Britannia Radio

 

BROKEN TRUST...

>> THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 04, 2010

The BBC World Service Trust is an arm of the BBC that receives £17.9m a year - mainly from the Department for International Development and the EU (52%)- to train broadcasters to spread messages about development. Some of what it does is vital and laudable; for example helping to spread knowledge about HIV/Aids through the development of soap operas that are actually listened to. However, and as in everything the BBC does, it is a big caveat, there is a sinister side to its mission. It campaigns loudly about 'the environment', and inevitably, where BBC folk are involved, that actually means about 'climate change'. Take, for example, Africa Talks Climate (do you notice the missing word?)about which the organiser says: 

The drive to help people understand issues such as climate change and to have the opportunity to speak and act is at the heart of our work...In a partnership project funded by the British Council, ten countries have been identified in which BBC WST researchers will be conducting research: DR Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda. The major objective of Africa Talks Climate is to identify the entry points to engage, inform and empower Africans in local, national and international conversations about climate change. To achieve this, the initiative will collate opinions and then amplify the voices of people at all levels of society. 

Interestingly, this was all done with the British Council, which as EU Referendum has pointed out today, is another government-funded body which has been infested with 'climate change fervour. 

Back with WST, their efforts extend to the eastern Caribbean and South America, but also to India. Here, the trust's aim was again to train journalists:

An extensive training programme for journalists and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) was carried out in nine Indian states to improve the quality and quantity of information published in the media and to create a better flow of information between environmental NGOs and the media. 

Their partner in part of the enterprise was TERI (The Resources and Energy Institute) set up by none other than Ravendra Pachauri, the boss of the IPCC. TERI itself is not without controversy (to put in mildly), but, eh, this is 'climate change', so for WST, it's simply "our non-profit partner". 

Now I'm all for Indians and Africans (and anyone else) becoming more aware of the need to treat the environment properly. But this, folks, as we well know, is not really about that. It's about the BBC pushing their 'climate change' lies and propaganda, and nothing will get in their way. The truth is that the World Service Trust, funded by our taxes, is busily at work persuading journalists round the developing world to spread lies and to hate the West for the injustices they have heaped upon them through CO2 emissions. The BBC, whose motto is "Nation Shall Speak Peace unto Nation" is frantically stoking up hatred instead.

DV AND NEWSNIGHT

Well now, did YOU catch my fleeting appearance on Newsnight on Monday evening perchance? It's about half ways through. I've been away for the past few days so first chance to catch up and update you on my close encounter with Michael Crick and the guys.

The background is that the political party to which I now belong - Traditional Unionist Voice - held a public meeting at the heart of the constituency of Northern Ireland's First Minister, Peter Robinson. This was our way of making it clear we will challenge his seat at the looming Westminster election. I was one of three speakers on the evening and Newsnight carried a few words. Crick was there and in fairness he did an interview with our Party Leader and then stayed for the duration. He then went off, obviously did some other interviews, labelled me and my colleagues "backwoodsmen" and ensured that the Newsnight item was on message i.e doing deals with terrorists is the right thing to do. Michael said it had been some time since he was in Belfast, I hope he will not leave it so long until the next time he comes back, I want a word with him.

FAT CAT CREAM

The big oil companies, once the greenies' villains of the peace, are now in bed with them. They are the cats that truly have the cream, because on top of their massive oil and gas reserves - which of course the world still needs - they are now also benefiting massively from the lunatic government subsidies for building wind farms and other so-called renewables. Their grasping greed is part of the sinister conspiracy that, as Ofgem pointed out yesterday, will lead to energy bills soaring to £5,000 a year by 2020 and regular power cuts well before then. So when Dr Anthony Hayward, the BP boss, comes down from his subsidy-fuelled castle to give - as fawning Evan Davis put it this morning on Today "a rare interview" - how is he treated? With sickening deference. Our chain-wearing Evan's first question was, he obviously thought, quite a toughie (and designed to be a sop to all those anti-warming 'deniers' he clearly sneers at); whether the great doctor actually believed in 'climate change', despite all the recent controversy. The answer was "yes", so naturally, this was treated as the gospel truth, and the rest of the exchange followed entirely predictable lines. It revealed nothing other than that BP is fat, complacent, and chillingly opportunistic. 

What Davis should have asked the good doctor is how much he and his company stands to make from government subsidies in the massive 'renewables' scam. That is precisely the qestion that the BBC will never ask.

"stretching the available facts"

>> WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 03, 2010

Matt Prescott, the well-connected eco-activist behind such ventures as the BBC's failed Planet Relief project (see Bishop Hill here and here for details on Prescott's connections with various BBC luminaries and for links to articles he has written for the BBC), has donned his recycled tinfoil hat to offer these observations on Climategate in the comments at the Guardian website:

Without doubt, whoever orchestrated this combined computer hacking and smear campaign was extremely sophisticated and would make a world-class PR spin doctor look amateur.
It is hard to believe that the average hacker has the PR skills required to pull of something so devastating, in terms of timing and content, single-handedly.
A large pool of people and organisations, much larger than just the UEA, will almost certainly have had to be hacked in order to provide the most juicy morsels and divert attention in particular directions.
Surely, it would have taken a long time and thus substantial resources to read thousands of emails and to pick out the key conversational threads, scientists and issues?
Again this feels like a very large project which would have need to be funded by individuals or organisations with extremely deep pockets and the ability to maintain absolute secrecy.
Given the size, wealth and skills found within the intelligence community the idea that the CIA, NSA or some other shadowy organisation has been up to something naughty, which would suit their national interest, is not a bad guess, but it should probably have been labelled as a guess, if this is all it was.

After all that, he concludes without any sense of irony:

If there is one lesson from "climate gate" it is that scientists need to be crystal clear about when they are discussing a view backed up by hard, empirical evidence and when they are speculating or stretching the available facts.