As Delingpole sees it - by Richard... Friday, July 16, 2010

As Delingpole sees it - by Richard... Friday, July 16, 2010

You get that close to a subject that you can't always see the wood for the trees. But Dellers sees it. We're effectively reporting the PCC to the er ... PCC, and asking for an adjudication.

Actually, it's not quite that bad – but close. The PCC is compromised, by having at least supported the perpetration of a falsehood, which it must now undo. The whole system is on trial here, and it is going to be interesting to see how it responds. One fears, however, that this is not going to be a rewarding experience.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Amazongate: Round two - by Richard...

Extended negotiations with The Guardian on the matter of George Monbiot, detailed in my previous post, have got nowhere beyond the stiff apology offered on the offending blog post and a promise of "right of reply".

The newspaper has decided that the comments made fall within the defence of "fair comment" and have thus refused any further remedy – which may explain the Moonbat's cockiness.

However, the Moonbat (pictured) is a tad premature in heralding what he states is my threat to sue. This is for a piece he says: "I wrote criticising his stance on global warming." In fact, the lad did a trifle more than that, accusing me of "peddling inaccuracy, misrepresentation and falsehood". That is aleeetle bit more than just straight criticism. But then the Moonbat's grasp of reality was always slight, which may account for him being a warmist.

What I had always stated, and made very clear to the paper, was that I wanted to attempt an informal resolution, failing which I would then take it to the next stage, with a submission to the Press Complaints Commission. Only then, if need be, would I consider a legal case, keeping my options open all the way through. To take a newspaper to the High Court is the last resort and, in any event, the Courts expect plaintiffs to have sought all possible avenues of remedy before going to law – which is precisely what I am doing.

However, there is another issue here which, when you think it through, is at the heart of the problem. That is the unnecessary and wrongful retraction of its original "Amazongate" story byThe Sunday Times. Bizarrely, the paper has retracted a correct assertion, that the IPCC's claim on the Amazon was unsubstantiated, and replaced it with a statement that the claim is supported by peer-reviewed scientific literature, which it is not.

There can be few occasions where a correct statement published by a newspaper has been removed and subject to an apology, and replaced by an inaccurate statement. And, in being inaccurate, it breaches the Press Complaints Commission code.

Thus, the most logical step at the moment is to make not one but two complaints to the PCC, one against The Sunday Times and one against The Guardian. This is what I have done. The complaint went in this morning, and the text is accessible here (42 pages PDF).

We are now in the unusual position of making a complaint to the PCC about the action of a newspaper, which was, as will be recalled, taken ostensibly in response to a PCC complaint by Dr Simon Lewis.

In fact, the newspaper took the action without there being a formal adjudication, and seems to have acted rather precipitately, having not consulted the original journalist or me – both of us being fully aware that the IPCC source is not peer-reviewed, original material.

Whether the PCC can step round its original involvement remains to be seem but, as can be seen from my submission, I have asked for a preliminary ruling as to what it considers is necessary for a scientific assertion to be considered "substantiated".

Nearly three months elapsed between Simon Lewis's complaint and The Sunday Times taking action, and we may see the same timescale here. But, however long it takes, readers can be assured that "Amazongate" is very far from over. It is only just beginning.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

And by the way - by Richard...

As my regular readers will know, I very rarely do "personal" on this blog. But, as the warmists crowd in, some of whom make a meal of the smallest imperfection and even the typos, I need to say that there will very often be typos and some rather odd mistakes on the first drafts of posts.

This is not through any lack of care but for the very simple fact that I very frequently suffer a form of migrane which closes down my peripheral vision - I end up only being able to see the words, letter by letter. Making sense of them can be a nightmare.

However, I have a band of willing and anonymous proof readers who vet my posts once they are published and send me corrections. I am very grateful for their help and through them, in time, most imperfections should be corrected. If you see a mistake, let me know and I will correct it. That's the way the world generally works. It is no big deal.

Print ready

Thick end of the wedge - by Richard...

"EU to be given prominent UN role," writes Bruno Waterfield, noting that the EU is to be given similar rights and powers to a fully fledged nation state in the United Nations general assembly.

This is the general assembly, not the Security Council, so it isn't taking our seat, and all that garbage. Not that it really makes much difference. On UN matters, we tend to follow the EU lead, only disguise it to make it look as if we are still in control ... just as we do with other EU-related issues.

The special significance here is that this is implementing the Lisbon treaty, and it is happening under the Tory watch – with absolutely no difference from what would have happened if Labour had managed to cling on to power. In other words, in this vital area of international relations, nothing at all is affected by a change in administration. We're shocked!

Little Willie Hague, conscious of the embarrassment quotient, is trying to put a brave face on it. EU sources are giving the game away though. They are telling Bruno that he was forced to "back down" and accept this enhanced role for the EU as part of the creation of a Brussels diplomatic service under the Lisbon Treaty. So much for "in Europe but not ruled by Europe", but then that always was fantasy.

We are also getting extruded verbal material from David Lidington, the Europe minister. He is stressing that Britain had imposed strict conditions on the EU's new UN role. Yeah, yeah. And Red Riding Hood imposed strict conditions on Big Bad Wolf before granny visiting rights were extended.

"The UK's support is strictly limited and does not imply agreement to seek additional rights in any other forums and does not prejudge whether the EU should actually exercise those rights on any particular issue," says Lidington.

Farage is in his element, with something happening that even he can understand. "This is the thin end of the wedge. How long before David Cameron concedes our seat at the UN Security Council?" he asks, throwing in an unmemorable one-liner to boot. "The Tory government has swallowed EU federalism hook, line and rusty old sinker," says his PR man on his behalf.

The thin end of the wedge analogies are a bit late though. We're well past the thin end, choking on the thick end ... and they're still hammering it in. You can see the wedge at the back of the picture and we're about two-thirds down it.

Funny enough, the only real opposition is coming from Arab and African countries. They have expressed anger because their own regional organisations will not be given the same privileges as the EU. But that will be the next step. Regional governments, as part of the New World Order.

Little Willie is watching it all happen, of course. But he can do (or will do) precisely nothing about it.