Did you read this?

“The BBC has spent tens of thousands of pounds over six years trying to keep secret an extraordinary ‘eco’ conference which has shaped its coverage of global warming,  The Mail on Sunday can reveal. The controversial seminar was run by a body set up by the BBC’s own environment analyst Roger Harrabin and funded via a £67,000 grant from the then Labour government, which hoped to see its ‘line’ on climate change and other Third World issues promoted in BBC reporting.”

Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to ROGER AND OUT…

  1. Kebab Time says:

    after they covered up Jimmy Savile ( Janet Street Porter ) are we honestly surprised?


  2. Old Goat says:

    Delingpole’s on board with this, too.

    As is BishopHill:

    And WattsUpWithThat:

    I wish that the BBC would sink, without trace, in the sea of effluent of its own making. And may Harrabin, as erstwhile captain of that particular ship of fools, go down with it.


  3. Richard Pinder says:

    This serious breach of the BBC charter was recently raised with Lord Patten and Lord Hall at a meeting of the Media, Culture and Sport Select Committee, by Philip Davies MP, who asked why the BBC had spent a quarter of a million pounds on resisting a freedom of information request for the names of the 28 people at that BBC climate change seminar. 28, of what the BBC called “the best scientific experts“. It turned out that only three climate scientists where present, and those three where only qualified in measuring the temperature, the seminar was made up of environmental activists without a single causational or attribution climate scientist present, not a single atmospheric physicist or solar scientist was present at that seminar.

    Although it was not reported on the mainstream media at the time, the BBC did have to broadcast it as part of the meeting on BBC Parliament.


  4. David Preiser (USA) says:

    The main difference between all their conclusions and mine is the end takeaway. They all seem most concerned that this is evidence of the government paying to subvert the reporting of the allegedly editorially independent BBC. I say that in fact it’s the exact opposite.

    The BBC was already pushing Warmism. They had two activists as their top “journalists”, Black and Harriban, on the subject already. This wasn’t instigated by the Labour Government: it was instigated by an activist posing as a journalist, Roger Harrabin, and abetted by top BBC management. Harrabin and the Warmists at the BBC – including Helen Boaden, Mark Thompson (who didn’t attend but must have approved), Jana Bennett, Fran Unsworth, George Entwistle, Peter Horrocks – were ready, willing, and able to set this propaganda scheme in motion. They didn’t need prompting or money from the government to do it. They just needed the facade of a third party posing as experts to pay for it, and off they went.

    The real scandal is that the BBC was itself already corrupted, and allowed one of their journalists to seek government funding to pay for the aegis under which they influenced programming across the spectrum of BBC broadcasting, including “factual” programming as well as comedy and drama.

    The government was only too happy to hand out the money when asked, of course. But the government didn’t instigate it: Harrabin did, and BBC top management made it happen. The same BBC top management who covered this up also tried to cover up Savile, Balen, and the fat payoffs. Yet Bishop Hill and Delingpole are moaning about Labour?


    • john in cheshire says:

      Activist = Troublemaker


      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        Only if one disagrees with their ideology.


        • john in cheshire says:

          I’m afraid I see it as yet another word that has been hijacked by the left. As, for example, they have redefined the word ‘progressive’.


          • David Preiser (USA) says:

            It’s not “activist” they’ve redefined here, john. It’s “journalist”.


          • F*** the Beeb says:

            ‘Progressive’ to them means discrimination by design, against the “correct” people.


    • George R says:

      And there is no sign that the current Director General, Tony HALL, is doing other than still supporting such political propaganda and corruption.


  5. Sceptical scientist says:

    This isn’t really news as the whole scandal was brilliantly exposed in Andrew Montford’s book “The Propaganda Bureau”. Supposedly it was a gathering of scientists, but when the list was published the only supposed scientists, apart from Robert May, were those of the “post-normal” science persuasion like Mike Hulme of the UEA Tyndall Centre. The Daily Mail has taken some time to pick up on this one, unless I’ve got it wrong and this is a separate new BBC cover-up.


    • johnnythefish says:

      In fact 28gate was debated at some length on this website about 18 months ago (and has received numerous mentions ever since) and was covered by some in the Australian press (for example) at that time.

      So what has taken the UK press so long? It doesn’t make sense.


  6. Cosmo says:

    Cover up’s. The bbbc wrote the manual. How many ref’s to Balen on this site over the years ?


  7. westie says:

    So the BBC is controlled by a bunch of kock-sucking, paedophilic, Fabian Elites + Camp Followers. Get the ROPE!


  8. pah says:

    Scott is that you?


  9. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Spotted at Bishop Hill:

    Readers may remember my interest in Tina Rothery, the anti-fracking activist who suggested to the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee that she was a local resident protesting against the Lancashire shale developments. This was surprise since she had also spent the summer in Balcombe protesting developments there as well as having been involved in the Occupy movement in London.

    Today, she turned up again on the Radio 5 phone-in, described as an anti-fracking activist from Gainsborough, Lincolnshire. The show also featured James Verdon of the Frack Doctor blog, and a very balanced contribution from Roger Harrabin.

    Gosh, I wonder why the BBC decided today to break Rule #1, and especially why Harrabin was so careful? 🙂 🙂 🙂


  10. F*** the Beeb says:

    What really amuses me though is that it’s not only deliberate cover-ups where the BBC practices this sort of fallacial, ad hominem intellectual dishonesty and straw man smokescreening. They’ve even done it when they’ve taken the correct side, for reasons that I can only assume are pure laziness.

    Take 9/11. There’s a lot of conspiracy theories that seem compelling and plausible at first glance but dig a little deeper and they’re all easily debunked. All the BBC had to do was talk about the theories in an interesting and informed way, or perhaps even show one or two of the documentaries made on the subject then balance that out by airing the debunking documentaries or making one of their own that was purely evidential. Instead, they picked the weakest examples that aren’t even considered particularly credible by ‘Truthers’ (for instance, they spent a comparatively long time “analysing” the ridiculous notion that all the Jews at the WTC were forewarned when nobody with any sense said that, clearly designed to tar everyone who doubts anything about the events as anti-Semitic which is pretty ironic given how much the BBC loves Islam) and gave them very little screen-time, with non-theorists – which for the record included federal investigators and members of the government, so hardly impartial – outnumbering them by three or four to one. They also spent a decent amount of time on fluff like looking around the theorists houses and hearing the guy who made Loose Change talk about his laptop for about a minute, eating away precious time that could have been better spent actually dissecting their theories. And, they deliberately chose footage that made the theorists look like bad or short-tempered people while casting the others as calm and controlled, also calling Popular Mechanics ‘no nonsense’ which was another thinly veiled attempt at nudging their viewers in the right direction in the same way as they think calling a documentary “The Truth About Immigration” will mean they’ll believe
    everything in it.

    The BBC had a topic where the evidence for the official cause and timeline of events heavily outweighs the foundations of the conspiracy theories. There was no need for them to bullshit people in this way. Nor was there any need to follow this with a completely pointless, vacuous show in which Andrew Maxwell (whose authority on 9/11 and conspiracy theory debunking is…erm, being an obscure stand-up comedian who was on Mock the Week a couple of times and has no record of public academia) took a bunch of teenagers to America so he could manipulatively have them meet someone who was nearby when it happened and the mother of one of the people on Flight 93, all the while talking purely emotionally about how he can’t believe people would think a government would do this while showing amazing political naivety in the process. Both of them, obviously, just served to validate the truth movement because it poses the question as to why the BBC would produce such blatant hatchet jobs if the evidence was as clear-cut as they were making out.

    The answer can only be one of two things – the BBC’s journalism and documentary departments really are that inept, unprofessional, and juvenile that they can’t even tell how biased and partisan they come across, and those that do notice just hope the public’s too stupid to realise. Or, they’re doing it deliberately to stoke a reaction and strain relations even further. Considering how they’ve tried to portray Duggan as a victim of institutional racism instead of the thuggish gangbanger he was, my guess is the latter.

    This would all be funny if people weren’t being harmed as a direct consequence.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      In case anyone wants to start claiming the BBC is a Zionist shill or whatever which tries to hide the “truth” about 9/11, just last month they ordered Tara McKelvey to write up a nice big piece about a new truther ad campaign which was gaining traction among the Canadian public. Apparently the journalist who wrote a debunking piece in 2008 was just trying to silence the truthers, and the door is still open to suspecting there’s a larger truth we aren’t being told.

      Many at the BBC do harbor truther suspicions. This is backed up by what they originally wrote in the Newsround piece about it, in which they said it was only a US theory that Al Qaeda was behind it. Only a truther would even think to write such a thing, and only a truther editor would approve it and let it stand. The fact that it took a very long time for anyone to complain shows just how many people thought it was okay.

      Anyone claiming the BBC is hiding the truth should talk to some lower-level Beeboids directly and find out.


  11. George R says:

    Typical ‘greenie’ undemocratic actions against the development of shale gas, actions which Beeboids do not condemn, but apparently support.

    “Anti-fracking protesters arrested for obstruction after climbing on to lorries.

    “The three men were arrested at Barton Moss after they climbed two stationary lorries at the site refusing to get down for more than an hour.”


    • George R says:

      Beeboids’ idea of a useful, fair debate is one you rig to win 3-2.

      “Barton Moss fracking: For and against”

      And to make their favoured outcome more possible, Beeboids accept direct occupation of the site as very acceptable to them.


      • George R says:

        We can all play that school-kid game:-

        ‘Biased-BBC blog’ could conduct a survey of 5 people and find that by 3-2 vote, the majority favoured the ending of the BBC licence fee; oh, and incidentally, it could be that various BBC HQs were being occupied by opponents of the licence fee to ensure it was scrapped! This is the ludicrous mentality which Beeboids adopt on shale gas.


  12. George R says:

    Christopher Pincher MP: “The race for British shale gas is on”