Search Results for: head of religion

Party Political Broadcast…

By | |
39 Comments

…on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood.
A major party political broadcast on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood has appeared on the BBC website.
The BBC are committed followers of the Brotherhood, but any indecisives reading this effusive promo should have their lingering doubts swept clean away.

“Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood promotes moderate path.” says the BBC, so it must be so.
“The Muslim Brotherhood runs hospitals, schools, banks, community centres, and facilities for the disabled in cities and towns all over the country.” the BBC’s Tarik Kafala gushes. There follows a lengthy endorsement that no hard-hearted cynic could fail to fall for, except those of us who fail to fall for it.

“The Farouk Hospital is clean and it works, its corridors bustling with poor and middle class Egyptians.
It is a noticeably Islamic institution; framed Koranic verses hang on the walls; the many women there, patients and employees, wear colourful headscarves and conservative clothes.”

Wow. Spread the good news!
Funny how some political outfits can’t shake off their antisemitic histories, but with one fell swoop the Brotherhood can reinvent itself as benevolent, organised and good natured.

“With its conservative Islamist agenda and its historical links to radical and sometimes violent groups, it is feared and mistrusted in the West and to some extent in Egypt.”

But please don’t let that put you off.

“The worry about us in the West is the result of bias and double standards,” Dr Arian says.”
“the hospital is “non-political and non-profit making, and we offer our medical services without consideration to gender, race or religion”.
Such hospitals are the cutting edge of the Muslim Brotherhood’s much-vaunted social services.”

As well as being misunderstood, the poor Brotherhood is also hard done by.

“The Brotherhood, still banned in Egypt, is beginning its campaign to be recognised as a formal political party. It is assumed to be Egypt’s best organised and most popular opposition movement.”

They said all that about Hamas before they murdered most of the opposition. But they were democratically elected, which is just what we in the West are keen to encourage.
The Christians were a bit worried, says the article, near the end, but they’re hoping for the best.
So, VOTE VOTE VOTE Muslim Brotherhood.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

BBC Hypocrisy: Context Edition

By | | , , , ,
12 Comments

The BBC has figured out their Narrative on these leaked documents from the Israel/Palestinian peace process. Naturally, Israel gets the worst of it. But there is a moment of glaring hypocrisy.

Jerusalem’s troubled geography

Right from the start, we see the direction it’s headed.

The release of thousands of leaked documents apparently showing Palestinian willingness to compromise over Israeli settlements once again highlights Jerusalem’s troubled geography – and damages the credibility of both sides, writes the BBC’s diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus.

Both sides look bad? I suppose that’s why so many Palestinians have been complaining that Fatah is undermining their hopes and dreams, because the documents are equally damaging to Israel’s credibility? Color me skeptical. But first, we get the usual BBC agenda-driven historical moment in a vacuum.

As a main topic of the leaked documents concerns East Jerusalem, it’s only right that the BBC sets the scene. We’re told that Israel “captured” East Jerusalem in the Six Day War, but are provided zero context (remember that word for later) as to why they were in a position to do so. All we’re told is: “For the Palestinians and many in the Arab world this was a disaster.” Yes, it’s Arabist Gospel that Israel was an unprovoked aggressor in that war, but the BBC needs to be dealing in facts, not fiction. Israel’s move into East Jerusalem is presented in a vacuum, and the reader is left to assume whatever they like.

Of course, in 1967, there was no such thing as Palestinians, outside of Arafat’s little activist group. The people of East Jerusalem were Jordanians then. So the BBC creates a little alternate history. The propaganda is so deeply entrenched in their minds – and, most likely, in BBC editorial policy on the subject – that they write it as fact. But after being educated by the BBC, the average BBC audience member must find it very distasteful to learn that many Israelis viewed this “disaster” as a “miracle”. I think we can see the Narrative taking shape.

Now for the bit where Jonathan Marcus explains how these documents make Israel look bad. First, he carefully explains the Palestinian position on East Jerusalem, the Settlements, and some of the larger picture. There is no mention of any Israeli concerns, as if it’s unimportant, although there’s a lone subheading about ‘holy places’. We’ll get to that shortly. Then Marcus writes this:

While the main thrust of these documents is to show a Palestinian Authority far more willing to offer compromises than the Israelis have ever been willing to admit, the story is not entirely one of sharp divisions and unbridgeable gulfs.

Now we see how Israel is made to look the villain even here. Nasty old Israel has been dishonest and lying about Palestinian negotiations, right? Who’s really not the valid partner in the peace process, eh, BBC? Forget about all those people complaining that ceding a little territory is proof that Fatah is failing their people, etc. It’s really Israel who doesn’t want peace.

The leaked documents show that in August 2008 Israel’s former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was willing to break with his hardliners, accepting that Jerusalem would in some way be partitioned, allowing both Israelis and the Palestinians to use it as their capital.

Yep, those nasty old hardliners, the real obstacle to peace, eh, BBC? A joint capital was always the only way, don’t you know. And what about those holy places?

This offer, made just a few months before US President Barack Obama took office, included provisions for the token return of some Palestinian refugees and on potentially the most contentious issue of all – access to the holy places at the heart of the city – interim arrangements involving Israel, the Palestinians, the Saudis and the Jordanians.

Indeed, the Palestinian side too seems to have been willing to envisage imaginative solutions to resolve the problems of access and control over the holy basin.

So you see, it’s….wait…the holy what now? Who has access to which holy places now, BBC? No context whatsoever. In fact, as those who look to the BBC for their information wouldn’t know, Jews are not allowed to pray at the only actual holy site in the entire religion: the Temple Mount. They are permitted to worship only at the base of a retaining wall around the perimeter of the compound. Jews are not permitted to worship or even dress too orthodox on the actual premises. Only Muslims are permitted. The fact is, this is tolerated by the Israeli government because all hell would break loose if they did anything about it. The BBC never honestly addresses this issue. No special segments on any religion programmes about how Judaism is the only major religion in the world not in control of its own holy site. (This always begs the question of how this situation could exist if Jews really had so much power over world affairs. They control everything except that? But that’s for another time.) But they are more concerned about Palestinian rights.

To which holy sites do Palestinians not currently have access, BBC? Which sites would be blocked if Israel controlled East Jerusalem? Are we supposed to seriously believe that Israel would prevent Muslims from worshiping at the site? Based on what evidence? Again, the reader is left in a vacuum, with details supporting only one side of the argument.

Now here it comes, the moment we all expected:

This of course was all more than two years ago. Since then a more right-wing Israeli government has come to power. It has set itself firmly against any division of Jerusalem. A US effort to freeze settlement building and to get substantive talks under way has also failed.

This is the context in which these leaked documents must be read.

BBC hypocrisy on display. After providing zero context about the key issues involved, the BBC’s middle east correspondent has the temerity to lecture you about context: the context which fits the Narrative, of course.

Israel = bad. It’s the fault of those nasty right-wingers. The Obamessiah’s efforts failed – oh, wait, sorry, He can’t fail, it’s the “US effort” which failed – due to nasty right-winger Israeli racists. Nothing to do with Palestinian intransigence or anything. The only correct solution is a partition of Jerusalem, with the Jews ceding the most important areas. Fatah is clearly a willing partner in peace. Only Israel is at fault.

The peace process is damaged now, frets Marcus. Fatah leadership looks weak now because – this must come as a shock as it’s contrary to what the BBC often tries to tell us – the Palestinians actually don’t want any compromise at all. Israel looks bad because, well, the only thing one can draw from this article is that we’re supposed to come in with the perspective that they’ve always been bad, except for that brief moment of unicorns and rainbows under Olmert. There really isn’t any evidence provided as to how much from the leaked documents make Israel look bad, which is why Marcus needs to actually come right out and tell you how to interpret the story. The change in government isn’t new information, Israel’s various offers haven’t been kept secret, so what’s so damaging here? Instead, the revelations are spun to make Israel appear to be dishonest. There’s nothing of substance.

It seems that, in the alternate history in which the BBC lives, Israel is already the bad guy before we even begin. And don’t bother looking to them for any context worth trusting.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

RICHARD SAMBROOK

By | |
21 Comments


I was very pleased when Richard Sambrook contacted B-BBC, ostensibly to put the record straight about why he had spoken to the Common Purpose group. My recollection of him – mainly from when he was head of newsgathering at the BBC back in the 1990s – was that he was a pleasant, congenial man, and I thought he had been in touch because he thought my concerns about CP at the BBC were overblown.

Having dug a little, I am not so sure. Mr Sambrook was at the BBC for 30 years and he rose to become head of news, the most senior post in the news division, before blotting his copybook over the Andrew Gilligan claims about the Iraq war and the ensuing battle with Alastair Campbell and NuLabour. Soon after Greg Dyke (the most unplesant man in television I ever had dealings with) left the corporation following the Hutton inquiry, Richard was quietly moved into a different job as head of “global news”, which in practice meant that he had been demoted and – in BBC terms – exiled to the chilly corridors of the World Service. A bit like going to Siberia. However, he remained part of the Byfield-Thompson axis, and may thus be seen as one of the most pivotal figures in BBC news over a generation.

He left the corporation after 30 years about a year ago to join the London office of an outfit called Edelman, which boasts that it is the world’s largest indepedent PR company, with 3,300 employees and no less than 54 offices worldwide. His role is Global Vice Chairman and Chief Content Officer and with such a lord-high-everything name, no doubt has important influence there. So far so good, there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with PR (though some may disagree).

However, when I probed Edelman further, I began to smell a rat. In fact several. First, one of the most prominent boasts on Edeleman’s flash website is of working on this campaign:

Create standout for PUMA’s African Unity Kit and its role in supporting UNEPs International Year of Biodiversity project ‘Play For Life’ campaign in the build up to the World Cup in South Africa 2010

So Edelman are prominently part of the UN-biodiversity gravy train. Admittedly, that’s only one account of many they boast about, but I dug deeper. What I then found was this document, which, masquerading under a jargon title of “public engagement”, is actually a manual (scroll down to page 10 onwards) that could be taken straight from the Common Purpose or UN charter about “sustainability”, the code-word for greenie activism. The I found Edelman had been hired by energy company E.On at the time of the Kingsnorth power station protests. To cut a long story short, E.On has since become one of the world cheerleaders about AGW (presumably in reality because it is after the jampot of renewable energy subsidies) but under the cloak of Edelman’s crafty creed of “social responsibility” and and saving the world. Edelman has also been plugging for years press releases based on surveys it has commissioned that purport to show that business leaders round the world also support urgent action on sustainability and climate change.

So to sum up. Richard Sambrook, who professes that he is not really involved in Common Purpose, now works for an outfit that through its 54 branches worldwide seems to be a cheerleader for action on the green creed. That activism is cloaked in mealy-mouthed jargon PR words, but that’s what is involved. Mr Sambrook also – having worked for the BBC for 30 years as a key figure in news – must share responsibility for the fact that the BBC, too, is a virtually unqualified supporter of that same green creed. Common Purpose, as far as I can see, is simply another arm of that religion and that activism. My jury is out about how sinister or effective it is as an organisation, but that’s not the point.

All of this may be circumstantial, but my conclusion is that this is evidence that Mr Sambrook is an influential figure who is an integral part of the process of thoughtspeak that has now infected almost every facet of corporate and media communications. The only way these connections come to light is through sustained digging. What else is there?

Update: There’s far more than I first found in Edelman’s links with AGW, to the point that advocacy is clearly a speciality. Could Mr Sambrook’s BBC credentials on climate change be partly why he was hired? Here, they are handling a major Europe-wide initiative with the British Council to brainwash youngsters; and here, they are urging – at the behest of the fanatics at WWF – the whole of Hong Kong to switch out the lights in pursuit of their goals.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

COLD RAGE

By | |
37 Comments

I have been a victim of this latest manifestation of global warming for the past few days – travelling to London and at the mercy of years of the deliberate running down of emergency cold weather planning caused because our fat, stupid, complacent, ruling class believes only in the AGW myth. On Wednesday night, I was stranded at Crawley when Southern rail dumped me there at 10pm at night; never in more than 20 years of using the London to Brighton line has anything comparable happened. But no worries, it’s the warmest year ever, don’t you know? And don’t worry, the BBC is pushing away to reassure us that windpower will save the day. Honest. What will it take for our idiot politicians and planners to wake up? The BBC generally is treating this major national emergency as though it was a minor hiccup because it does not fit into their narrative, what’s going on is a bit of ice. That’s OK then. And meanwhile, their so-called science and environment page is filled with the usual AGW drivel, giving voice to the idiot Maldives prime minister who, as usual at events like Cancun, has his begging bowl out. I could not find anything on the BBC about this story, though, the Met Office’s High Prietess of the AGW religion, Vicky Pope, stranded at Gatwick on her way to Cancun. And what about this? – we are giving away £37m more in farming subsidies to deal with “climate change” when old folk back home are severely suffering because they can’t afford the government’s artificially-inflated fuel prices.

There’s a wilful burrowing of collective BBC heads in the sand and a cold-hearted determination to keep the AGW lies mill in full production. Me, I’m off to London again, back at the mercy of all that little bit of ice.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

BBC V Israel

By | |
18 Comments

First of all we had the headlines about Hamas and Islamic Jihad’s pledge to kill more Israelis, but they used the phrase “Israeli targets” which subtly lends legitimacy to their murderous intentions.
Of course the real threat is to Israeli civilians, but the BBC would rather we didn’t realise this.

Then they announced that right-wing Israelis were angry with the prime minister for stating that Mahmoud Abbas was a partner for peace.

Was that by way of some sort of crazy counterbalance? Pitting proposed genocide against a run of the mill thumbs down?

The next bulletin promoted the angry Israeli story to the top spot; death threats relegated to second place. I said this somewhere else. They’re spending some of the anti-Israel venom saved up and banked from the even-handed Panorama.

Jeremy Bowen was still on about the grafted on nonsense. He thinks the conflict is over land, or stolen land, “occupied land, Palestinian land, holy land” as yesterday’s Hamas expert Beverley Milton-Edwards would have us believe.

They have managed to filter out the fundamentally antisemitic nature of the religion of peace which has been driving the Islamic resistance to Israel’s existence since before it existed.
Jeremy Bowen thinks it’s something that’s only just been “grafted on”.

They guy they interviewed this morning, he was from the electronic intefada. Sarah Montague said so in her introduction. What she didn’t say was what the electronic intefada is. It’s an intefada. Uprising. (against the existence of Israel)
Some people may not realise that. Others may know what it is, but think it’s a perfectly respectable outfit, seeing that the BBC turns to it for advice.
So it’s official. It’s not only the Israel/Palestine conflict but also the Israel/BBC conflict.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Not Inayat A Nice Way

By | |
21 Comments

It seems that Guardian contributor and regular BBC talking head, Mr Inayat Bunglawala is an advocate of free speech.
Not so much when the speaker is Geert Wilders, but the kind of free speech that is specific to Muslims.
Bungle, if I may call him by his pet name, has a blog of his own in which he ascribes Theresa May’s ban on Dr. Zakir Naik to “a right-wing campaign to smear the popular Islamic speaker”.

From one extreme, i.e., various sources that support Dr. Naik and protest that when he says “all muslims should be terrorists”, he means it in the nicest possible way, to the other extreme, i.e., various ‘pro western’ sources that take the opposite view, namely that he’s a hatemonger and jolly well deserves to be banned, I’d say the BBC was fairly impartial, occupying the middle ground; and I don’t mean that in a nice way. For a British Broadcasting Corporation, surely impartiality over such a thing is tantamount to bias against “British” values.

In a similar way, the BBC seems to think Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bomber, is a nice sort of ‘guy next door’ fellow, too. Married with kids, “personable, a nice guy, but unremarkable”. And he’s got a master’s in Business administration! He would wave and say hello to the next door neighbour. Cool.

Bungle also has something to say about Faisal. He thinks the guilty plea “should in a more sensible world urgently prompt a rethink in the US administration about its callous strategy in Afghanistan”. Obama might be already on the case.

Bungle doesn’t like Douglas Murray very much, he thinks Murray is trying to silence Islamic speakers. All these Islamophobes and dog lovers . What is the UK coming to? Never mind, Bungle, I feel the BBC is with you.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

ISLAM ON THE BBC

By | |
13 Comments

Hope you enjoyed “Thought for the day” with Abdal Hakim Murad this morning? I think the BBC is so brave to give Islam such prominence in this daily slot despite it being such a minority religion. Still, I bet that Aaqil Ahmed, the BBC’s Head of Religious Broadcasting will at least appreciate this.   

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Our Man in the West Bank

By | | ,
11 Comments

Deegee highlights numerous signs in Jeremy Bowen’s article that indicate he’s not really BBC Middle East editor at all, but a correspondent representing the Palestinians. Like Alan Johnston, Bowen obviously wants to assure his friends that “I’m telling your story.”
The article is riddled with clues as to Bowen’s personal feelings, and is dumbed down by lazy over-simplifications of the sort that invariably get repeated over and over till they become set in stone.
“President Mahmoud Abbas, America’s current Palestinian partner, is so fed up with the lack of progress towards independence that he has threatened to leave his job.“

“Is so fed up!” Is that Bowen’s summing up of Abbas’s political strategy?

Deegee says: “Abbas’s period as president has expired. He would be resigning from a position he no longer legally holds.”
The BBC’s own website publishes a variety of interpretations, which show that Abbas’s threat to stand down is a little more complex than Bowen’s misleading brief – that he is “Fed up”

Having established that Jewish settlements are the obstacle to peace, and that they are illegal, Bowen somehow manages to erase the Palestinians’ refusal to recognise Israel or renounce violence from the equation altogether as though it isn’t an impediment of any significance whatsoever.
Melanie Phillips says, “Let us not forget that it is the ‘moderate’ Abbas and the forces he leads whom America and the west say are ‘entitled’ to a state of their own, to which Israel is unreasonably providing obstacles”

That has now become received wisdom. Bowen ups the ante by calling them “little fortresses.” He then rearranges history by reiterating another myth that has established itself in the narrative. He implies that Rabin’s assassination by a Jewish extremist was responsible for ending the peace process.
In a critique of one of Seth freedman’s Guardian articles, which is similarly economical with the actuality, Israelinurse dispels this myth.

“Freedman descends into the realms of fantasy, stating that “with three bullets, assassin Yigal Amir managed to irreversibly derail the peace process” and claims that the entire region’s political journey abruptly changed course as a result of that tragic event.
In actual fact, the Oslo Accords continued to be implemented. On January 20th 1996 agreements were made regarding the IDF redeployment from areas to be passed over to PA control, the election of the Palestinian Council and the head of the Palestinian Authority. The 23rd October 1998 saw the signing of the Wye River Memorandum and on September 4th 1999 the Sharm El Sheikh Memorandum was agreed.
Just as the peace treaty with Jordan, signed just over a year before Rabin’s murder, did not fall apart, so the agreements with the Palestinians went ahead. But on July 11th 2000, the Camp David negotiations fell through and just over two months later the second Intifada began, shaking Israel to its core.”

Deegee says; “It could easily be said the peace agreement had already failed by the time of Rabin’s death and it was far from certain he would have been re-elected.”

So however sad it is that there is as yet no peace agreement, the Jewish extremist’s act of murder was not the reason.
Bowen even refers to the notorious handshake on the lawn as a kind of ‘finest hour’. Anyone who has read about Arafat’s scurrilous behaviour during and after that and the Camp David fiasco would have to laugh.

Bowen makes no attempt to conceal his contempt for Binyamin Netanyahu, who he depicts as an arrogant bully causing poor Bill Clinton to use the F word No mention of what poor Bill thought of evil old Yassir after he effectively scuppered Clinton’s last attempts at peacemaking by instigating another Palestinian intefada.

In “My Life” written by president Clinton, he wrote that Arafat once complimented Clinton by telling him, “You are a great man.” Clinton responded; “I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you made me one.”

Throughout the article Bowen continually refers to what “the Palestinians want” for their state. He completely ignores one thing. They do not just want a small amount of territory in Jerusalem, because they do not want Israel to have any territory at all. For the Palestinians, one inch would be too much, because there is an inherent and virulent hatred for Jews at the heart of their religion. Bowen and his ilk will never tackle that, maybe because it’s unpalatable, or perhaps it’s because they feel the same.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

PC PR

By | | ,
37 Comments
Mark Mardell:

The alleged murderer was clearly a Muslim, but there is very little to suggest that he adhered to a hard-line interpretation of his religion or that he had political or religious motives.

Really? How about this, Mark?

A US officer who killed 13 soldiers in a gun rampage at a Texas army base shouted a triumphant Islamic proclamation before opening fire, it was claimed today.
Army spokesman Lieutenant General Bob Cone said witnesses heard Major Nidal Malik Hasan cry “Allahu Akbar” – Arabic for “God is great” – before opening fire at the Fort Hood complex.

And this?

He gave a Grand Rounds presentation. . . You take turns giving a lecture on, you know, the correct treatment of schizophrenia, the right drugs to prescribe for personality disorder, you know, that sort of thing. But instead of giving an academic paper, he gave a lecture on the Koran, and they said it didn’t seem to be just an informational lecture, but it seemed to be his own beliefs. That’s what a lot of people thought.

He talked about how if you’re a nonbeliever the Koran says you should have your head cut off, you should have oil poured down your throat, you should be set on fire. And I said well couldn’t this just be his educating you? And the psychiatrist said yes, but one of the Muslims in the audience, another psychiatrist, raised his hand and was quite disturbed and he said you know, a lot of us don’t believe these things you’re saying, and that there was no place where Hasan couched it as this is what the Koran teaches but you know I don’t believe it. And people actually talked in the hallway afterwards about ‘is he one of these people that’s going to freak out and shoot people someday?’

[snip]

“A source tells NPR’s Joseph Shapiro that Hasan was put on probation early in his postgraduate work at the Uniformed Service University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md. He was disciplined for proselytizing about his Muslim faith with patients and colleagues, according to the source, who worked with him at the time.”

It’s not as if Mark Mardell hasn’t had time to read the internet today:

But for some, nothing less than a conspiracy will do as an explanation. On the website of a respected newspaper, I see one poster has blamed Barack Obama, whom he calls “that Marxist thug”. It’s not that it’s hard to follow the logic; it’s that there isn’t any.

Mardell would rather recount the idiotic comments of one goofball he’s read on a website somewhere than concede that the motives of a Muslim mass murderer could be down to his religion. Never mind the killer, check out this fruitcake instead; right wing nutters are the real problem here in America, nudge nudge.

He concludes:

Still, searching for patterns and for answers is part of what it is to be human. I loathe cliche, but perhaps, for once, this is a “senseless tragedy”, devoid of deeper meaning.

Nothing to do with the Religion of Peace! Repeat – nothing to do with the Religion of Peace!

Here’s another cliché for you Mark – wake up and smell the coffee.

Update:

In the morning, neighbors said Hasan handed Qurans and donated his furniture to anyone who would take it.

Update:

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people and wounding 30 others at the Fort Hood Army Base in Texas, regularly described the war on terror as “a war against Islam,” according to a doctor who was in a graduate program with him.

While studying for a masters degree in public health in 2007, Hasan used a presentation for an environmental health class to argue that Muslims were being targeted by the U.S. anti-terror campaign, said Val Finnell, a classmate.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

JOYFUL BBC – CLIMATE CHANGE IS A BELIEF….

By | | ,
9 Comments

This was regarded as so important that it was on the BBC News website front page

A man has been told he can take his employer to tribunal on the grounds he was unfairly dismissed because of his views on climate change.

Tim Nicholson, 42, of Oxford, was made redundant in 2008 by Grainger Plc in Didcot, as head of sustainability.
He said his beliefs had contributed to his dismissal and in March a judge ruled he could use employment equality laws to claim it was unfair.
But the firm appealed against this as it believed his views were political.

After the hearing on Monday, Mr Nicholson said he was delighted by the judgement for himself and other people who may feel they are discriminated against because of their views on climate change.
His solicitor, Shah Qureshi, said: “Essentially what the judgment says is that a belief in man-made climate change and the alleged resulting moral imperative is capable of being a philosophical belief and is therefore protected by the 2003 religion or belief regulations.”

Naturally the BBC is delighted. For years they have been shilling for the likes of Monbiot and Gore, pushing man made global warming as a political message and doing their best to ignore or demean anyone who questioned the theory. With judges veering towards the classification of the theory as a “belief” it could mean that critics could be identified as “climate change deniers”. From that it would only be a short step to the creation of denial as an offence against the “believers” and – hey presto – more money for Carter-Ruck and Schillings.

Stay tuned for the man made global warming message to become even more fervent as the true believers do their best to ratchet it up to messianic levels. Doubters will be demonised as servants of the great beast Anthropogenor (I’m not making that up – you’ve seen the end of days doomsday prediction that cost £6 million of your money) and cast out into the darkness –or, more likely sacked, fined or jailed.

Normally, of course, the BBC’s heart usually bleeds for people punished by the courts – but there are certain crimes that strike at everything the BBC holds dear so don’t hold your breath for any Newsnight features pimping sympathy for climate change deniers being hit by the full force of m’learned friends…..

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.