AN OBJECTIVE OBSERVER?


Have you ever wondered why Roger Harrabin, the BBC’s environmental analyst, is such a fanatical warmist, to the extent that he faithfully reports every utterance of warmist zealots? Could part of the reason be financial? He is registered with this speaker agency and demands fees of between £5,000 and £10,000 to chair sessions at plush conferences on climate change themes. He modestly describes himself as follows:

Roger Harrabin, the BBC’s Environment Analyst, is one of the world’s leading journalists and broadcasters on the environment and energy, and a distinguished speaker, host and moderator. Roger Harrabin is a distinguished and influential figure in the British media who has won many awards for broadcasting on issues related to sustainable development.

Recent events that he has chaired include a conference organised by the Royal Society of Arts and the Soil Association on this theme:

The politics of food and farming are on the agenda as never before. Up to 30% of the average consumer’s carbon footprint can be put down to our current, intensive food and farming systems. The UK Government has signed up to a target to reduce our emissions by 80% by 2050 – but has so far resisted tackling the ‘elephant in the room’ of food and farming.

Also on the panel was (Lord) Peter Melchett, a former director of Greenpeace in the UK who once faced criminal charges for allegedly tearing up GM crops. Mr Harrabin has thus chaired a panel in which at least one participant may fairly be described as a greenie extremist and activist.

The pattern continues. Mr Harrabin has been a very busy boy on the conference circuit. He chaired this event in Prague (an EU climate change-fest); this one in February (the World Sustainability Conference); the annual conference of the Combined Heat and Power Association(another group trying to make as much cash as possible from global warming subsidies); a session in Milan at the Power-Gen Europe conference; this conference in London on Green Strategy; and finally, is due at this one, to be held held by the Economist in June.

Thus the BBC’s “environmental analyst” is making oodles of cash – tens of thousands of pounds – by using his privileged BBC position to persuade conference organisers to hire him. All of the events he chairs have a common thread in that they are greenies or warmists trying to foist their views on the rest of us or make as much money as they can out of the massive subsidies that the EU and our government spray about for anyone on the right bandwagon. Put another way, Mr Harrabin makes bucketloads of cash out of the alarmism he spreads and has a therefore a major vested interest in it. His actions stink.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

LAPDOG HARRABIN

Roger Harrabin, like the lackey he is, faithfully reports the House of Commons whitewash about the University of East Anglia leaked emails. Not a whisper of a challenge or alternative view to that the committee involved has laughingly claimed that the science behind climate change is intact – even though it did not have the competence or remit to do so. One day, politicians will wake up with a revolution on their hands because they are so drastically out of touch with public opinion and are treating with malicious contempt their constituents. For genuine opinion about what people think of the House of Commons report, you have to look elsewhere, for example, the comments here. In the meantime, the BBC will be making no efforts to report the true picture on climate change, or anything else that’s outside their liberal-lefty worldview.

Update: for an excellent assessment of why Harrabin’s account is so dishonest and disingenuous see Frank Furedi here at Spiked.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

B-BBC DIGEST

I wanted to update you on a very recent Biased BBC innovation, namely a Weekly Digest of the “Best of B-BBC” and this is being sent to 650 prominent MP’s and MEP’s. This is the result of the creativity and hard work of B-BBC contributor Graeme and we have already had some great feedback such as this…

Tory PPC for Lincoln Karl McCartney sent back:- “Thankyou for your email.  I’ve previously visited yoursite and indeed have the BBC’s telephone number on speed dial… I alsoattended a gathering hosted by the BBC Corporate Affairs section for PPCs andwas not reassured at all.

Others such as Nigel Farage have also responded favourable. We continue to get positive responses. The only Conservative MP’s who have asked NOT to receive the weekly digest are Alan Duncan, Simon Burns, and Michael Mates. What a shocker!
Bearing in mind the hundreds of prominent political eyes reading B-BBC, please do your best to ensure that comment here is civil at all times. We’re making an impact and we want to make sure everyone feels comfortable reading the blog. My sincere thanks to Graeme and I think this will help us further the mission to hold the BBC to account.
Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

TODAY EDITOR IS CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVIST

In Mongolia, it’s sadly been so cold this winter that a million animals have died, and many of the nomadic herders and farmers are said to be in desperate need of aid. The Today programme reported this story this morning, but guess what was missing from the equation? Any mention of that dreaded phrase “climate change”. This fits a pattern. Today reporters grind on about AGW every time there is a claim – however tenuous – that temperatures are getting hotter; but never when the reverse applies. Of course, one extremely bad winter does not prove cooling, but on Radio 4′s co-called flagship news programme, the topic is never discussed properly.

Could this be because Ceri Thomas, the editor of Today, is yet another BBC executive who is a climate change activist? Mr Thomas, it transpires, is on the board of a body called the Science Media Centre, another shadowy outfit that has been created, according to its own blurb, to act as:

first and foremost a press office for science when science hits the headlines. We provide journalists with what they need in the form and time-frame they need it when science is in the news – whether this be accurate information, a scientist to interview or a feature article.

An admirable objective, if – but only if – the Centre was properly neutral on matters of scientific controversy. But it it isn’t. It’s yet another collection of warming fanatics. It runs a number of briefings for journalists which show the reverse is true; everything they do on the climate front is geared towards the AGW perspective. So when Copenhagen was looming, who did the centre choose as its speaker to make sure journalists were properly in the picture? Why, none other than Vicky Pope, of the Met Office, who might be described as one of the UK’s warmists-in-chief. Others of these briefings follow exactly the same pattern and format, for example this one on so-called carbon sinks, which assumes as the start point that AGW is happening:

Efforts to control climate change require the stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, which in turn depends on the balance between our own emissions and natural carbon sinks. The Global Carbon Project has evaluated all the available evidence on carbon sinks and sources, the results of which have been published in Nature Geoscience. Two of the authors of the paper briefed journalists in their findings at the SMC.

I could go on, there’s tons more, but I have made the main point. Mr Thomas deems it acceptable that he is an active member of a body which is grafting away behind the scenes to prejudice the debate about climate science towards the warmist viewpoint.I know from other sources that he also responds to complaints about the programme’s climate change coverage by using sweeping warmist statements such as that there is a “great consensus” about climate change science, therefore there is only the need for him to afford “due impartiality” to sceptics – which means in practice that they rarely, if ever, appear on Today. And, in turn, that the programme is totally biased in its approach to the topic.

I submit that because of his activism, Mr Thomas is not fit to edit Today – or any other BBC programme. He should resign immediately.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

The Curious Incident of Joe Biden in the Daytime

The tidal wave of disapproval over Israel’s recent misadventures has taken on a life of its own.

The Joe Biden incident was interpreted as an insult, both to him personally and to the whole United States. People have noticed that the language used by the Obama administration inflates the degree of offence taken, mimicking Arab-style rhetoric where pride and honour take precedence over common sense. The unfortunate timing of what was primarily a formality over an internal matter was blown up out of all proportion so it could be misrepresented as Israel’s deliberately planned symbol of defiance, and exploited to camouflage / justify Obama’s emerging strategy of siding with Israel’s enemies.

If the BBC was interested in reporting the full story they would have explained that Obama has reneged on previous agreements between Israel and the US over Jerusalem and ‘houses for Jews’ and is making new demands for concessions from Israel while letting the Palestinians off the hook altogether. He has not asked them for any concessions at all and it is feared that they are thinking up new preconditions for talks about talks while the going is good.

The BBC’S expansionist attitude to the concept of ‘illegally occupied territory’ means it now encompasses everything captured in Israel’s 1967 defensive war, and they’ve got their beady colonialist eye on Israel as a whole. All’s fair in love and war, and in the BBC’s eyes, in war, the winner loses all. (this concept is exclusive to Israel)

While the press made an almighty fuss about the height of the Turkish Ambassador’s seat, the BBC is less keen to trumpet the snubs that Obama dishes out so rudely to those he regards as unworthy, like our own dear leader, and of course Binyamin Netanyahu, who seems to have been left alone in the White House to mull over a list of new demands from Obama while he went off to dine with Michelle and the girls. And would only come back if Israel’s prime minister said sorry for being a naughty boy.

David Miliband’s speech about the expulsion of the Israeli diplomat received a chorus of approval from MPs of all shades, and though he stressed that the issue in question was the cloning of passports rather than the assassination, the BBC doesn’t make that distinction.

Time after time people have been allowed to assert, unchallenged on the BBC, that the ‘victims’ of the cloning, the ‘British’ citizens who have been so wronged, risked being mistaken for terrorists. The final question on Thursdays QT was phrased strangely. Something like: “Is expulsion the appropriate penalty for an act of terrorism?” Dimbleby seemed happy enough with that.

In the eyes of the BBC and consequently, the public, Israel is a terrorist state, therefore Mossad, the IDF and whoever assassinated a ‘senior Hamas Commander’ are terrorists. Unless it transpires that it wasn’t Israel, in which case they’d be militants or freedom fighters.

David Miliband said the victims of the cloning woke up to find themselves ‘wanted terrorists.’ Denis MacShane on the Today programme bemoaned the fact that they had had their pictures splashed all over the papers.

Well, a) I thought the passport pictures were of the actual assassins, not the genuine passport holders, and, b) when the word terrorist is avoided like the plague by the BBC, why is it suddenly applied with gay abandon to assassins who targeted a scoundrel, doing what many other countries, including Great Britain, allegedly get away with all the time without a ripple. Is it coz they is (possibly) Joos?

See Robin Shepherd on the odious Richard Ingrams who has written more bile on this topic. Famous for:
“I have developed a habit, when confronted by letters to the editor in support of the Israeli government, to look at the signature to see if the writer has a Jewish name. If so, I tend not to read it.

I have developed a habit, when confronted by articles in the Guardian or the Independent, to look at the signature to see if the writer is Richard Ingrams. If so, I tend not to read them.”

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

GREEN WASTE…

Here’s the BBC’s Richard Black at his best, positively beside himself with glee because China is now wasting more money on “renewables” than that nasty place of over-production and excess, the USA. His tone throughout is one of adulation for what China (and Britain – alarmingly for us now in third place) have achieved in tipping money down the drain. Note, too, that there is no mention in his report of the most crucial factor, namely that Spain’s policy over eight years of busting a gut to invest in green projects was a national disaster. A survey – the most detailed of its kind – by Spanish academics found:

Optimistically treating European Commission partially funded data, we find that for every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, Spain’s experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the US should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about nine jobs lost for every four created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Earth Hour vs Human Achievement Hour

On Radio Five Live’s Morning Reports today Nick Bryant ended a piece about Earth Hour with a quick reference to the Competitive Enterprise Institute counter campaign, Human Achievement Hour. The response from the newsreader in the studio (Vicki Sperrey?) amused me. Just in case listeners were in any doubt whose side the BBC is on…

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Small Icicle in Hades

On this week’s Now Show Jon Holmes took advantage of Marcus Brigstocke’s absence and actually did a segment mocking climate change alarmism. Hard to believe, I know. A sop to the show’s critics, perhaps?

Another interesting little point. Brigstocke’s replacement for the week was Paul Sinha whose routine was based – with stunning originality – on a Daily Mail article. However, he referred to it only as “a major national newspaper”. Has criticism of lazy right-on comedians using the words “Daily Mail” also hit home?

The story in the Mail was about a naughty word nearly appearing on Channel 4′s Countdown. For Sinha it was an opportunity to use another tiresome comedy cliché, namely the “Have you seen those crazy comments under right-wing newspaper articles?” bit. He riffed off a comment on the Mail’s website from Doreen in Dorset who had written of the near-scandal: “More evidence of how moral standards have fallen in Brown’s Broken Britain.” If you look up the post by “Doreen” you’ll see she also adds: “When will they scrap the awful licence fee TAX?” This is clearly someone taking the piss out of Daily Mail readers. There are other comments like it, such as “Dave” in Maidstone: “Another idiotic waste of taxpayers’ money by Jonathan Ross and the BBC.” One wonders what percentage of comments on the Daily Mail website are actually written by crappy comedians stuck for things to joke about.

A better comedian might have questioned why so many newspapers covered this non-story (Guardian, Telegraph, Sun, Mirror) rather than take the all too familiar – and clearly fake – Daily Mail readers’ comments route.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Fun With Immigration Figures

From the Let’s Compare Headlines Dept, we have another example of counter-spin in action. Via Channel4s FactCheck we hear that:

“Gordon Brown has done it again. The statistics he used for 2009 are an under-estimate, because they don’t include all migrants. The figures he used for 2007 and 2008, however, do. So he’s misled the public by comparing the most flattering data for the latest year with the most unflattering data in the previous years.”

That gives us a stark insight into the subject of a surprisingly wide spread of headlines:

“How Gordon Brown’s podcast turned an immigration rise into a fall” – Daily Mail

“Gordon Brown accused of fiddling immigration figures” – Daily Telegraph

…a wide spread, because BBC doesn’t seem to think it’s that big a deal…

“Row over Gordon Brown immigration figures podcast”

A “row” sounds so much less interesting, eh? Move along, nothing to see.

Hat-tip to GeorgeR in the Comments

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

"We No Longer Own It"

The following, by BBC presenter Dotun Adebayo, was, according to ‘Damon’, a commenter at the Pickled Politics site, printed in the Voice newspaper in September 2008.

Damon’s view of it : “It seems all kinds of people can feel this ”loss of hegemony”. When it’s articulated by the white working class (in places like East London) it’s usually called racism.

I’ll let it speak for itself, but I wonder – what would have been the career trajectory of a white BBC presenter writing such a piece, lamenting the loss of an earlier (John Major’s ?) Brixton or White City and complaining that “all the shops are now owned by“? Would they still be at the BBC ?

WAVE BRIXTON GOODBYE.

There used to be a time when everyone knew that Brixton belonged to us.
We fought for it, and made love for it.
Some of us even died in that corner of the landscape that would ever be black.

It didn’t mean that white folks weren’t welcome, all that it meant is that they KNEW it was ours, the same way as when I go to Norfolk or Suffolk, or any of the shires, I know that it’s NOT ours.
I’m on my ‘p’s and ‘q’s when I go up country, because I don’t have the backative to claim it as mine. And all the youts know this, so they’ve got the bottle to shout out ”N*****!” from across the road when they see you walking down one of their village streets or quiet country lanes.

I don’t have a problem with that because I KNOW when I venture out there I’m in a white mans country and the white man makes the rules.
Brixton was different though. Babylon THOUGHT he made the rules until Brixton made a stand against the so-called Operation ‘Swamp 81′. As the late Bernie Grant MP would say, the police got a ”bloody good hiding” that time.

There were of course casualties on both sides. But at least the message was clear all around the country that Brixton belonged to us. And so did Tottenham. And so did Hackney and Stonebridge and Peckham and Handsworth and Moss Side and Cheetham Hill and St Paul’s, so on and so forth.

ROOTS

Where ever you had an inner city, you had a corner of England that would be forever Jamaican or Nigerian or Bajan or St Kittian. We didn’t just put down roots, we put down down-payments on those areas, or at least our parents did. And like the law states, if you own a piece of this green and pleasant land, it’s yours.
Nobody can take it away from you (unless you divert the mortgage payments to buy a Ferrari).
But 27 years on, Brixton no longer belongs to us. I went down there the other day and discovered another country. Oh, we were still evident. It wasn’t like ‘’spot the black man” but we no longer own it.
The bars, the clubs, the resturants and shops no longer belong to us. With the exception of a pattie shop or two, Brixton belongs to everybody but us. It’s the same in Tottenham and Hackney. We spend most of the money, but virtually the only things we own are barbershops and hairdressers.
We’ve got ourselves to blame. Look at the Asian community. They came here at more or less the same time we did. They didn’t just put downpayments on the areas they claimed, they bought them outright.
Often jointly, communally, together as one family. So when you go to Southall, Alperton, Ealing, Whitechapel, and the other London areas they own, it’s all about Indiashire, Londonistan and Bangla-Brick Lane. They own the houses, the businesses AND the councils.
So who do you think makes the rules in those areas? It’s not the Women’s Institute and the Rotary Club and the Freemasons, I can tell you. Forget the local parish church and the sound of Bow Bells, it’s the Hindu temples and the mosques that call the shots, and if the Imam wants to call the belivers to worship at five in the morning, that’s up to him.

Like I said, we’ve got ourselves to blame. We had it all in the palm of our hands and we threw it away. We could have been contenders. We could have controlled entire neighbourhoods, businesswise and otherwise.
We should be in control of our local councils in those areas where we are/were the majority.

VICTORIES

But after the street battles that won us our victories of the past (and not just us, because let’s face it – Asian communities benefited from the blood we shed in the eighties (the two Asian people burned to death in Handsworth Post Office didn’t – LT)) we rested on our laurels. Like ex-slaves, we indulged our new found freedoms far too long and partied until it was 1999. By then of course it was too late.

During the eighties and nineties more drugs were pumped into the black communities of Britain than ever before. I lived in and worked in Brixton at the time. Previously it had been all about the good sensi (or collie or lamb’s bread, as it used to be known). After the riots of 1981 and 1985, we began to see the emergence of hard drugs – heroin, speed, then cocaine, and then, of course, crack.

The drugs did their job, They subdued our people into submission. Those very same crack addicts that you see in ‘black’ neighbourhoods are the same guys who used to live on the frontline ready to protest at the injustices we suffered. Those injustices are still here, but if you ask the warriors of old to come out and demonstrate, they’ll fall prostrate, begging for one more hit.

You see, in winning the streets we really didn’t win anything. The streets belong to everybody, whatever your local gang might think. Real power and real wealth is all about who controls the means of production, the judiciary and executive.

The Nigerians of Peckham know this. They are the new Jamaicans. It remains to be seen whether they will be seduced into not buying the freehold of that corner of south east London that will forever be ‘Lagos’.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone