OK folks, I may be tempting providence but looks like we are back in business. As ever, my first thanks go to ASE for his HOURS of work fixing this. None of you will fully understand the late hours (all unpaid) that has gone in to resurrecting the site. I believe there were corrupted data bases and the like involved – hence the total down time! Anyhoo – we are back and so wanting to say hello to you all. How has the BBC been treating you? I see they reckon George Orwell was “too left wing” for a statue.  He was nothing of the sort, he was too honest for the lousy BBC and his “Ministry of Truth” template was well embedded in his experience working for the BBC even back then.

I have been waiting for the BBC to leap into action over allegations of Tory  sleaze, corruption and conflicts of interest, so far they have maintained radio silence on the matter.

Normally they would be turning the screw in no uncertain manner…but not in this case…why not?

Is it because Tory Tim Yeo is in the business of promoting the fable of man made climate change and therefore ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’ for the BBC?

Guido has broached the subject of  ‘ Energy and Climate Change Committee chairman Tim Yeo’s conflict of interests with the green tycoon’s taxi company, Eco City Vehicles.’ and Yeo’s  promotion of windfarms whilst having a huge interest in their commercial success.

Yeo loves windfarms…just not in his own constituency backyard….he knows which way the wind blows when it comes to votes….

‘Tim Yeo has pledged his full support to opponents of a wind farm at Chedburgh.

“I fully understand why anybody in a community as beautiful as this will be concerned. On shore wind turbines are visually a very considerable intrusion on any landscape. This happens to be one of the most beautiful parts of my constituency which stretches from here to the coast.”
“You don’t have to take a view about whether you are in favour or against wind energy in principle. This is not about that.”

“But where they are clearly quite inappropriate for the local community as, in my view, they most obviously are here, the voice of the local people should be decisive.”

“Now, unfortunately, of course that is not the way it actually works .” ‘

I did think today that the BBC were on the case:

Steven Nolan standing in for Victoria Derbyshire, spot the difference, asks the question ‘Should MP’s have two jobs?’ (20 mins in)

He asks ‘Does it have an impact on their constituency work?’

We were told by the journalist who broke the story that ‘It is not necessarily a scandal in every case….. 68 out of 650 earn over £10,000/year on top of their MP’s salary, whilst there are 18 earning over £100,000.‘

Tim Yeo earns well in excess of £100,000/year….so he is one of a very select group of well heeled MP’s earning big money from a second job….and yet despite his prominence and the fact that he has been in the news papers recently for his climate change related commercial activities and their potential conflict of interest with his parliamentary duties no mention was made of him.

Yeo stands out a mile…and yet the BBC ignore him.

Why?

It’s not necessarily a scandal….but it doesn’t look good.

This is an update to this post.

The BBC have explained why they completely messed up the weather forecast.

First thing to know is that they didn’t mess up.

Second thing to know is that, no, they didn’t ignore the computer model.

Third thing to know is that they ignored LOTS of computer models from all over Europe.

Why?  Because they all gave different results, or as the BBC put it…‘A massive broad spectrum of weather solutions’.

In the end it was down to ‘human judgement’.

In other words they guessed what the weather would be.

So which one of those computers do they rely on to give us the predictions for weather 100 years from now and the resultant effect on climate and how many very, very expensive wind turbines it will take to change that outcome?

A Biased BBC reader writes;

“That poor self -regarding, humanity lover, , the only alleged abuser of women in the world to flee from justice and be applauded by left-wing women, the BBC, and the Guardian, yes, he, there’s only one, Assange, has put out a heart-shredding plea to, “Stop persecuting me.”

In his support, Ecuador, that great champion of Assange’s human rights today, but yesterday widely condemned world-wide for its depth of corruption and persecution of journalists, has stated:

“The evidence shows that if Mr Assange is extradited to the United States, he wouldn’t have a fair trial.”

Eh? What ‘evidence’? They don’t say. But that doesn’t stop them adding:

“It is not at all improbable he could be subjected to cruel and degrading treatment and sentenced to life imprisonment or even capital punishment.”

Blimey. Capital punishment too! But yes! The BBC found a local correspondent to add to this belief that he might be beheaded, as is certainly common in some parts of the world when they are dissatisfied with a person’s beliefs:  ‘Most supporters of the Wikileaks founder share this belief,’he commented.  Well yes, mate, they would, much as most supporters of the Pope share the belief that the devil doesn’t dwell at the Pearly Gates. But it sounds nice, rather like ‘most people’ if you don’t stop to examine it, as people often don’t.

The BBC’s indefatigable researchers were ready for it all of course. So don’t stop there. They had their usual reliable suspect ready. This latest BBC paragon of impartiality, a Professor Santiago Basabe, described as a ‘University lecturer’(and therefore authoritative) , let the world know, through the BBC’s tax-payer funded world megaphone web site, that:  “Many see Mr Assange as somebody who has fought for freedom of speech and freedom of opinion, which are also key components of the Ecuadorean government official discourse.”

WHAT! Only the BBC in all its mind-bending, left-wing, USA-detesting arrogance could try and get away with that. This comment can only be described, to put it mildly, as unbelievable.

Read here: http://bit.ly/obimpH  and here  bit.ly/MteeyX  how a columnist of the chief opposition newspaper was imprisoned for three years and chief executives fined millions of dollars  – why?  They ‘libelled’ President Correa by publishing an article that called him a “dictator” and challenged his version of events surrounding a 2010 police protest. Under Ecuador’s Criminal Code anyone who offends a government official may receive a prison sentence up to three months and up to two years for offending the president. Private broadcasters must interrupt scheduled programs to transmit government messages known as cadenas.

In July 2011 the Center for Economic and Social Rights, an Ecuadorian human rights group, reported that 189 indigenous people were facing terrorism and sabotage charges. Most of them were in hiding. Prosecutors apply a “terrorism and sabotage” provision of the criminal code for protests against mining and oil projects, and other incidents that have ended in confrontations with police.

And here’s the evidence of the President of Ecuador’s brother: Fabricio Correa said his brother’s image has “collapsed” over the past several years and he plans to challenge him for the presidency next year. He said that the President’s efforts to follow in the footsteps of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez has betrayed the basic principles of the movement they both founded… Ecuador is today prey to corruption, loss of freedoms and democratic institutions, and an increase in crime and drug trafficking.   He added that’s the opposite of what they sought out to do when they created the movement Patria Altiva y Soberana (Proud and Sovereign Fatherland) in September 2005.  http://tiny.cc/633ajw
So, does Assange make you sick – by pleading for decency while running for protection to the thugs who run Ecuador?

If not, this should. He had the sheer bloody-cheek, in his smug complacency, to add the following to his appeal to the world.

… “The United States must pledge before the world that it will not pursue journalists for shining a light on the secret crimes of the powerful.”

Will Assange set the example? Will this world-powerful media person return to Sweden of his own free will, confident therefore of his innocence, to shine a light on his alleged crime of attempted rape?

You don’t need to go to BetFred or any of the bookies to get the odds on that…”

Very dodgy those BBC types…still trying to tell us everywhere is going to cook even when it’s pouring with rain!

BBC apologises for forecasting sunshine after downpours dampen barbecue weekend

BBC weathermen have been forced to apologise after ignoring computer forecasts predicting showers across South East England on Sunday.

Still at least they can accurately forecast the climate in 100 years time and make us pay up front for it!

Taliban Britain, One God, One Faith, One Culture

New Labourite Dan Hodges tells us that ‘The Left has struck Olympic gold. Or the Left has convinced itself that it’s struck Olympic gold, which in Labour circles amounts to pretty much the same thing.

“Have you been watching?” an excited shadow cabinet member asked me moments after Britain’s cyclists grabbed another medal. No, I’ve been hitching a ride on the Mars Rover. “This is good. There’s something for us here,” he enthused.’

The Left, and that includes the ever PC BBC, has got over its shock and horror at the display of pride in Britain and unity shown at the Olympics and are busy making squalid and laughable attempts to claw back the initiative and claim it as a victory for multi-culturalism.

Presumably the latest discovery in the animal world…a spider they have named ‘Trogloraptor’, as it lives in darkened caves and has vicious claws that grasp its prey….was named after these ‘multi-culturalists’ who still live in the darkness and grasp desperately at straws to save themselves and their doomed ideology.

Funny how that prime of example of multi-ethnic fusion, football, is derided as racist by the great and the good. Footballers come from all over the world and they make Britain’s Premier League the best in the world…..is that success a result of multi-culturalism? Apparently not, the Luvvies not really liking the working class’ sport….as the BBC sets out to prove in ‘Is Football Racist?‘: ‘Setting out with the belief that racism has been largely eradicated from the game and that the frenzy surrounding the recent allegations shows the issue is being taken seriously by the authorities, Clarke begins to face a stark realisation on a journey which sees the issue of racism in football come very close to home.’

Next in the series….’Is Islam Racist?’

Here on the Today programme Sarah Montague purrs in agreement and delight with a couple of comedians (no they really are) who push the multi-culti creed.

Essentially we are told Islam made Mo Farah run faster, the games were successful, we won medals, because we are multi-cultural.

Sarfraz Manzoor reveals that: ‘Multi-culturalism lead us to be winners….and that having an immigrant named Mohammed roared on by the crowd was fantastic.’

So Usain Bolt’s multi-cultural Jamaica made him so fast? The Kenyan long distance runners…again so successful because of their multi-cultural society? The Ethiopians? The Chinese? The Americans? The Russians? Of course….

‘Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true!’

I suspect the crowd were roaring on a sportsman who was succeeding after a huge amount of effort and hard work…they weren’t applauding him for being Muslim…they don’t care what religion he was…and never have….which is the point…he was putting religion and personal ideologies aside and entering the mainstream.

It has nothing to do with ‘multi-culturalism’….what these people panhandling for Multi-culturalism are really commenting on is the mutli-racial makeup of the GB team…..the success coming from hard work not religion or music you listen to or cultural food you eat.

Manzoor’s approach says Britain is racist….and that only these games have brought us together….that’s more a idea akin to ones dreamt up by the race ‘hustlers’ who depend for their own authority and life style in ‘their community’ on whipping up race division and hatred where non exists.

Manzoor goes on to tell us that ‘Young Muslim men in Birmingham go on jihad because they want to belong to the ‘Umma’, a Muslim world wide community…Muslims don’t believe in nationality.’

Manzour suddenly backtracks…and changes that to ‘extremist’ Muslims don’t believe in nationality…..unfortunately that’s not true…Islam is the only creed to which a Muslim must show loyalty and submission to.

Manzoor claims that no imam would recruit people to ‘extremist’ views….again and again this is proved wrong….C4’s Dispatches opened up that can of worms to absolutely no reaction from the BBC who spent the same week abusing Jade Goody for her ‘racist’ argument with a housemate in ‘Big Brother’.

Manzoor was a not a devout Muslim…however he became more devout after 9/11…which was a ‘Call to Arms’ by Osama Bin Laden…which I guess worked to different extents on Muslims.

‘The terror attacks forced me to understand what it means to be a Muslim and it pushed my Muslim identity to the foreground.‘

The BBC is under no illusions that they can use the Olympic success of Farah to make us understand Islam is OK:

‘ Mo’s display of his faith portrays to the rest of Britain that Somalis can remain true to their beliefs while fully integrating with the wider society, which will hopefully counter-balance the common association of Muslims with fundamentalism. He has remained true to his religious beliefs, giving a Muslim prayer after each win and thanking Allah for his victory.‘

But what of Somalians who refute Islam?:

‘Ayaan Hirsi Ali enters an apartment in New York followed by a bodyguard. The 40-year-old, who for the last six years has been unable to turn up at a venue without it being checked by security, is a writer, polemicist and critic of Islam. She is also a Somali immigrant, an ex-Muslim.’

And of course it’s not just other Muslims Hirsi Ali has to be protected from because the Liberal/Left elite alll set about her for her ‘provocative’ views….surely she is the poster girl for Liberals who believe in integration and communal harmony?  No?

You don’t hear much about her or her views on the BBC.

Elsewhere of course the usual suspects mounted the counter offensive…Freedland, the supporter of multi-culturalism everywhere except in the Middle East where Jews are a problem, in the Guardian, and Alibhai Brown in the Independent. Brown’s piece is probably one of the more nasty articles you will see…all the more odd because she herself has vigorously spoken out against muti-culturalism and its very real and nasty effects (see later):

Freedland:

‘The effect, of both these organisational and sporting triumphs, was a national good mood so unaccustomed in many it prompted suspicion and unease. Some wondered if all this patriotism was healthy for our collective soul.‘

Alibhai Brown being somewhat less than tolerant and multi-cultural herself:

‘The Burleyites took a thorough beating at these Games, watching as not just Guardian-types but the nation exalted in the success of a team as diverse as any British city.

Jesus! More multicultural crap! More bleedin’ foreigners winning our medals!

(Nowhere did Burley say that….Alibhai Brown just invented a bit of racism)

Tory MP Aidan Burley, an immigrant from New Zealand, dissed Danny Boyle’s inclusive opening ceremony in a tweet.

Mixed feelings must have curdled the patriotic juices when Mo Farah, born in Somalia, won the 10,000 metres, hugged his daughter and pregnant light-skinned wife. And when he pronounced himself the proudest of flag wavers. Or when Jessica Ennis, the daughter of a black father and a white mother, wept as she received her gold while 80,000 fans cheered and belted out the National Anthem.

I wonder how the formidable anti-immigration prophets and campaigners react when medals are won by super-fit migrants and children of migrants?’

The Indepenent itself had this headline…

‘Mo Farah hails Britain’s multicultural society for helping him win double Olympic gold’

“It is amazing. As a kid growing up in London, coming from Somalia, sport was a big thing for me. My story shows no matter what or where you come from, if you work hard at something [in Britain] you can achieve it. And it was amazing the support I got from the crowd.”

Unfortunaltely the truth was that Farah’s success owed more to the flag waving, one nation melting pot that is the USA than to ‘multi-culti’ Britain…as the Independent has to admit a little way down…..

‘The soon-to-be father of twins revealed how important his move to America last year had been in ensuring his development after he fell into a period after the 2008 Beijing Olympics of finishing sixth or seventh in races.

He said: “If I didn’t make that change I don’t think I would have been here today and competing with those guys.’

And let’s look at that multi-cultural legacy…what does mutli-culturalism really mean on the streets……..and note, these are British streets, not Islamabad or Mecca or Kandahar.

‘When I married V.S. Naipaul and moved to England in 1996, I thought I had left the horror behind.

Pakistan had drained my resolve, and I was tired of fighting a losing battle. To me, England, for all its ills, was the promised land.

Instead, I have found the horror I fled has followed me here. It is all around, eroding the very core of everything Britain believes in.

Why, then, have successive Governments refused to acknowledge the incestuous cultures that have evolved in these ghettos? Why does no one challenge the existence of the so-called ‘Islamic Parliaments’, with their retrogressive laws, that exist in cities such as Bradford and Leicester?
In these cities, teams of vigilantes terrorise Pakistani communities. They turn up unannounced to homes, insisting that Ramadan is respected and checking that everyone has come to prayers. They force shops to close, they check that the community is fasting, that women wear the veil.
The defenders of our precious multiculturalism must get real. My message to those who promote these entrenched ghetto ideas is this: go home if you want to practise your form of Islam. There is no place for it here.’

Alibhai-Brown seems conflicted and confused…her PC credentials and innermost instincts want her to be all ‘multi-cultural’, loving and praising and defending cultural separateness…unfortunately reality keeps on bringing her back down to earth….

Here is Alibhai-Brown in her ‘all whites are imperialist colonisers’ mode:
‘ In France they refuse to rethink their old assimilationist model. As their populations get ethnically more complex, the state either asks for compliance or enforces post-enlightenment values combined with colonial hubris. Liberty, fraternity and a secular state are the foundations of a good democracy, but even incomers willing, indeed happy, to commit to the Republic’s tenets balk at the underpinning supremacist paradigm.’

So She thinks assimilation and integration are a problem not a boon?

And yet here she is giving it both barrels to ghettoisation and yes, multi-culturalism:

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: Who’d be female under Islamic law?

In Muslim states, violence against women is validated. A dark age is upon us.

‘I look out of my study (in the UK) at the common and see a wife fully burkaed on a sunny day. She sits still. Her children and husband run around, laughing, playing cricket. She sits still, dead, buried, a ghost. She is complicit in her own degradation, as are countless others. Their acquiescence in a free democracy is a crime against their sisters who have no such choices in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere.‘

 And again:

The Talibanisation of British childhood by hardline parents

‘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.

In 2003, Bakri told a journalist that their brand of Islam would get to increasing numbers of young minds and hearts.

It has – and to their parents, too.

The rapid spread of rigid, diehard Islam is deeply worrying. Yet those in power, focused on terrorist cells, seem oblivious to this other peril.

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.

Eye-watering amounts of Saudi money goes into promoting Wahhabism.

They fund mosques, religious-schools, imams, conferences and trips to Saudi Arabia.

They are our wealthy allies and so are never questioned or stopped.

Meanwhile, the liberal position is to let people be and do what they wish within the law. Liberals tolerate the intolerable because they don’t have to live with the consequences. Yet the problem is in part caused by liberal values.
The full burka has been banned in France (where the hijab – a headscarf – is also not allowed in schools) and other European nations will follow.

In Britain, where personal liberty is sacrosanct, such state actions would appear authoritarian.

To me, that hands-off approach makes no sense.

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. Many of us British Muslims care deeply about both.’

The Victimisation of Moderate Muslims

By Guest | Published: January 26, 2011

This is a guest post by Leyton Oriental

We have all read about how moderate/liberal minded Muslims have been the target of assassinations in Pakistan and how some of them have been forced to flee conservative Islamic societies in order to stay alive. But here in the UK, the Muslim community is far more religiously conservative than many Muslim majority societies.

It is shocking but not surprising to learn that one of Britain’s leading moderate Muslim Imams is being hounded out of his job for expressing views which are unpalatable to the conservative Muslims.

There has been a concerted campaign by many Muslims to remove Usama Hasan from his post as Imam of Masjid al-Tawhid in Leyton, East London. The “charges” against him are:

Seeking to reconcile Islam with the theory of evolution

Claiming that the Hijab is not mandatory

Acceptance of secularism in the practice of good governance

It’s important to note that the elements of religious intolerance which are seeking to remove him are not extremist Muslims but mainstream conservative Muslims. It just goes to show how intolerant and thuggish traditional Muslims have become and how liberal Muslims are the real victims, even here in the UK. This campaign to denounce Hasan have included calling him an unbeliever and an apostate. Needless to say that these accusations come with the calls for his execution which some have been “brave” enough to make.

Celebrating diversity and multi culturalism.

 From the New York Times:

‘Like a fever, fear has spread across India this week, from big cities like Bangalore to smaller places like Mysore, a contagion fueling a message: Run. Head home. Flee. And that is what thousands of migrants from the country’s distant northeastern states are doing, jamming into train stations in an exodus challenging the Indian ideals of tolerance and diversity.

What began as an isolated communal conflict here in the remote state of Assam, a vicious if obscure fight over land and power between Muslims and the indigenous Bodo tribe, has unexpectedly set off widespread panic among northeastern migrants who had moved to more prosperous cities for a piece of India’s rising affluence.’

“What is at stake is the unity and integrity of our country,” Mr. Singh said. “What is at stake is communal harmony.”

Never mind they will win a lot of medals at the next Olympics due to their multi-cultural society making them such good runners.

‘Guest Who’  points out this article in the Mail in which the Tories complain about Flanders being the Voice of Labour:

‘BBC host accused of ‘peeing all over British industry’: IDS fury at ‘carping and moaning’ broadcaster as report casts doubt on jobs boost

• Iain Duncan Smith has made a formal complaint to the BBC over its coverage of employment figures
• The Work and Pensions Secretary accused Economics Editor Stephanie Flanders of showing a pro-Labour bias
• Claimed the BBC seizes every chance to ‘dump on the Government’
• BBC said it was confident coverage of the figures was impartial and fair

Is Flanders the ‘Lady Haw Haw’ of out time, broadcasting propaganda?  Strangely not only did she have relations with the two Eds but is distantly related to George Osborne with some very posh ancestors….

‘Probably less good news for Ed M and Ed B is that they are also linked to the Chancellor of the Exchequer via Stephanie, whose rich vault of ancestors includes Sir Thomas Osborne, the ninth baronet, and George’s great-great-great… well, you’d need Steph’s phenomenal grasp of figures to work that one out.’

‘The physicist Leo Szilard once announced to his friend Hans Bethe that he was thinking of keeping a diary: ‘l don’t intend to publish. I am merely going to record the facts for the information of God.”Don’t you think God knows the facts?’  Bethe asked.   ’Yes,’ said Szilard. ‘He knows the facts, but He does not know this version of the facts.‘

The BBC continues its cover up of wrong doing and the obscuring of the evidence trail when asked to be fully transparent and accountable for its actions.

We have had the Balen Report and its evidence of anti-Israeli reporting kept under lock and key, now the BBC has decided that the ‘expert’ people who influenced one of the most important strategic changes in its stance towards reporting climate change should be kept anonymous….as related by Bishop Hill.

‘My long struggle to find out who attended the BBC’s seminar on climate change has come to an end (if you are not familiar with the story, see here). Readers here will recall that the seminar appears to have been attended by a bunch of NGO people, who decided that there was a consensus on climate change that meant that sceptics could be sidelined in the corporation’s output. The BBC Trust then falsely reported that the decision had been made by leading scientists.

My FOI request, dating back several years, has been repeatedly turned down and the appeal has gone all the way to the Information Tribunal, a rather more formal process than the Information Commission, being overseen by a judge.’

Bishop Hill also releases his submission to the Leveson inquiry which includes a section on Roger Harrabin’s CMEP which he ran in conjunction with climate change activists and was partly funded by the University of East Anglia…of CRU Climategate fame..

Here is some of that submission:

On 6th January 2010, and in the wake of the Climategate scandal that had engulfed the University if East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, Professor Richard Tait, chairman of the BBC Trust’s Editorial Standards Committee (ESC) announced that the BBC would conduct a review of impartiality and accuracy of their coverage of science.

It seemed to us that if such an exercise was to be useful, then input from the BBC’s critics would be essential, therefore we wrote a very constructive joint letter to Professor Tait asking if we could make a submission to the inquiry.

In spite of an extensive correspondence with the BBC Trust over a period of four months, we were unable to obtain confirmation that the letter had been delivered to Professor Tait.

The view that we formed was that the last thing the BBC Trust wanted for their review of the impartiality and accuracy of its science coverage was any input from critics.

We ask that the Inquiry should look at the submission that we then sent to Professor Jones too.

In summary, it identifies a rather shadowy organisation called the Cambridge Media and Environment Programme, set up and co-directed by the BBC’s Environment Analyst, Roger Harrabin, and Dr Joe Smith, a lecturer and environmental activist from the Open University.

We provided evidence that CMEP had been financed by a leading climate research institute, a major environmental NGO and a government department among others.

The purpose of CMEP was to organise seminars at which senior BBC staff would be joined by specialists in particular fields relating to environmental matters. CMEP’s partners in these ventures were the BBC itself and an environmental lobby origination called the International Broadcasting Trust.

We provided evidence that these events had a real impact on programming.

We also drew the BBC’s attention to a statement in John Bricut’s seminal report From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel: Safeguarding impartiality in the 21st Century, adopted and published by the BBC Trust in 2007 and signed off by Professor Tait.

This notes the care that the BBC takes to preserve impartiality in reporting controversial subjects such as climate change by saying:

‘The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus.’

This event took place in January 2006 and was organised by CMEP…meantime, an eyewitness account of the seminar posted at Harmless Sky indicates that the experts advising the BBC at this seminar were in fact climate change activists.

Between the time when Professor Jones was appointed by the BBC and the publication of his report, he had things to say about climate sceptics in an article for the Daily Telegraph headline “Gods, floods – and Global Warming’:

’Global warming is a myth.

‘Type that into a search engine and you get thousands of hits – but global warming is not a product of the human imagination; or no more so than any other scientific claims for – like them – it depends on its data, the accuracy of which has been affirmed by the inquiry into the leaked East Anglia documents. The subject has, alas, become the home of boring rants by obsessives.’

This hardly suggests that the professor would be likely give anyone who might question the current dogma on climate change, or the way in which it is reported by the BBC, a fair hearing…BBC news gathering and editorial staff had got far too close to environmental activism for impartiality to be preserved.

Over five years after we started to try and discover who the “best scientific experts” that the BBC relied on when it first decide to limit coverage of climate scepticism in its output, we still do not have an answer.’

The BBC are pretty keen to dissect anything to do with Christianity, not so keen with Islam, they are quick to disembowel the Tea Party….Paul Ryan suddenly comes on the radar and Ayn Rand is ‘rubbished’…but ‘Occupy’ is glorified and given a halo of respectability and moral authority.

Is it really leaderless, does it have a nice, heart warming for the good of mankind ethos as its basis, is it really all about equality and responsible capitalism?

No, not at all…..the vast majority…say 99%, are ‘useful idiots’ being manipulated to provide cover for the usual ragtag  bunch of anarchists and Marxist revolutionaries:

‘Neo-anarchists and other far leftists provided part of the core leadership of Occupy in a number of cities. They deserve credit for helping spur the movement—even if flash movements don’t require extensive organization or recognized leaders to make a bright and dramatic entrance and to have real effects.

There were leaders—yet OWS tended to deny they existed. Without any formal means of selection, they were there. They talked more, stayed around longer, filled the most important committees, and shaped decisions. To sustain and expand the flash movement these leaders believed that it was important to assert the primacy of its “mass” forms and to make a virtue of an alleged lack of leaders.

Many of these leaders, as well as a number of those who helped to get Occupy off the ground, were evasive about their views. What made the movement dynamic (and interesting!) was its link to the dismay and anger of many Americans about unfair inequality, bad economic conditions, and political inability to fix either. Yet anger at economic trouble, unfair inequality, and weak political leadership doesn’t lead toward approving the full agenda of the neo-anarchists and neo-communists. This agenda calls for undermining present forms of political authority, replacing market society (capitalism) with anarchist and/or communist economic schemes, and unmasking liberal institutions as coercive frauds. Asserting this agenda loudly and clearly would have distanced its advocates from the strong currents in public opinion that sympathized with OWS.

Within the left 5 to 10 percent of the American electorate, parts of the neo-anarchist agenda can get a serious hearing, without producing much support. More broadly these views have no real standing. People who believe them can help organize movements and be active in them, but this requires modulating or concealing their own commitments.

Affirming the virtues of a leaderless and unprogrammatic movement afforded room for maneuver for actual leaders, without requiring them to articulate and defend their political and ideological positions.

The Tea Party and of course Obama’s 2008 campaign overshadow OWS in political significance, but for the moment they stand together as three instances of a volatile and exciting politics that we are deep into without understanding very well.

If Occupy was mainly a vivid and significant flash movement that had a real effect on public debate, that’s important now and later. This experience signals new forms of political and social expression. Initiatives from outside the centers of political power can rapidly shift the terms of political debate and act.’