I’m head down at the moment helping to write a long paper on BBC bias that I hope will appear in print in due course. I missed – Autonomous Mind and Harmless Sky didn’t – that the BBC trustees had issued a grovelling retraction about the Steve Jones paper that is being used by the corporation to support its climate change activism. In a nutshell the public school hating Professor Jones – in a key section where he argues vehemently for the suppression of all dissent – fingered Lord Lawson and Lord Christopher Monckton for making crassly erroneous statements on specific BBC programmes. He simply did not check his facts. What he said was wrong and now the Trust has begrudgingly owned up, although – par for the course – they haven’t the grace to call it an apology or properly acknowledge their mistake. The retraction has instead been quietly attached to the latest version of the report.
It beggars belief that £140,000 of our cash was spent by the so-called regulatory body of a £3.5bn organisation on this report and that it saw the light of day with such crass errors. It confirms the vindictiveness and hate against “deniers” at the top levels of the corporation and the obscene rush to suppress them.
Part of my current research covers the operations of the BBC Trust. I will make my revelations soon. But what has happened here fits perfectly with what I have uncovered so far…the “trust” is anything but trustworthy on this and other editorial issues.
Sounds good, but what can be done to get anybody in authoriy(Patten for example) to do something constructive about it?Nobody seems to ask why if the BBC are truly impartial, are ALL their reporters, presenters and even comedians (!!??) are blatently left wing ?
The consensus? Purest evil at work, the left unable to allow to their putrid lies and corruption to be openly dissected or discussed in a free and open atmosphere can they?
The consensus is in fact a fabrication designed to shield and protect their grubby lies. If the so called consensus were that strong and robust it would easily stand up to criticism wouldnt it? Two ideas placed side by side and fairly presented by each side, but when one side is a pack of lies and when that side would lose EVERY free and fair debate EVERY time then the BBC cannot/dare not allow this.
This is the degenerate nature of the BBC, this is what the BBC represents, a degenerate culture of dishonesty and moral corruption to protect its political narrative. The word degenerate could have been crafted specifically for the BBC. How do we know for a fact that sceptics are right and correct to question the state of the so called ‘science’? Because the BBC will not allow a free and fair debate on the issues, what have they got to hide?
Did I read that correctly? This report cost £140,000?
Do we happen to know how much Prof. Jones was paid to tell the BBC they were brilliant?
And how much extra did we have to pony up so Steve Jones original tosh could be further amended. doctored and “nuanced” so that the “clarification” could be tacked onto the rotting barge that is the BBC?
The tone implies that the likes of Lawson are a bit thick, so they`ve had to go back and weigh a few of their words more carefully.
Good luck Robin with the upcoming expose…if you want a few humble research assistants ,count us in!
What are the chances that an e-petition could be organised (by Biased BBC) to request a debate on BBC political bias and the inability of the BBC Trust as currently constituted to monitor the Corporation.
This is what we are up against – The bBC Trust who represent the license-payer. Typical public sector quango-types.
Very interesting, Robin. Nigel Lawson is far from thick. Unfortunately, Jones is a bit rabid.
Look forward to reading your paper in due course. Also, like cj, if you need any assistance or to run it past a few people before publication, count me in.
A complaint from the membership of the Space Special Interest Group of Mensa about the documentary Hot Planet got the BBC Trusts knickers in a twist, they found that the BBC was more biased than the discredited IPCC, and that the findings bore little relevance to the communications with the group of members complaining. So I think Mensa members can confirm that Nigel Lawson must be very intelligent and that the BBC is full of morons.