Roger Harrabin has responded to the clear evidence that he (and the BBC)were bunged thousands of pounds to work with climate "scientists" at the UEA to indoctrinate BBC journalists about climate alarmism. Sadly I haven't the time to dissect his "I'm right, you're wrong" response in full - and commenters at Bishop Hill have already done a magnificent job. I urge you to read it in full. But what I will say is this: 1.Mr Harrabin clearly inhabits a parallel universe, where he still bloody-mindedly refers to a "consensus" among scientists for his authority for peddling propaganda. He seems totally oblivious, still, to the irony that the BBC event that decided there was such a consensus was stuffed full of warmist bigots (invited by him and his eco fascist colleagues)who had only one agenda, namely to spread more alarmism. 2.He tells us, in effect, that the reason he accepted the UEA cash and organised the seminars, and then went on to virtually exclude sceptics from talking was because his bosses in BBC News (Tony Hall and then Helen Boaden), as well as the trustees, sanctioned it. Well that's OK then. Bosses are always right and don't have agendas. 3.Mr Harrabin then tells us that HSBC, Vivendi, Bowring Trust, WWF, Economic and Social Research Council, Dept of Environment, Shell, as well as the Tyndall Centre for climate research, were all keen to have a "better" public debate about climate change". Like hell they were. Those that didn't have a direct axe to grind (eg the eco fascists at WWF) were keen to get their snouts into the climate change subsidy trough and to ensure that the BBC was doing its bit to spread approporiate alarmism. What's terrifying about this missive is its total disregard for the obvious. Mr Harrabin still believes he's done nothing wrong and is not even aware of the stench his actions have generated. And clearly those above him have not moved one iota, either. Yesterday, As I See It posted a comment in the open thread about how Lyse Doucet gave a report on Radio 5 in which she gently sanitized the Muslim Brotherhood ( I can't find a link to it right now, but if someone points to it I'll add it here). At one point, she apparently slipped up and said that Salafists are "extremists....er.....let me say strict...." Oops, nearly tanked the Narrative there. In any case, I was reminded of a post I saw by Jeremy Bowen back in February, where he said that the Muslim Brotherhood are"conservative, moderate and non-violent". WTF? I said to myself. How can they be both? By definition one cannot be the other. Any group calling for Shariah Law cannot be moderate. Yet Bowen saw no problem saying it. However, somebody had a problem with it, as he stealth-edited it out quickly. I failed to take a screenshot at the time, assuming News Sniffer would catch it if anything happened, but when I went back the next day, "moderate" had been removed, and News Sniffer had nothing. So I gave up on it. Fortunately, I've just remembered the Wayback Machine. Within a minute, I found this: The BBC seem almost GIDDY with delight that Chancellor Osborne is up against it when it comes to making his update on the UK economy today. Evan Davies and Stephanie "Two Eds" Flanders were chuckling and making all sorts of sarcastic comments about "Plan A" now becoming "Plan B" on Today. It's truly pathetic stuff butt all we can expect from the BBC. They WANT Labour back. As the Public Sector strike draws nigh, a Biased BBC reader generously provides us with the sort of insight which the State Broadcaster conspicuously ignores; "REAL COST OF PUBLIC SECTOR PENSIONS REVEALED AS 40% " If you want irrefutable evidence of the real cost of public sector pensions a public sector trade union has unwittingly provided a convincing example of the mammoth cost from its annual accounts. An example that is substantive, not speculative. Here's a wonderful example of some BBC dissembling. Remember those deplorable summer riots? Guess who is "to blame"? That's right - the Police! “Now for a party political broadcast on behalf of Islam.” Not heard in so many words on the BBC, but the strategy of bringing Muslims and Islam into our lives with a series of “they’re just like us” programming has been hammering away at the audience with the intensity of one of Saatchi’s finest ad campaigns. As well as programmes about Islam itself, programmes about Muslim family life, programmes about Islamic culture, dramas with Muslim heroes, plots where all things Islamic are depicted as virtuous, often contrasted with some indigenous British scroungers, scoundrels and amoral good-for-nothings just in case we haven’t already got the message that Islam is thoroughly and benignly British, there is the increasing role Islamic preachers are playing in mainstream religious broadcasting. This would be all very well if they were willing and able to openly mention and examine the negative characteristics associated with Islam and Islamist practices, as honestly and readily as they obviously expect us to accept all the rest of it. When such things inevitably feature in the news, overtly politically correct attempts to distance them from the ‘religion of peace’ prevents the connection from being openly and realistically acknowledged. Not only terrorism, but honour killings and forced marriages. When we hear scary tales about these, it’s made very clear that they’re not exclusively Muslim, but Asian. Similarly, there are ‘unmentionable’ aspects of the sexual grooming phenomenon that are worth mentioning. Apparently statistics say the perpetrators of sex crimes are predominantly white, but the figures don’t show whether there are behaviour patterns and attitudes within this broad grouping that are specific to Asian gangs. There is also the unasked and unanswered question of whether Muslims’ alleged moral superiority makes it all the more incongruous that any of them indulge in this crime in the first place. Or does repressed sexuality and a contemptuous attitude towards non Muslims constitute an explosive combination? A Biased BBC reader notes; Well just as the Occupy jamboree outside St Paul's is disappearing off radar, up pops the BBC to tell us about the Occupy Leeds "camp." Evan Davies takes a remarkably relaxed view of the "aims" of the rabble in Leeds doing his best to portray their support for Big Government, their hatred of the free market, their envy of those who actually work for a living and are successful, as "reasoned". He then gets a response from market town of Skipton to evaluate what support the protesters have from those who are not protesting,as the BBC carefully puts it. But since the anarcho-communist rabble have only the most convoluted of "ideas", surely Davies is acting as more of a cheerleader for their alleged objectives. Here, David Rose of the Mail on Sunday does a very creditable job for the second week running in teasing out the BBC's cosy links to the eco fanatics at the University of East Anglia. I particularly like that he has spotted that one of the Cilmategate 2 emails was from the producer of an Alan Titchmarsh series, underlining the extent to which ecomania has seeped into the DNA of almost everyone at the BBC. Most of this info, of course, has been already revealed on this and other websites such as Bishop Hill. But finally, parts of the MSM seem to be waking up to the climate change scam and the BBC's role as propagandist-in-chief. Yet the BBC ploughs on regardless - perhaps the most disturbing element of the David Rose article is that despite all the shenanigans that have surfaced in the emails, the BBC still blithely insists that it is "impartial". Meanwhile, Richard Black, the principal propagandist for the "impartial" corporation, continues to file alarmist garbage with wearisome predictability. Here, he is lamenting that the Durban climate change boondoggle possibly won't result in an agreement, and acting as His Master's Voice for the ludicrous (we have ways of making you freeze) Chris Huhne. Obviously the BBC has not made much of this story.....I wonder why? 
WHO ME, GUV?
>> WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2011
Jeremy Bowen's Bias Revealed: Muslim Brotherhood "Conservative, Moderate and Non-Violent"
TRUE COLOURS
>> TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2011
THE REAL COST OF PUBLIC PENSIONS
>> MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2011
POLICE TO BLAME FOR RIOTS
A lack of confidence in the police response to the initial riots in London in August led to further disturbances across England, a report has concluded. The Riots, Communities and Victims Panel found it had "encouraged people to test reactions in other areas". The panel found there was no single cause of the riots but said it was shocked at the "collective pessimism" among the young people it spoke to.It warned that such riots would happen again unless action was taken.
Right then, so people were forced to "test reactions" in other areas of the UK because the Met held back? I see. Not only that but with all this pessimism about, how on Earth could anyone be expected to hold back from looting and arson? The Panel that has produced this nonsense is allowed to pontificate with NO voice of response on the BBC report.Wake up Call
HALF THE STORY, ALL THE TIME!
"A new article on the BBC website headlined CO2 climate sensitivity 'overestimated' By Jennifer Carpenter, starts off hopefully with the statement; "Global temperatures could be less sensitive to changing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels than previously thought, a study suggests." Then we immediately get in the next paragraph; "The researchers said people should still expect to see "drastic changes" in climate worldwide, but that the risk was a little less imminent." And as we near the end we get; "The results of this paper are the result of the analysis of [a] cold climate during the glacial maximum (the most recent ice age)," he told BBC News. "There is evidence the relationship between CO2 and surface temperatures is likely to be different [during] very cold periods than warmer." Scientists, he said, would therefore prefer to analyse periods of the Earth's history that are much warmer than now when making their projections about future temperatures."
This comes across to me as a blatant admission that they won't look at data that won't support their point of view.OCCUPY THE BBC
HIS MASTER'S VOICE
>> SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2011
Left Wing Hackette’s Shoddy Reporting Forces “Guardian” To Apologise To “The Sun” But BBC Doesn’t Notice It..
>> SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2011
Britain's Guardian newspaper was forced to apologise to Rupert Murdoch's The Sun today for falsely alleging that the tabloid's reporters doorstepped a lawyer at the phone-hacking enquiry. In an unwelcome twist for the left-leaning paper which has led efforts to expose hacking at Murdoch's now-defunct News of the World weekly tabloid, the Guardian admitted in court that its front-page claim was wrong.
Oxford educated left wing Guardian hackette Marina Hyde (“one of the funniest and most admired journalists in the UK”) might be getting the smallest Oxfam charity Christmas card this year from her editor Alan Rusbridger who had to endure the humiliation of seeing his face spread over The Sun as the tabloid helpfully pointed out Her piece was published by editor Alan Rusbridger without any checks or calls made to The Sun. Hyde's false accusations were sent around the world on Twitter.
The much hyped Ms Hyde, the daughter of Sir Alastair Edgcumbe James Dudley-Williams, 2nd Baronet, blends in perfectly with the well born radical chic crowd at The Guardian burnishing their NW1 dinner party credentials by bashing the “rich” and the Tories. But it’s perfectly clear that this was a story that fitted so neatly into the Guardian’s Murdoch manic obsession she didn’t even bother to check it out. Epic fail. But her career will not suffer. Socialist hacks live in a risk free environment when it comes to peddling untruths because the golden rule of left wing journalism is that truth = what ought to be true rather than what is true. There will be no explosion of indignation from media colleagues for this shoddy piece of gimcrack “journalism”. No thundering broadsides from the BBC for it is now open season on Murdoch, not because of the hacking and blagging that anyway was probably par for the course for all tabloids, including the left wing Mirror – but because Murdoch and The Sun switched their support from Labour to the Conservatives in the final months of Gordon Brown’s tenure at No. 10 – and the many years of Murdoch supporting Labour were immediately conveniently airbrushed out of history. Hence the lack of BBC interest in this story. But imagine the outburst from the BBC if it had been a Sun reporter inventing stuff up about The Guardian. ..... Aaaaahhhhh....the sweet sense of liberal left hypocrisy in the morning.....
Wednesday, 30 November 2011
In accordance with an agreement with their staff trade union, the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance (NIPSA - 46,000 members) provides pension benefits for its employees comparable to those of the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS). NIPSA, has however to invest its employer contributions with insurance companies to obtain comparable superannuation benefits for its retiring staff. In Northern Ireland, and in GB (with its Principal Civil Service Superannuation Scheme or PCSPS), civil servants who joined before 2008 contribute nothing toward their pensions which are unfunded, inflation-proofed and based on final salary. NIPSA’s employees are however, like those civil servants, required to pay a contribution of 1.5% (refundable) towards the cost of dependents’ benefits. In its 2009 valuation, NIPSA’s actuary assessed a shortfall in its pension scheme funding of some £1.9m and recommended the employer contribution rate should be 39.3% from 2010 with a contribution of £210,000 p.a. to recover the funding shortfall. The employer rate, previously 40.8%. (see 2009 accounts) was insufficient to bring the scheme out of deficit! Presumably other trade unions who match civil service pensions for their staff are experiencing the same shortfalls despite an employer contribution of 40% of staff salaries. So there you have indisputable evidence-based proof: We pay at least 40% on top of a civil servant’s salary to provide them with their pensions and lump sums (3 x annual pension rate). And they are on strike because they are being asked to pay 3% more. In fairness it should be 35% more. "
I do hope the BBC will ensure that important fact based data like this is properly reflected in the debate and my thanks again for the contribution.
Monday and time for a new one of these. The floor is yours, use it wisely!
Posts
