Saturday, December 08, 2012
28Gate - Unpublished Letters - But Surely Our Press Doesn't Censor
OK 28gate remains censored by the BBC state broadcaster; and by ITN which is state regulated; and has been absent from the "news" pages of papers, though appearing in a few commentator's pages, all sensible sceptics.
But readers letters pages aren't even meant to be editorialised. They are meant to be "readers letters" though an inordinate number of representatives of government sock puppets get chosen, without the state attribution being mentioned.
They are meant to reflect the letters received.
Anybody seen any mentions there of 28gate?
Here are 8 separate letters. A total of around have sent out to papers in Britain and the US. A total of around 341 letters. A search on Google News show only 1 publication - the online Shetland news. Not a single dead tree publication. Now the average paper publishes over 10 letters a day so the odds against not one being chosen, if they are of only average interest and literary quality must be up there with winning the lottery. At least those are the odds if we are not seeing not only deliberate censorship but censorship so total it is impossible to suggest any part of the MSM is in any way honest.
I flatter myself my writing is above average. It is no flatttery to say that 28gate is news of far greater importance than the savile scandal or at least 99% of what appears in our media.
There seems to be no dispute that 28gate proves that the BBC, virtually every department, has continually and deliberately lied, censored and fabricated to promote a totalitarian fascist propaganda lie over many years, and that everybody in any sort of authority has known, at least to a large extent, that it is a totalitarian fascist lie.
Indeed what this proves is that there literally is no dispute. Rather than disputing it, it is simply censored.
Rather puts in perspective the alleged fuss about whether Levison us a threat to a free press. The dead tree press has proven, with absolute certainty, that it is already in no possible way free.
I will be sending this to those papers asking if they wish to suggest any possible circumstances under which even a single letter, not even a news report, involving a scandal which proves beyond any question, that our broadcasters are wholly corrupt totalitarian propagandists will be published.
##########################
13th November
Sir,
In the midst of a storm of scandals about the BBC a new one runs the risk of not receiving the coverage it is surely due. Certainly the BBC is reticent in reporting it.
For years (since 2006) the BBC have claimed that their propagandistic position of promoting the catastrophic global warming fraud, censoring the appearance of dissenters and even getting rid of anybody who refused to push the party line (e.g. Johnny Ball, Peter Sissons and the still very popular David Belay) was justified. The justification for this was that they claimed to have called, in 2006, a meeting of the country's 28 'best scientific experts" who had unanimously told them that there was no scientific doubt that we were experiencing catastrophic warming.
Tony Newberry, a retired viewer and sceptic sent the BBC a Freedom of Information Act request to know who these "leading scientists" were. The BBC refused to say. Since then in appeal after appeal the BBC have spent 10s, possibly hundreds of thousands of £s, employing top barristers to prevent us knowing who the leading scientists they had chosen to ask really were. The BBC asserted that telling anybody would be a breach of their ethics and of journalistic secrecy. In the climate sceptic community this produced ...well, scepticism.
Then on Monday somebody found the names. The BBC who had spent so much ot our money to prevent us knowing the strength of their case, had sent it to the International Broadcasting Trust who had put the 'secret list" online. Perhaps somebody had not told them about the BBC version of "journalistic integrity".
So who are Britain's 28 "leading scientists". There is a recently published list of Britain's 100 leading scientists and none of them are on it. There is an MP, a Church of England devine, representatives of Greenpeace (2), Stop Climate Chaos, the US government, BP, a "renewables" company director, and other "environmental" activists. Of the very few of these "leading scientists" who have any claim to being scientists one is a gentleman who has gone on record as saying what he does, which he calls "post normal science" is simply to tell those in power whatever they want to hear.
Such fraudulent propagandising would have embarrassed the old Soviet Union. What part of the BBC's claims which are truthful?
A recent World Bank report examined the role of government ownership of broadcasting. They found that the degree of ownership closely correlated with authoritarianism, corruption, government incompetence, national, poverty and even things like poor healthcare. In its way this is unsurprising - the argument for a free press has always been that it means that failure gets noticed and something is done. Britain has one of the highest levels of state ownership of broadcasting in the developed world and indeed in the English speaking world.
The BBC's justification is that they are different. Their charter requires them to be "balanced". That is indeed what the law says. It is not what the BBC does. On a whole range of subjects, a few of them now becoming public. The give the Greens 40 times more coverage per vote, all of it deeply supportive, than UKIP, almost all critical. They play up hatred of whichever country the government wants to bomb and largely cwensor mention of the atrocities that follow our "liberation" of them - e.g. giving almost no mention of the dissection of thousands of living human beings by our "police" formerly the KLA in Kosovo, or of the fact that no actual tangible evidence was actually found against Milosevic. The "hacking scandal" became first item on BBC news, for months on end, just when Murdoch was planning to expand Sky TV & give them real competition. On almost every occasion the BBC will primarily or only interview people from government organisations or, more often nowadays, "charities" actually funded by government, who, without fail, demand more government regulation, civil servants and taxes.
We literally cannot have a free society without free media. The BBC is so arrogant and totalitarian it cannot now be reformed. If we wish freedom it must be abolished.
Neil Craig (about 40)
References - Bishop Hill on the breaking news http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/11/12/bbc-climate-28-revealed.html
The list of the 28 "leading scientists" http://omnologos.com/full-list-of-participants-to-the-bbc-cmep-seminar-on-26-january-2006/
100 leading UK scientists listing http://physicsworld.com/blog/2010/10/100_top_uk_scientists_revealed.html
You have my permission to edit if necessary. I suggest the 2nd last paragraph could be edited without losing the main track because it is background information (though I would argue important background). 20th November Sir,
The 28 Gate scandal, which broke last Monday & has gone viral across the internet shows that the BBC have lied, repeatedly, indeed continuously, for at least 6 years about having advice from 28 of Britain's "leading scientists" about the scare story. In fact they had not got or indeed sought any such advice. Instead they knowingly contacted a group of renewables salespeople, government funded "green" activists, civil servants (1 American) and strangely people from the foreign "aid" industry, with barely any scientific qualifications between them.
By lying about this for so many years the BBC have proven, not only that they consider it their job to lie and censor to promote a state "big lie" but also that there is no scientific foundation behind the warming scare. If the BBC had thought that they could find real 28 scientists, out of the hundreds of thousands in Britain willing to give them the advice they sought they would obviously have done so.
This fits well with the previous calls I have made for any proponent of catastrophic warming to name a single scientist anywhere in the world who supports the scare & isn't paid by politicians using our money. Nobody has been able to name even one.
The Savile scandal, which involved a relatively small number of officials apparently not noticing his decades of underage sex with hundreds of girls, can barely be 1,000th as bad as the entire BBC organisation, continuously lying to promote what they knew to be a false scare that has cost every person in Britain thousands of pounds in "eco" subsidising.
The BBC charter legally requires that they show "balance". Obviously over warming they have shown nothing but the most complete and dishonest bias for decades. This is not the only subject on which they have done so. They have therefore obviously vitiated their charter. Moreover in the various legal cases, in which they employed platoons of barristers, to try and prevent the facts coming out, it is difficult to see how claims that they had the "best scientific advice" from "leading scientists" can be anything but perjury.
The BBC are still censoring any reporting of 28 gate from the media they control. They are also enthusing over the charging of some News International staff for the legally as well as morally, lesser crime of obtaining information illicitly. Perhaps a little more contriteness might be in order.
Neil Craig (about 50) Pub by Shetland news which is an online publication
22nd November Sir,
That "greenhouse gases", essentially CO2 whose main effect is to improve plant growth, contributing to the enormous increase in food production, are increasing is not in dispute.
However that this is in any way catastrophic is very much in dispute.
The BBC's 28gate scandal has proven that the BBC lied to us for 6 years that their unstinted propagandising of the catastrophic warming scare had the backing of 28 "leading scientists" when in fact all but 2 weren't scientists at all but an amalgam of "green" activists, "renewables" salesmen and foreign "aid" workers. By comparison the Savile scandal can, arguably, be put down to mere avoidance of the truth.
However if it has proven impossible for even the BBC, with all its resources and previous prestige, to find 28 real scientists anywhere willing to sign up to the catastrophic warming scare then it is difficult, despite the hundreds of billions spent on it, to take it seriously.
Neil Craig (about 50)
24th November Sir,
It will be interesting to see what Lord Hall, as new chairman of the BBC does. The BBC have been discredited not only by their looking the other way for decades at what Savile was doing under their roof but by positive dishonesty.
If he is to have any credibility his first act should be to apologise for the BBC defending their outrageous bias, propagandising and censoring of dissent about the catastrophic global warming we are alleged to be experiencing by now, dishonestly.
For years their defence of this was that they had organised a seminar of 26 "leading scientists" to provide the "best scientific evidence" about warming. They did indeed say that this was a subject on which these scientists were unanimous thus allowing the BBC to claim their legal charter requirement of "balance" did not apply.
Somewhat suspiciously the BBC, while maintaining this claim even to courts, spent vast amounts of our money to prevent them having to obey freedom of information requests to know who those leading scientists were. Nearly 2 weeks ago an independent blogger found the list and "28gate" as it is known went viral online because only 2 of the 28 were scientists (both paid to promote catastrophic warming, one Danish). The rest were a weird mixture of Greenpeace and other "environmental" activists, civil servants, including one from the US, "renewables" salespeople & for some reason, foreign aid administrators.
That the BBC, with all their prestige and money, could not find 28 real scientists, worldwide, to support them says volumes about the catastrophic warming scare.
That thus lie, involving staff from tight across the spectrum of BBC departments, was maintained, indeed staunchly defended in court, for so many years says all anybody needs to know about the integrity of the entire organisation.
If Lord Hall can change this he will have my considerable admiration, but so far he has not even taken the first step to show he wants to. Research has shown, not surprisingly, there is a very strong correlation between government authoritarianism & its ability to hide incompetence and state ownership of broadcasting. If the BBC cannot, very quickly, be made to honestly adhere to its lawful duty of "balance" the alternative is abolition.
Neil Craig (about 50)
26th November
Brian Monteith's article today drew an apt comparison between the BBC's 28gate scandal about their alleged reason for banning dissent over alleged catastrophic warming and a hypothetical one of the BBC deciding whether to allow supporters of independence on air as a result of the collective opinion of a conference to which they invited only the most died in the wool unionists.
There are 3 points on which I believe the censorship is even worse than that would have been.
The 28gate meeting was alleged to be of "leading scientists" able to give the "best scientific advice". That is raising the bar of alleged authority far higher and it is thus far more dishonest of the BBC to make the claim when only 2 or 3 out of 28 were scientists.
At the time the BBC held the meeting in 2006 they were already long accused of producing hysterical and slanted coverage of warming. In inviting only alarmists to speak they were clearly trying to cover themselves by not merely stacking the deck but replacing it with 28 aces. To feel the need to do that shows the entire organisation have always known their coverage was propaganda.
Thirdly we find that this BBC meeting was not merely a BBC meeting at all. It was arranged jointly with the IBT which is an "environmental" activist organisation. Rather as if they hypothetical meeting on coverage of the independence debate were run by the Tory party (or coverage of EU affairs was arranged by EU bureaucrats, which, for all we know, may be the case).
It is worth pointing out that since the BBC were clearly intending to fix the meeting in advance that they could not find 28 scientists anywhere in the world (one of the 2 unambiguously scientists is Danish) who would say their coverage of alleged catastrophic warming was unbiased does destroys the claim there was evwer a "scientific consesnsus".
Despite the relative lack of press coverage, perhaps because unlike the Savile story there is no sex or celebrities, this scandal is tens of times more serious.
The BBC's charter legally requires that they show "balance" in their coverage. State ownership of broadcasting has been shown worldwide to closely correlate with authoritarianism and government incompetence. The only justification for the continued BBC state ownership of broadcasting was that it, uniquely, maintained this legal duty.
The BBC have vitiated their Charter and it should not be restored.
Neil Craig (Scotsman alone)
27th November Sir,
The BBC's 28gate meeting was alleged to be of "leading scientists" able to give the "best scientific advice" when only 2 or 3 out of 28 were scientists. The rest being paid environmental "activists", renewables salespeople and, to ensure support from the highest authority, somebody from the church of england and another from the US embassy
At the time the BBC held the meeting in 2006 they were already long accused of producing hysterical and slanted coverage of warming. In inviting only alarmists to speak they were clearly trying to cover themselves by not merely stacking the deck but replacing it with 28 aces. To feel the need to do that shows the entire organisation have always known their coverage was propaganda.
This BBC meeting was not merely a BBC meeting at all. It was arranged jointly with the IBT which is an "environmental" activist organisation. Rather as if a hypothetical meeting on coverage of the independence debate were run by the Tory party, or coverage of EU affairs was arranged by EU bureaucrats, which, for all we know, may be the case.
The BBC were clearly intending to fix the meeting in advance. Yet they could not find 28 real scientists anywhere in the world (one of the 2 unambiguously scientists is Danish) who would say their coverage of alleged catastrophic warming was unbiased does destroys the claim there was evwer a "scientific consesnsus". Both scientists actually found were already being paid by organisations committed to warming alarmism.
Despite the relative lack of press coverage, perhaps because unlike the Savile story there is no sex or celebrities, this scandal is tens of times more serious.
The BBC's charter legally requires that they show "balance" in their coverage. State ownership of broadcasting has been shown worldwide to closely correlate with authoritarianism and government incompetence. The only justification for the continued BBC state ownership of broadcasting was that it, uniquely, maintained this legal duty.
The BBC have vitiated their Charter and it should not be restored.
Neil Craig (about 50)
28th November Sir,
On this morning's news I saw the BBC is making a big thing of the fact that a Chinese newspaper fell for a spoof story about the North Korean leader being named "Sexiest Man Alive 2012."
This is the same BBC who for years, defended their lack of "any pretence of impartiality" (Paxman) about alleged catastrophic global warming that they had run a symposium of the 28 "leading scientists" who all assured them there was no doubt on the subject, the list of "scientists" has become public. They 28 were actually a mixture of "environmental activists," renewables salesmen, foreign aid workers (the organisation they got to arrange the meeting is a professional environmental and foreign aid lobbyist) & to ensure the support of higher authority, representatives from the Church of England and the US embassy.
Though this story, known as 28gate, has gone viral on the net, with at least 3 million links the BBC decided that, unlike a silly story in a Chinese paper, this is not worth reporting, though objectively that is a far more deliberate & important scandal than the Savile one.
Incidentally looking this up online I found that a South Korean paper made the same mistake but it isn't included in the BBC report. What a great thing it is to live in a country where the media aren't controlled
Neil Craig (to about 50 papers)
BBC version http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20518929
version that mentions both papers http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/weird-wide-web/the-onion-kim-jong-un-sexiest-man-alive-south-korea-china
28gate http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/19/the_virus_that_ate_the_bbc/29th Nov Sir,
The 28gate scandal - that the BBC symposium of the 28 "leading scientists" giving the "best scientific advice" was, in fact no such thing has gone vural online, though little reported, compared to the far less important Savile scandal, by most traditional British media. It was simply a meeting with overwhelmingly non-scientific renewable salesmen, government paid warming hacktivists & international "aid" agents (it was organised by an environmental and international aid lobbyist "charity"). Since people from across the BBC, even the head of comedy, were present there can be no question that the entire BBC organisation knew that the claim it was scientists, while representing the very highest standard of honesty to which the BBC has aspired for the last 6 years, was a complete, total and deliberate lie in no way ethically superior to the "big lie" as used by Joseph Goebbels.
The BBC is a wholly and completely corrupt fascist propaganda organisation willing to tell absolutely any lie whatsoever in the cause of Big Government totalitarianism. This is not, indeed cannot, by definition, be denied by any informed and honest observer
Neil Craig (about 50)
But readers letters pages aren't even meant to be editorialised. They are meant to be "readers letters" though an inordinate number of representatives of government sock puppets get chosen, without the state attribution being mentioned.
They are meant to reflect the letters received.
Anybody seen any mentions there of 28gate?
Here are 8 separate letters. A total of around have sent out to papers in Britain and the US. A total of around 341 letters. A search on Google News show only 1 publication - the online Shetland news. Not a single dead tree publication. Now the average paper publishes over 10 letters a day so the odds against not one being chosen, if they are of only average interest and literary quality must be up there with winning the lottery. At least those are the odds if we are not seeing not only deliberate censorship but censorship so total it is impossible to suggest any part of the MSM is in any way honest.
I flatter myself my writing is above average. It is no flatttery to say that 28gate is news of far greater importance than the savile scandal or at least 99% of what appears in our media.
There seems to be no dispute that 28gate proves that the BBC, virtually every department, has continually and deliberately lied, censored and fabricated to promote a totalitarian fascist propaganda lie over many years, and that everybody in any sort of authority has known, at least to a large extent, that it is a totalitarian fascist lie.
Indeed what this proves is that there literally is no dispute. Rather than disputing it, it is simply censored.
Rather puts in perspective the alleged fuss about whether Levison us a threat to a free press. The dead tree press has proven, with absolute certainty, that it is already in no possible way free.
I will be sending this to those papers asking if they wish to suggest any possible circumstances under which even a single letter, not even a news report, involving a scandal which proves beyond any question, that our broadcasters are wholly corrupt totalitarian propagandists will be published.
##########################
13th November
Sir,
In the midst of a storm of scandals about the BBC a new one runs the risk of not receiving the coverage it is surely due. Certainly the BBC is reticent in reporting it.
For years (since 2006) the BBC have claimed that their propagandistic position of promoting the catastrophic global warming fraud, censoring the appearance of dissenters and even getting rid of anybody who refused to push the party line (e.g. Johnny Ball, Peter Sissons and the still very popular David Belay) was justified. The justification for this was that they claimed to have called, in 2006, a meeting of the country's 28 'best scientific experts" who had unanimously told them that there was no scientific doubt that we were experiencing catastrophic warming.
Tony Newberry, a retired viewer and sceptic sent the BBC a Freedom of Information Act request to know who these "leading scientists" were. The BBC refused to say. Since then in appeal after appeal the BBC have spent 10s, possibly hundreds of thousands of £s, employing top barristers to prevent us knowing who the leading scientists they had chosen to ask really were. The BBC asserted that telling anybody would be a breach of their ethics and of journalistic secrecy. In the climate sceptic community this produced ...well, scepticism.
Then on Monday somebody found the names. The BBC who had spent so much ot our money to prevent us knowing the strength of their case, had sent it to the International Broadcasting Trust who had put the 'secret list" online. Perhaps somebody had not told them about the BBC version of "journalistic integrity".
So who are Britain's 28 "leading scientists". There is a recently published list of Britain's 100 leading scientists and none of them are on it. There is an MP, a Church of England devine, representatives of Greenpeace (2), Stop Climate Chaos, the US government, BP, a "renewables" company director, and other "environmental" activists. Of the very few of these "leading scientists" who have any claim to being scientists one is a gentleman who has gone on record as saying what he does, which he calls "post normal science" is simply to tell those in power whatever they want to hear.
Such fraudulent propagandising would have embarrassed the old Soviet Union. What part of the BBC's claims which are truthful?
A recent World Bank report examined the role of government ownership of broadcasting. They found that the degree of ownership closely correlated with authoritarianism, corruption, government incompetence, national, poverty and even things like poor healthcare. In its way this is unsurprising - the argument for a free press has always been that it means that failure gets noticed and something is done. Britain has one of the highest levels of state ownership of broadcasting in the developed world and indeed in the English speaking world.
The BBC's justification is that they are different. Their charter requires them to be "balanced". That is indeed what the law says. It is not what the BBC does. On a whole range of subjects, a few of them now becoming public. The give the Greens 40 times more coverage per vote, all of it deeply supportive, than UKIP, almost all critical. They play up hatred of whichever country the government wants to bomb and largely cwensor mention of the atrocities that follow our "liberation" of them - e.g. giving almost no mention of the dissection of thousands of living human beings by our "police" formerly the KLA in Kosovo, or of the fact that no actual tangible evidence was actually found against Milosevic. The "hacking scandal" became first item on BBC news, for months on end, just when Murdoch was planning to expand Sky TV & give them real competition. On almost every occasion the BBC will primarily or only interview people from government organisations or, more often nowadays, "charities" actually funded by government, who, without fail, demand more government regulation, civil servants and taxes.
We literally cannot have a free society without free media. The BBC is so arrogant and totalitarian it cannot now be reformed. If we wish freedom it must be abolished.
Neil Craig (about 40)
References - Bishop Hill on the breaking news http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/11/12/bbc-climate-28-revealed.html
The list of the 28 "leading scientists" http://omnologos.com/full-list-of-participants-to-the-bbc-cmep-seminar-on-26-january-2006/
100 leading UK scientists listing http://physicsworld.com/blog/2010/10/100_top_uk_scientists_revealed.html
You have my permission to edit if necessary. I suggest the 2nd last paragraph could be edited without losing the main track because it is background information (though I would argue important background). 20th November Sir,
The 28 Gate scandal, which broke last Monday & has gone viral across the internet shows that the BBC have lied, repeatedly, indeed continuously, for at least 6 years about having advice from 28 of Britain's "leading scientists" about the scare story. In fact they had not got or indeed sought any such advice. Instead they knowingly contacted a group of renewables salespeople, government funded "green" activists, civil servants (1 American) and strangely people from the foreign "aid" industry, with barely any scientific qualifications between them.
By lying about this for so many years the BBC have proven, not only that they consider it their job to lie and censor to promote a state "big lie" but also that there is no scientific foundation behind the warming scare. If the BBC had thought that they could find real 28 scientists, out of the hundreds of thousands in Britain willing to give them the advice they sought they would obviously have done so.
This fits well with the previous calls I have made for any proponent of catastrophic warming to name a single scientist anywhere in the world who supports the scare & isn't paid by politicians using our money. Nobody has been able to name even one.
The Savile scandal, which involved a relatively small number of officials apparently not noticing his decades of underage sex with hundreds of girls, can barely be 1,000th as bad as the entire BBC organisation, continuously lying to promote what they knew to be a false scare that has cost every person in Britain thousands of pounds in "eco" subsidising.
The BBC charter legally requires that they show "balance". Obviously over warming they have shown nothing but the most complete and dishonest bias for decades. This is not the only subject on which they have done so. They have therefore obviously vitiated their charter. Moreover in the various legal cases, in which they employed platoons of barristers, to try and prevent the facts coming out, it is difficult to see how claims that they had the "best scientific advice" from "leading scientists" can be anything but perjury.
The BBC are still censoring any reporting of 28 gate from the media they control. They are also enthusing over the charging of some News International staff for the legally as well as morally, lesser crime of obtaining information illicitly. Perhaps a little more contriteness might be in order.
Neil Craig (about 50) Pub by Shetland news which is an online publication
22nd November Sir,
That "greenhouse gases", essentially CO2 whose main effect is to improve plant growth, contributing to the enormous increase in food production, are increasing is not in dispute.
However that this is in any way catastrophic is very much in dispute.
The BBC's 28gate scandal has proven that the BBC lied to us for 6 years that their unstinted propagandising of the catastrophic warming scare had the backing of 28 "leading scientists" when in fact all but 2 weren't scientists at all but an amalgam of "green" activists, "renewables" salesmen and foreign "aid" workers. By comparison the Savile scandal can, arguably, be put down to mere avoidance of the truth.
However if it has proven impossible for even the BBC, with all its resources and previous prestige, to find 28 real scientists anywhere willing to sign up to the catastrophic warming scare then it is difficult, despite the hundreds of billions spent on it, to take it seriously.
Neil Craig (about 50)
24th November Sir,
It will be interesting to see what Lord Hall, as new chairman of the BBC does. The BBC have been discredited not only by their looking the other way for decades at what Savile was doing under their roof but by positive dishonesty.
If he is to have any credibility his first act should be to apologise for the BBC defending their outrageous bias, propagandising and censoring of dissent about the catastrophic global warming we are alleged to be experiencing by now, dishonestly.
For years their defence of this was that they had organised a seminar of 26 "leading scientists" to provide the "best scientific evidence" about warming. They did indeed say that this was a subject on which these scientists were unanimous thus allowing the BBC to claim their legal charter requirement of "balance" did not apply.
Somewhat suspiciously the BBC, while maintaining this claim even to courts, spent vast amounts of our money to prevent them having to obey freedom of information requests to know who those leading scientists were. Nearly 2 weeks ago an independent blogger found the list and "28gate" as it is known went viral online because only 2 of the 28 were scientists (both paid to promote catastrophic warming, one Danish). The rest were a weird mixture of Greenpeace and other "environmental" activists, civil servants, including one from the US, "renewables" salespeople & for some reason, foreign aid administrators.
That the BBC, with all their prestige and money, could not find 28 real scientists, worldwide, to support them says volumes about the catastrophic warming scare.
That thus lie, involving staff from tight across the spectrum of BBC departments, was maintained, indeed staunchly defended in court, for so many years says all anybody needs to know about the integrity of the entire organisation.
If Lord Hall can change this he will have my considerable admiration, but so far he has not even taken the first step to show he wants to. Research has shown, not surprisingly, there is a very strong correlation between government authoritarianism & its ability to hide incompetence and state ownership of broadcasting. If the BBC cannot, very quickly, be made to honestly adhere to its lawful duty of "balance" the alternative is abolition.
Neil Craig (about 50)
26th November
Brian Monteith's article today drew an apt comparison between the BBC's 28gate scandal about their alleged reason for banning dissent over alleged catastrophic warming and a hypothetical one of the BBC deciding whether to allow supporters of independence on air as a result of the collective opinion of a conference to which they invited only the most died in the wool unionists.
There are 3 points on which I believe the censorship is even worse than that would have been.
The 28gate meeting was alleged to be of "leading scientists" able to give the "best scientific advice". That is raising the bar of alleged authority far higher and it is thus far more dishonest of the BBC to make the claim when only 2 or 3 out of 28 were scientists.
At the time the BBC held the meeting in 2006 they were already long accused of producing hysterical and slanted coverage of warming. In inviting only alarmists to speak they were clearly trying to cover themselves by not merely stacking the deck but replacing it with 28 aces. To feel the need to do that shows the entire organisation have always known their coverage was propaganda.
Thirdly we find that this BBC meeting was not merely a BBC meeting at all. It was arranged jointly with the IBT which is an "environmental" activist organisation. Rather as if they hypothetical meeting on coverage of the independence debate were run by the Tory party (or coverage of EU affairs was arranged by EU bureaucrats, which, for all we know, may be the case).
It is worth pointing out that since the BBC were clearly intending to fix the meeting in advance that they could not find 28 scientists anywhere in the world (one of the 2 unambiguously scientists is Danish) who would say their coverage of alleged catastrophic warming was unbiased does destroys the claim there was evwer a "scientific consesnsus".
Despite the relative lack of press coverage, perhaps because unlike the Savile story there is no sex or celebrities, this scandal is tens of times more serious.
The BBC's charter legally requires that they show "balance" in their coverage. State ownership of broadcasting has been shown worldwide to closely correlate with authoritarianism and government incompetence. The only justification for the continued BBC state ownership of broadcasting was that it, uniquely, maintained this legal duty.
The BBC have vitiated their Charter and it should not be restored.
Neil Craig (Scotsman alone)
27th November Sir,
The BBC's 28gate meeting was alleged to be of "leading scientists" able to give the "best scientific advice" when only 2 or 3 out of 28 were scientists. The rest being paid environmental "activists", renewables salespeople and, to ensure support from the highest authority, somebody from the church of england and another from the US embassy
At the time the BBC held the meeting in 2006 they were already long accused of producing hysterical and slanted coverage of warming. In inviting only alarmists to speak they were clearly trying to cover themselves by not merely stacking the deck but replacing it with 28 aces. To feel the need to do that shows the entire organisation have always known their coverage was propaganda.
This BBC meeting was not merely a BBC meeting at all. It was arranged jointly with the IBT which is an "environmental" activist organisation. Rather as if a hypothetical meeting on coverage of the independence debate were run by the Tory party, or coverage of EU affairs was arranged by EU bureaucrats, which, for all we know, may be the case.
The BBC were clearly intending to fix the meeting in advance. Yet they could not find 28 real scientists anywhere in the world (one of the 2 unambiguously scientists is Danish) who would say their coverage of alleged catastrophic warming was unbiased does destroys the claim there was evwer a "scientific consesnsus". Both scientists actually found were already being paid by organisations committed to warming alarmism.
Despite the relative lack of press coverage, perhaps because unlike the Savile story there is no sex or celebrities, this scandal is tens of times more serious.
The BBC's charter legally requires that they show "balance" in their coverage. State ownership of broadcasting has been shown worldwide to closely correlate with authoritarianism and government incompetence. The only justification for the continued BBC state ownership of broadcasting was that it, uniquely, maintained this legal duty.
The BBC have vitiated their Charter and it should not be restored.
Neil Craig (about 50)
28th November Sir,
On this morning's news I saw the BBC is making a big thing of the fact that a Chinese newspaper fell for a spoof story about the North Korean leader being named "Sexiest Man Alive 2012."
This is the same BBC who for years, defended their lack of "any pretence of impartiality" (Paxman) about alleged catastrophic global warming that they had run a symposium of the 28 "leading scientists" who all assured them there was no doubt on the subject, the list of "scientists" has become public. They 28 were actually a mixture of "environmental activists," renewables salesmen, foreign aid workers (the organisation they got to arrange the meeting is a professional environmental and foreign aid lobbyist) & to ensure the support of higher authority, representatives from the Church of England and the US embassy.
Though this story, known as 28gate, has gone viral on the net, with at least 3 million links the BBC decided that, unlike a silly story in a Chinese paper, this is not worth reporting, though objectively that is a far more deliberate & important scandal than the Savile one.
Incidentally looking this up online I found that a South Korean paper made the same mistake but it isn't included in the BBC report. What a great thing it is to live in a country where the media aren't controlled
Neil Craig (to about 50 papers)
BBC version http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20518929
version that mentions both papers http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/weird-wide-web/the-onion-kim-jong-un-sexiest-man-alive-south-korea-china
28gate http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/19/the_virus_that_ate_the_bbc/29th Nov Sir,
The 28gate scandal - that the BBC symposium of the 28 "leading scientists" giving the "best scientific advice" was, in fact no such thing has gone vural online, though little reported, compared to the far less important Savile scandal, by most traditional British media. It was simply a meeting with overwhelmingly non-scientific renewable salesmen, government paid warming hacktivists & international "aid" agents (it was organised by an environmental and international aid lobbyist "charity"). Since people from across the BBC, even the head of comedy, were present there can be no question that the entire BBC organisation knew that the claim it was scientists, while representing the very highest standard of honesty to which the BBC has aspired for the last 6 years, was a complete, total and deliberate lie in no way ethically superior to the "big lie" as used by Joseph Goebbels.
The BBC is a wholly and completely corrupt fascist propaganda organisation willing to tell absolutely any lie whatsoever in the cause of Big Government totalitarianism. This is not, indeed cannot, by definition, be denied by any informed and honest observer
Neil Craig (about 50)
Labels: eco-fascism, Media, Rise of modern fascism
