GREEN GREED

GREEN GREED

>> THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2011

What these 200 companies actually mean when they say they demand "more action on climate change" is that they are after more subsidies from the money that government is taking off us in taxes, and they want more green taxes on the public so that the government will be able to give them more subsidies.

This story proves beyond doubt the grim reality that every single one of our major companies has now been infected by the the corporate responsibility disease and has high priests of green nuttiness at board level advising strategy.

And these parasites have realised that if they hold out their begging bowls marked "green" and chant the phrase "action on climate change" loudly (turning in circles as they do so), they will be lavishly filled with Chris Huhne's largesse.

Jo Nova points out eloquently here what these green measures entail: the Canadian government has just committed to introduce measures to reduce temeperatures at the equivalent of $84 trillion per degree (at least it's centigrade, not Fahrenheit).

What's terrifying is that the same is being requested here. Richard Black , as usual, recycles the views of these grasping eco-nutters with grim self-smug satisfaction. Not for one second does he doubt that they are right, and nor does he have the self-awareness to realise he's nothing but a pawn in their greedy, eco-fascist games.

MORE ON THAT BBC COMPLAINT

The BBC does not seem to enjoy having complaints about it being made public.

Yesterday, I blogged the genuine concerns of a B-BBC reader and license payer; here is what he received back this morning from the BBC. In my view, a Public Broadcaster should have nothing to fear from frank and honest examination of complaints, don't you think?

From: NewsOnline Complaints <newsonline.complaints@bbc.co.uk> Date: Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 8:40 AM Subject: RE: Your complaints To: xxxxx Mr X, Complaints handlers would have no knowledge of whether or not you had taken your concerns to the BBC Trust. If you have issues about this decision you may take them to the Trust, as you may any about the handling of the process. The BBC does not oblige its staff to give their names in such correspondence to prevent advantage being taken of such information.We note you have chosen to make this private exchange public. BBC News website

My italics. Guess who reads Biased BBC? Here's an invitation from me to the BBC Complaints Department. If you seek to have those of us who pay your salary to better understand you and your ways, be transparent.

If you think I am being unfair, please feel free to comment here and put your case.

I won't ban you for two years...

ANYTHING BUT THE TRUTH...

>> WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2011

Spot what's missing from this piece of so-called reporting by the BBC.

Predictably, this most disturbing report about the agonising impact of fuel poverty has been processed by BBC business "reporter" Damian Kahya without mentioning at all the key fact - namely, that all this heartbreak has been engineered by green policies which have deliberately jacked up the price of electricity generation in the lunatic quest to shift to so-called renewables. It reminds me of the story I was told when I started as a cub reporter back in 1974.

I was sent to cover an amateur dramatic play. My news editor (a dour Yorkshireman who was a veteran of D-Day) growled as his parting shot as I left: "And remember, lad, we sacked your predecessor.

He went to a play, and when I asked him where his copy was a couple of days later, he told me he had not been able to file anything because the lead actor had fallen off the stage and died so the performance didn't finish".

Joking aside, as I noted this morning, Richard Black and his eco-fascist BBC chums now actually want to make the problem of fuel poverty hundreds of times worse by introducing a well-head oil tax.

The BBC: reporting only the information that fits with its world view.

BBC REJECTS COMPLAINING!

Here is a tale of how the BBC treats those who raise genuine concerns. I am sharing the email exchange for your interest with the permission of the person concerned.

Have to say I was stunned by the decision made against the license payer concerned; Your views? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: NewsOnline Complaints <newsonline.complaints@bbc.co.uk> Date: Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 4:16 PM Subject: Re: Your complaints To: XXXXXX Mr X We have been considering the various complaints you have submitted in recent weeks - more than 20 in the past two months alone to the News website and more to our central complaints handling unit. Looking at your recent correspondence to the News website, most are commenting, disputing or debating detailed and often minor points, contesting that they constitute left-wing bias on the part of the BBC.

BBC News does not, as you suggest, adopt a particular standpoint or take views about the events it reports.

Many of the points made in your complaints take issue with language that we maintain is factual and neutral and overlook balancing comments included in reports. The language used in our reporting, examples of which you have disputed, is governed by our published Editorial Guidelines. We cannot agree that any of the examples you have raised in these many complaints shows clear evidence that these guidelines have been breached.

You also complain about bias in articles that are clearly marked as viewpoints and about stories reported in other media that have apparently not been covered by the BBC. As an illustration, we have reviewed some of your recent complaints. In this story - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15196078 - you complain that the headline "Bank of England injects further £75bn into economy" conveys support for their action, but we believe it is a perfectly neutral term.

You also say there is no alternative view when we had included a comment about the National Association of Pension Funds (NAPF) calling for an urgent meeting with the pensions regulator to discuss ways of protecting UK pension funds from the negative effects of QE.

"Quantitative easing makes it more expensive for employers to provide pensions and will weaken the funding of schemes as their deficits increase," said Joanne Segars, chief executive of the NAPF. You asked why we did not carry a comment from the Telegraph on trader Alessio Rastani when we have made clear that we have carried out our own investigation into his credibility.

You claim that this article - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14978876 - which states that "the English riots were 'sparked by the police shooting of a black man in north London" paints a picture of the rioters as being motivated by a sense of injustice. It is simply stating a fact but you appear to wish to interpret it as a political comment. You further say that the article "also tells us that the rioters were 'venting their fury' at 'high unemployment and painful austerity measures'. In fact, that is clearly a reference to factors behind protests in other countries. It was a long, hot spring and summer on the streets of Greece, England and Madrid, as protesters and rioters vented their fury at high unemployment, painful austerity measures and following a fatal police shooting in London.

You complained that this article - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15047660 - "referred to firms 'overcharging passengers and ripping off customers'. That is emotive language, and shows left-wing bias." You would not accept our explanation that the comments were clearly attributed to Ed Miliband. About this report - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-15319924- you wrote: "As happened during the recent riots in the UK, the BBC is using the word 'protestors' rather than 'rioters', thereby giving the criminals legitimacy." In fact, the article does refer to rioters. You complained that this report - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14483149 - did not include other "politically incorrect" explanations for the riots, which you list. However, the article makes clear that it is examining theories put forward in the media, not seeking to posit its own explanations. In our view, this correspondence therefore now represents a disproportionate use of BBC staff time and consequently of our increasingly limited licence fee resources. In accordance with the BBC's framework for handling complaints, we must inform you that the BBC’s expedited complaints handling procedure will now be applied to any complaints you make citing further examples to allege left-wing bias in BBC news coverage. For the period of two years from the receipt of this email, we will continue to read any complaints you submit, whether directly to production teams or via the central handling unit, but they will not be investigatedunless "they appear to raise a substantive issue or disclose a serious prima facie case of a breach of the Editorial Guidelines where there is a significant prospect that the complaint might be upheld". Full details of the procedure can be found here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/regulatory_framework/protocols/2010/e3_complaints_fr_work.pdf Should you wish, you may write to the BBC Trust within 20 working days to request an appeal against this decision. Best wishes, BBC News

BLACK TAX

Here we go again...Richard Black advocating at full throttle that governments should start taxing oil at the well-head to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Begrudgingly, he concedes that efforts to create a "carbon" market have been a fiasco and a farce, but now he reckons that every barrel of oil should cost more. Words fail me...he is actually advocating - at a time when energy prices are going through the roof because of idiotic, cack-handed government policies - that billions round the world who rely on fossil fuel should be made to suffer hardship. It's an appalling prospect, akin to the tax on bread (via tithes) in pre-revolutionary France, and shows how reckless about human welfare green zealots are. In their bigoted pursuit of the climate change creed, they want a re-imposition of repressive, regressive state larceny. Those who would be hurt the most are the poor, the old and the young, particularly in developing economies, but no matter Mr Black, you are saving the world here - so they can suffer. What's doubly depressing is Mr Black's report of a BMA conference on Monday attended by a coterie of climate change fanatics who are in, or have held, senior positions within broadly the establishment, including, really worryingly the armed forces. All of them agreed like lemmings that climate change is an immediate threat to security, and of course, Mr Black lapped it all up and reported their lunacy with admiring relish. Meanwhile, in the real world, the debunking of such climate scare buffoonery goes on apace.

BACK TO THE EGG...

As a bit of a veteran of BBC radio debates, I can tell you that one of the biggest challenges is the way in which the host can limit your ability to react and respond to whoever you are debating with. This can be really frustrating and when one holds views that do not synch with BBC- as is the case with myself -it is also very predictable. You are told not to interrupt, your mic voice is turned down..so many ways to keep you in your box. It is against this factual background that I invite you to listen to THISinterview on the BBC earlier today between Professor Lisa Jardine of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and Dr David King of the campaign group Human Genetics Alert. Funny how Lisa gets to bully, hector, interrupt and contradict the polite Dr King. I felt sorry for Dr King - but then again if he will insist on holding views contrary to BBC group think, what can he expect?