The BBC made highly inflammatory claims of racism on the part of the Republican administration…despite the fact that most of the victims were white.

The BBC’s Gavin Hewitt decided he was ‘outraged’ by events…

‘Running through the coverage of Katrina, like an electric current, was outrage. It is an emotion that stands out in television coverage because it is rare. Most reporters shy away from letting their emotions show.

As we left the house I did a piece to camera off the top of my head. I said, “It seems incredible to me that we are the only boat in the neighbourhood …” There was an immediate note of outrage. It was not planned. It just felt right. It was difficult to understand that we were the only rescue team in an area with so many needs.

We all felt a sense of outrage, that this should not be happening.

Outrage is at its most effective when it is based on compassion; the sense that one is speaking out on behalf of ordinary people. The tone of the reporting of Katrina stood out. A moment when correspondents had the confidence to express outrage at what they saw happening around them.’

It is at times like that when the supposed professionalism of a journalist should kick in….who was Hewitt to judge what was really going on, who was he to say it was outrageous?

The hurricane damage covered an area the size of the UK…no matter how rich a country is that’s a big, big job.  Naturally it was also used to bash Bush for going into Iraq…no opportunity is too small or fleeting to miss….if he hadn’t started that illegal war he would have had troops to deal with the disaster at home…I guess the Republicans just don’t have second sight…or as Mardell might say ‘Obama’s VISION’…shame that unlike the BBC they can’t tell what the weather is going to do 2 years ahead.

Just when does the ‘right’ to be outraged stop for a journalist?  If someone you don’t like gets elected do you start giving your personal opinion…because that’s all it is…and that’s all Hewitt’s ‘outraged’ report from New Orleans was.

If London flooded now and Boris Johnson abandoned the population to its fate you can bet your bottom dollar the BBC would hound him to the ends of the earth…and if Miliband was PM (LOL)…he would get away Scot free.

Think not?  Bush said he didn’t land at any emergency sites because  he didn’t want to get in the way with a Presidential entourage, the BBC damned him for it.

However when John Prescott didn’t visit Hull when it flooded what did John Humphrys say?….‘They don’t want visits from important people they want things done’

And suddenly Kanye West was very popular with the chatterati of the BBC ….though most had never heard of him in all likelihood….only when he said Bush was a racist did the BBC send out the invitations to make a few personal appearances and hang on his every word.

All in all the BBC’s coverage of Katrina was abysmal, partisan, unprofessional and malicious in intent. 

 And Gavin Hewitt by coincidence today seems to continue his invention of  new historical narratives….he has invented a new catch phrase for Europe..or rather the countries that are having to apply austerity measures…they are in a ‘cycle of decline’….the austerity driving them ever closer to economic armageddon…..no reflection of the British economy of course….odd how often the BBC malign ‘austerity’ in Europe but you know they are really intending you apply the unspoken message that austerity here is also dooming us to the poor house.

Those bad Jews.

An Israeli court has ruled that the state of Israel was not at fault for the death of US activist Rachel Corrie, who was killed in the Gaza Strip by an Israeli army bulldozer in 2003. Ms Corrie’s family had brought a civil claim for negligence against the Israeli ministry of defence. The judge said the 23-year-old’s death was a “regrettable accident” and that the state was not responsible. She had been trying to stop Palestinian homes being pulled down in Gaza.

Erm NOT quite the full story, BBC. Ms Corrie was a terrorist enabler and grossly stupid.  The “Palestinian homes” she was so bravely trying to protect were being used by Palestinian terrorists to fire rockets into Israel and kill innocent Israelis. The truth is Corrie got what she deserved but the BBC plays along with the poor innocent Rachel “peace activist” meme.  Sickening bias and elevation of terrorist enabler Corrie.

Labour’s Alistair Darling has surfaced again, possibly the Party leader they should have had(there’s still time)…I wonder if there is any coincidence in this.

‘The relationship between Labour’s two most senior figures has recently become strained amid disagreements over the party’s approach to the City and cuts in public spending. ‘

Oh…and…‘The party will meet for its annual conference next month and senior insiders warn that they are still not in a position to announce many policies.‘

Two years…and they still haven’t worked it out?

Whilst we keep hearing about Thatcher, and indeed hearing she is to blame for this recession, it might be good to have a reminder of what the BBC can’t bring themselves to drag out of the archives…Darling’s own words and policies: 

Alistair Darling warns of toughest spending cuts for 20 years

• Chancellor and Mandelson spell out election priorities
• PM’s core vote strategy rejected in policy shift

The chancellor, Alistair Darling, and the business secretary, Lord Mandelson, yesterday signalled a shift in government strategy when Darling warned that Britain faces the toughest spending round in 20 years if Labour is re-elected.

His remarks assert his authority over the schools secretary, Ed Balls, and, to a degree, the prime minister, who had tried to claim that the government could create an election dividing line based on Labour investment versus Tory cuts.

The chancellor told the Times that spending restraint was “non-negotiable” as he tries to bring down Britain’s £178bn budget deficit. He said: “The next spending review will be the toughest we have had for 20 years. To me, cutting the borrowing was never negotiable. Gordon accepts that, he knows that.”

We need to protect frontline services, but it’s essential we cut the public deficit.”

He added “many departments will have less money in the next few years”, a tougher stance than his previous position that spending would be “broadly flat” outside the protected areas of schools, police and hospitals.

He said: “I have always been clear that you have to level with people. We are talking about something like a £57bn reduction in expenditure through tax increases and spending cuts. It’s a change in direction.”Saturday 9 January 2010

Even The New Statesman has had a pop:

Shadow cabinet ministers and Labour-supporting bloggers alike have become excited by this quote [below] from the Tory minister Greg Barker, speaking in front of an American audience:

‘We are making cuts that Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s could only have dreamt of.’

He’s right. But the Labour response is, ahem, odd. Angela Eagle, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, says:

‘Greg Barker has let the cat out the bag about the ideological agenda behind this Tory-led government’s deep cuts to public services’

People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. The inconvenient truth is that Labour, in the so-called Darling plan for deficit reduction, had also planned to go beyond Thatcher, too — and were equally keen to “let the cat out of the bag”.

Here’s the relevant quote from the then chancellor, Alistair Darling, in an interview with the BBC’s Nick Robinson in March 2010:

Robinson: “The Treasury’s own figures suggest deeper, tougher than Thatcher’s — do you accept that?”

Darling: “They will be deeper and tougher — where we make the precise comparison, I think, is secondary to an acknowledgement that these reductions will be tough.”

The FT quite fairly analysed the figures: the difference between Labour and coalition deficit reduction plans is just £24bn by 2014. Ed Balls’s claim that cutting half as much is “a massive difference” is only true if he offers a route map to explain what tax rises and what growth formulae deliver the same deficit reduction as would Tory cuts. Both Eds sound uncomfortable because sticking to the Darling plan means more painful cuts than they can admit. The argument that they are not in power so don’t need a complete budget may be tactically correct, but it doesn’t work as a public statement. Labour can only take a commanding lead over the next austerity months by offering a more convincing economic alternative.

The Scots have a go:

Selective amnesia as Darling ignores his own role

Tue, 19/06/2012 – 14:43

Alistair Darling has been accused of utter hypocrisy after calling for greater capital investment, despite having personally cut Scotland’s capital budget by 36% when he was chancellor.

Here’s a few quotes from an FT interview:

Osborne is using the same plan as Darling for the ‘cuts’, so called, but has started a year earlier….remember also that Labour had plans to cut NHS spending by £20bn…something the BBC neglects to keep reminding us:

My number one priority is to get the borrowing down, to get the deficit down in the department.

The priority though must be to get our borrowing down, because to be borrowing £178 billion is something you need to get down, you need to reduce it and you need to be pretty single-minded about it.

If we’re going to get long-term growth, you’ve got to get borrowing down.

Yes, we have had to borrow a lot more, but then if you take the revenues from the financial services sectors, who are down by about a third, and that’s bound to have an effect on us.

The BBC thinks we should keep bashing the Bankers, should we?:

The financial services industry, which has obviously taken a knock, this is something that you may want to pursue further. It is a real asset to this country. It’s something that, properly supervised and regulated, will continue to be an asset to this country. The million jobs, it generates a lot of wealth in the country,

Flander’s thinks we can have too much employment and wonders where it all came from….but wasn’t asking the same question back in 2010 of Labour:

One of the reasons that we spent quite a lot of money on getting Jobcentre Plus, getting people back into work, is that what is really damaging to an economy is you start getting long term high levels of unemployment.

Do you understand why the labour market here has performed seemingly a lot better than in the US, where they’ve had a disaster?

Alistair Darling: I think it’s a combination of things. We do have a flexible labour market here. I think that one of the things; I know it has happened here in the private sector, is there are many people who have taken pay cuts, as a trade off against keeping their jobs, which is… there are lots, especially in the SME sector, but also in the car industry, 12 months ago, they went through a lot of; they had to take a lot of difficult decisions.

Banker’s bonuses….Labour wants to tax them?

As far as the bank bonus tax is concerned, I said in December that it was a one off tax and it is a one off tax. We’re doing it this year, and that’s it, because it was designed to deal with a particular problem, and I said to banks that I thought they ought to be using their profits to rebuild their position, and therefore to show some restraint in relation to what they do, but I said they’ve got a choice, and if they insist on paying bonuses, then we will impose this one off charge, and it is a one off charge.

Gordon Brown was praised for making the bank of England independent…he did  didn’t he?

Financial Times: The Bank seem to take the view that the government decides fiscal policy and then the MPC sets the course for the economy with monetary policy.

Alistair Darling: Yes.

Financial Times: Do you think, with interest rates as low as they are, it’s a little bit more complicated than that and there has to be a little bit more give and take? I’m not saying that you tell them what to do, and they still take the decision, but there has to be a bit more discussion between the two?

Alistair Darling: Legally, of course there’s a demarcation, but one can’t move too far without the other, and although I don’t and I wouldn’t suggest to the MPC what it should do, the MPC doesn’t take its decisions in a vacuum. It can see what we’re doing, and as you know, before any fiscal event, budget or pre-budget report, we tell the MPC what we’re doing. The two work together. But I wouldn’t do anything to imperil the independence of the MPC, and that’s actually a cardinal feature of the system we’ve got here now, but I don’t have any problem with the Governor. In fact, it’s very difficult for the Governor to do his job without having a view of the economy generally.

The major problem with the BBC is that it isolates news stories as if they occur in a little bubble of their own….say the British economic woes are completely unaffected by the Euro crash….or Israel is a war monger…despite actually defending itself against 60 years of Muslim attacks.  The BBC found the time to list the Palestinian casualties from the 2009 Gaza conflict for over a year in just about every report from Israel, but can’t find time to report the Fogel family or any background to the 60 year war.

Not making comparisons allows the BBC to create the ‘baseline’, the benchmark from which say Coalition policies  are to be judged…if there is no reference to the previous Labour government or to any concrete proposals from Labour now anything the Coalition does can be made to look extreme or ill-judged.

We know full well that Labour were planning £20 billion worth of cuts in the NHS…but how often, if ever, do you hear any reference to that when we hear the ‘outrage’ at Coalition cuts?

That’s pretty much par for the course on any Coalition policy….whatever they do is twisted to make it look like a looming disaster.

Wonder if you caught this debate on the BBC this morning? It concerns the proposed third runway for Heathrow and the debate was between Tim Yeo (Dripping wet alleged Conservative) and Tom Brake (Dripped wet Liberal Democrat).  Remarkably Yeo is NOW in favour of this proposal- but only because of spurious new EU carbon guidelines. But Brake was given the lion’s share of the time to reel out his opposition to the development and Yeo had little to say (Not necessarily a bad thing but where is the balance?)

Anyone else notice the rally of the BBC behind Sir Richard Branson’s (Labour backed) attempt to derail (sic) the decision of the Coalition to award the contract for West Coast mainline. Did you catch this pure PR that Branson got away with on Today this morning? Strikes me that the BBC are happy to use Branson in this way to advance a Labour meme whilst posing as defenders of the commuter.

I see that the BBC has admitted that QUESTION TIME is biased;

The political sway of the audience on Question Time is governed by the leanings of the area where the episode is filmed, the BBC has admitted. Director-general Mark Thompson has revealed that the audience is selected to reflect the voter make-up in the region from which each edition of the topical debate show is broadcast – rather than the political landscape of Britain as a whole.

I don’t accept that this “admission” is adequate. Sure, the composition of the audience may be skewed in the way Thompson says – so MANY Labour leaning cities and towns to visit that neatly explains the howling moon bats that constitute the core of so many of the weekly audiences – but that is only HALF the story. It is the bias that is manifest in the composition of the panel, in the selection of the questions, in the behaviour of the Chairman, that so offends. Yes the raving leftist audience is a concern but Thompson is fooling no one with this deflection. In my view/

Antarctica warmth ‘unusual, but not unique’

‘The analysis revealed that 15,000-12,000 years ago, the Antarctic Peninsula experienced significant warming, becoming about 1C warmer than today.

The region then cooled markedly around 2,500 years ago, and temperatures remained relatively stable. This co-incided with the late-Holocene development of ice shelves near JRI.

Around 600 years ago, the peninsula started to warm once more – slowly at first, but then, from around 1920, much more rapidly.

Changes in the Earth’s orbit and tilt produce natural fluctuations in climate.’

And look at the BBC’s favourite scientist, Steve jones…

‘Then, quite suddenly, less than 20,000 years ago, an interstadial began to run away with itself and, quite soon, the icy shroud was almost gone.

The collapse came when climate reached a tipping point

A slight increase in the Sun’s output was matched by the disruption of deep ocean currents caused by cold fresh water sinking from the melting floes above. As the glaciers began to dissolve, their waters roared towards the sea.‘

Climate Change advocates insist that the major cause of global warming is man made, probably CO2 they guess…still no proof!

They deride suggestions that the sun or other natural mechanism could produce the changes…and yet here they are admitting…the tilt and orbit of the earth, slight changes in the sun’s output have a major influence on climate.

The sun is around 93 million miles from the earth….a fair old distance…and yet step out into the sunlight from the shade and you instantly feel the difference….the tilt of the earth means that the poles are frozen because of reduced sunlight….and all from a warm body 93 million miles away.

Pretty powerful I’d say….and yet certain ideologues insist it can’t possibly have any effect..and they call themselves scientists.

I call them liars.