Ever wondered why your complaints to the BBC about their coverage of climate change and immigration go nowhere?
Bishop Hill could have the answer to one of those…and the BBC register of interests the other.
Here Bishop Hill brings us a leak, via the Guardian, of the result of a complaint to the BBC about Lord Lawson being ‘allowed’ to speak on the BBC (Transcript of interview)
New BBC policy: right is wrong, wrong is right
Reviewing the broadcast, the BBC’s head of editorial complaints, Fraser Steel, took a dim view. “Lord Lawson’s views are not supported by the evidence from computer modelling and scientific research,” Steel says, “and I don’t believe this was made sufficiently clear to the audience …
So probably not much good complaining about the lack of contrasting views about the ‘science’ to Fraser Steel:
- Fraser has overall responsibility for the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit, which investigates complaints about serious breaches of editorial standards where the complainant is not satisfied with previous replies from the BBC, or where a complaint has been taken up by the external regulator Ofcom.
- He is required to investigate impartially and independently. His findings are subject to appeal to the BBC Trust, but cannot be overruled by the BBC Executive.
Well worth his £90,000 remuneration.
Though he seems to think he’s not busy enough and has taken a second job…….
UK Immigration Services has over 15 years experience offering legal advice on UK immigration rules including assistance with UK citizenship applications.
- We are members of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants(JCWI) who campaign for justice in immigration and asylum law.
- Easy to find, 10 minutes from Heathrow Airport and 45 minutes from Central London.
How on earth can someone working for the BBC, especially as the head of the complaints department, many of which will be about the BBC’s immigration coverage, and also working for an immigration advisory and campaign group, be considered by any stretch of the imagination, impartial?
Apart from the fact that his decision on climate change is clearly ill-informed about the ‘science’ and therefore his judgement questionable, he clearly has a vested interest in keeping immigrants ‘flocking’ here and using the services of his company.
Alternative comment (and just as true): “The evidence from computer modelling and scientific research is not supported by the facts,”… and I bet this was made sufficiently clear to the audience …
Straight from the Beeboid Harrabin song-sheet?:-
“Slate: Climate change could have led to the rise of ISIL”
By Robert Spencer.
[Opening excerpt]:-
“Let’s see: we know that it couldn’t be that the jihadis think that Islamic texts and teachings justify violence and warfare against unbelievers (and apostates and heretics). And we know it couldn’t be that Sunnis in Iraq were never going to acquiesce to Shi’ite rule, and that ultimately their resentments boiled over into all-out jihad. We know that it couldn’t have anything whatsoever to do with Islam, right? So the problems in Iraq must then be attributable to global warming!”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/06/slate-climate-change-could-have-led-to-the-rise-of-isil
The BBC is potty.
I think that’s a very generous way of putting it.
(caveat – have I missed a pun somewhere?)
‘evidence from computer modelling’
A computer programmer is given observational evidence to produce a simulation of what they think happened. But there is no evidence that computer models using carbon dioxide driven climate change have ever produced predictions that came true.
In Astronomy, computer simulations for planetary orbits are checked with observations in reverse or retrospective computer runs, this is a point that Peter Lilly brought up with an idiot from the Met Office.
The useful idiot did not seem to have even thought about this for carbon dioxide climate change computer models.
It proves my point that we have BBC morons with poetry qualifications controlling the BBC’s complaints procedures and pontificating about and misrepresenting the science, while at the same time using this as an excuse to censor the science, scientists and even scientific debate by non-scientists like Lord Lawson.
Quite right, and in any event, Lord Lawson’s arguments are about the economics of “fighting” climate change, which will cost more than adaptation, much more than about the science.
I remember being sent this in an email about the investigation into the BBC complaints team.
The BBC now receives over 20,000 complaints every month and all the complaints go to a team of about 400 BBC staff in Belfast. About 30 people deal with the more serious complaints. Some of the names of the BBC staff who make up this team are Colin Tregear, Fran O’Brien, Stephanie Harris, Fraser Steel, Bruce Vander and Michael Fadda.
The BBC Trust Editorial Standards Committee members are: Alison Hastings (chair), Richard Ayre, David Liddiment, Sonita Alleyne, Bill Matthews and Nick Prettejohn. With Elan Closs Stephens, Anthony Fry, Rotha Johnston and Mehmuda Mian being former members of this committee.
The Complaints and Appeals Board members include Richard Ayre (chair) and Bill Matthews (deputy).
‘a leak, via the Guardian, of the result of a complaint’
Some have noted just how quickly this whole thing seems to have been fast-tracked and then ‘covered’ by a ‘leak’ in, surprise, the Graun.
It’s almost like the two have an unofficial relationship that takes conflict of interest and ethical standards to whole new, lower levels.
‘The BBC now receives over 20,000 complaints every month’
As with Lord Patten before, Lord Coe possibly in future, and of course Mr. Steel now, the realistic commitment of sensible, genuine time to the BBC complaints process at any stage is of course a farcical fiction. Lucky every ‘sorry we missed deadline’ doesn’t have a skinny latte ring on it because he’s also helping a fellow £300k non-jobber with her barista commitments mid-afternoon onwards.
A collection of 400 drones are paid to grind away most not on merit but cut and paste attrition and bovine belief -intoning repetition.
Rather clearly by replies now shared here, even if elevated to ECU director level, it’s simply higher paid blow off merchants issuing templates (RD & Dave’s tardy attempts not to explain the Croydon Romanian connection reported serves in illustration.
If by some miracle it does get to the Trust to mull, there is no way of knowing what they see. It is all in secret, filtered in and back out by the very people being complained about.
Persistence can seem futile, as they also have the nuclear option of a banning. Again, their little secret on justifications why, no backsies, FOI excluded.
About as powerful, corrupt, and powerfully corrupted a system it is possible to create.
Which is why it was created.
I hope Lawson challenges this on at least 2 grounds.
First, the stupid “judgment” refers to evidence coming from computer models. You don’t get evidence from models – you get projections / forecasts. Evidence means hard data, data derived from observations. And all the hard data says there has been no warming for nearly 18 tears – whatever projections the models may spew out.
Secondly, people seem to be hugely annoyed that Lawson contradicted Bryan Hoskyns on all this – how very dare a mere layman challenge the view of a (non-climate) scientist. Lawson said there had been no warming, Hoskys reponded that there had – but it was all somehow sunk in the deep oceans, Lawson said there was nil evidence for this assertion, it was mere speculation.
On both these issues – Lawson takes the “scientific approach” – whereas Hoskyns takes the “speculation” approach. It is Hoskyns who is the sceptic – he is sceptical about year after year after year of evidence that there is no warming happening.
It is time to turn the tables. Accuse the Warmists / panic-mongers of being sceptical about the real science, the real data.
This looks about the most stupid decision the BBC could have reached – it is still in draft, apparently, but it really is ridiculous on its face, totally contradictory. In a way, I hope the BBC sticks to its stupidity and gets slapped down by Lawson,, this will expose even more how far the blind BBC bias goes.
At the BBC, belief, speculation, assumptions, consensus and political ideology are preferred to facts, proof, evidence, observations, correlations, results from experiments and the scientific method.
Is a popular opinion about the morons at the BBC, by intelligent astronomy special interest group readers.
Indeed, the hundreds of model runs from the CMIP-5 Global Circulation Models are not outputing real data from the real world. They have real data entered into them and then that data is stuffed through a code version of a variant of the CAGW hypothesis and then estimated projections are spit out the other end.
Basically all the models can be is nothing more than a demonstration of a variation of the CAGW hypothesis. They are not a test of the hypothesis. Only by observing the real climate and comparing that real data, with what the models projected, can we test the models for accuracy.
Hindcasting is NOT testing the models.
On so-called climate change, I remember back in 1996 Bill Giles the weatherman said that climate change would make France uninhabitable within twenty years. Well, the twenty years will be up the year after next; I live in France and there is absolutely no sign of his prediction coming true. Funny how we never hear from him apart from his stint in a retirement advert. He should be brought out of hiding and made to account for his statement.
You must be joking: he never said that!
To quote the lies ajabeeba have told in other complainants from this board.
As do I, and every year more and more join us to escape what our once wonderful country has become, thanks to the BBC and their ilk.
By the way, not the South-West, by any chance?
Yes, still, a quick daytrip back to London for Maggie’s funeral last year did leave one feeling homesick on the flight home. Remembering what made Britain great has that effect I suppose.
If there was any serious democratic party seeking to restore Britain’s greatness, I’d be back like a shot. But one has pestered Melanie Phillips enough times to know that’s not going to happen. Well, a thousand years glorious history leaves one with some good memories to live off. …