Wednesday, August 07, 2013
Unpublished Letters in July - Proof of Deliberate Censorship of 28 Gate; Evidencce of Censorship of UKIP
Some months ago I wrote of how I had sent out 756 letters mentioning the BBC's 28 Gate fraud and that5 every last one had been unpublished.. These bring it up another 108. to 864.
Not that far till we get to the magic 1,000 which, assuming my letters are even marginally literate, would clearly be a statistical impossibility if this were not deliberate censorship strongly enforced across the entire British MSM.
Most of these were also signed giving my UKIP link. I have had such letters published before and the statistical population is smaller, but it seems reasonable to believe, particularly in the Herald, there is extensive censorship here too.
#####################################################
To the Scotsman:
Not that far till we get to the magic 1,000 which, assuming my letters are even marginally literate, would clearly be a statistical impossibility if this were not deliberate censorship strongly enforced across the entire British MSM.
Most of these were also signed giving my UKIP link. I have had such letters published before and the statistical population is smaller, but it seems reasonable to believe, particularly in the Herald, there is extensive censorship here too.
#####################################################
To the Scotsman:
Malcolm Kerr points out how much of Scotland's land is owned by very few people and concludes that all that is required is separation and this problem will go away. The solution is to introduce an element of Land Value Tax to the rating system which would mean there was a real cost to owning land and let the free market operate. This has always been within the remit of Holyrood and neither the SNP nor previous LabLib government did anything.
Other "levers of economic power" such as income tax, our more restrictive regulatory system, and the far higher level of government spending north of the border are also under Holyrood's control.
Proof, I think, that our problems are not caused by England but by our own established politicians who have been doing absolutely nothing, except banning things, for years. Why should we expect separation to magically awaken them.
------------------------------------------
If there is to be discussion of the repetitiveness of "professional" letter writers may I mention Alex Orr who writes regularly, as a private person, to support the SNP & denigrate UKIP; support the EU; & support windmills. I'm not sure that he has outworn his welcome here but I certainly think that the fact that he runs a PR company paid by the SNP government; the EU and Renewables lobbyists, all out of taxpayer's money, should be mentioned when he is published.
The degree to which taxpayer money is used to fund almost every "charity" that promotes more government power,regulation and taxes is one of the major unreported scandals of our time, though there are others.
-----------------------------------------
Andrew Parrott's (letter Tues) suggested that the BBC invite the international OSCE to judge on whether they are actually maintaining the impartiality and "balance" specifically required under their Charter (the legal basis of the licence fee). Since the BBC are always eager to refer to OSCE judgements of the broadcasters in Russia and other places of which they do not approve, refusing to accept the same standards here seems hypocritical. With Alexander McKay's letter (Weds) simply asserting the BBC are wonderful I hope you will allow a contribution in support of what I believe to be a very good idea from Andrew, with which nobody wanting to find the truth should really disagree.
As someone who doubts that the promised catastrophic warming and massive sea level rise are actually happening I find the evidence of bias overwhelming. There is no dispute that for the last 7 years the BBC have justified their one sided reporting and censorship of dissidents on their claim to have run a symposium of "28 leading scientists" who unanimously said this was balanced. The organisation has stated this and indeed some employees have even testified under oath in a court case seeking the identity of these 28. In fact the 28 turned out all to be government funded activists, Greenpeace, or a psychological warfare expert from the US embassy. Only 2 were scientists, leading or otherwise.
As a member of UKIP I find the evidence beyond overwhelming. It requires only arithmetic to prove that with UKIP getting nearly 20% in the UK polls (23% in the recent council elections) & 8% in Scotland (4.8% in the Donside by election) our spokespersons do not get interviewed proportionately by either the UK or Scottish BBC. Indeed we are interviewed less often than the Greens (1% in Scottish polls & under across the UK). There is also the manner in which interviews are carried out such as the recent disgraceful one of Mr Farage just after he had been attacked by a fascist mob, in which they aped that mob's behaviour.
(When it wasn't published an amended version went out to 35 papers, none of whom published - another example of the virtually total censorship of the BBC's 28 Gate fraud by the rest of the press, even to the extent of censoring "reader's" letters and thus proof of how thorough censorship is)
--------------------------------------------
Andrew Parrott's suggestion that the BBC invite the international OSCE to judge on whether they are actually maintaining the impartiality and "balance" specifically required under their Charter (the legal basis of the licence fee) is a helpful contribution. Since the BBC are always eager to refer to OSCE judgements of the broadcasters in Russia and other places of which they do not approve, refusing to accept the same standards here seems hypocritical.
As someone who doubts that the promised catastrophic warming and massive sea level rise are actually happening I find the evidence of bias overwhelming. There is no dispute that for the last 7 years the BBC have justified their one sided reporting and censorship of dissidents on their claim to have run a symposium of "28 leading scientists" who unanimously said this was balanced. The organisation has stated this and indeed some employees have even testified under oath in a court case seeking the identity of these 28. In fact the 28 turned out all to be government funded activists, Greenpeace, or a psychological warfare expert from the US embassy. Only 2 were scientists, leading or otherwise.
As a member of UKIP I find the evidence beyond overwhelming. It requires only arithmetic to prove that with UKIP getting nearly 20% in the UK polls (23% in the recent council elections) & 8% in Scotland (4.8% in the Donside by election) our spokespersons do not get interviewed proportionately by either the UK or Scottish BBC. Indeed we are interviewed less often than the Greens (1% in Scottish polls & under across the UK). There is also the manner in which interviews are carried out such as the recent disgraceful one of Mr Farage just after he had been attacked by a fascist mob, in which they aped that mob's behaviour.
(another 28 Gate censorship)
-------------------------------------------
Clark Cross is correct to be dismissive of the anti-shale scaremongering by Friends of the Earth (letter Tues).
The basis fact is that most "environmental" charities, 90% of which, like FoE itself, are "charities" overwhelmingly funded by our government or the EU, is that they are much less concerned about the environment than about opposing human progress.
Thus we get an enormous, well funded, scare industry directed against anything that will grow our economy. Shale gas, is clearly less environmentally intrusive than conventional power sources like coal. Nuclear power is several 10s of times safer than other power (including windmills which have a bad but unreported accident record) and potentially by far the cheapest (at least 75% of the cost is government imposed rather than engineering). Both have been and are the targets of scare propaganda which, as Clark proves, cannot survive serious debate.
In general the state funded scaremongers are opposed to any new development but since energy has been and remains the main driver of growth, with a closer correlation than almost anything else in economics. Preventing us having cheap energy is their primary goal.
A goal in which these state funded scaremongers have been remarkably successful or we would not now be in recession while the rest of the world grows at 6% annually.
--------------------------------------------
I disagree with Steuart Campbell's assessment that catastrophic global warming is happening. We have had no warming for 18 years, substantially longer than the period of real warming used to promote the scare, and it is a matter of fact that current temperatures are considerably lower than they have been in the Middle Ages and the Climate Optimum (pre 5,000BC). That a large number of state funded "experts" promote the scare is less important than the fact that those scientists not so funded almost unanimously do not.
We also know, for a fact since the 28 gate scandal broke, that Britain's state broadcaster has knowingly lied for many years to promote the scare. This does not induce confidence in either the scare story or the BBC.
Steuart has laboured long and honourably in the cause of defusing similar scare stories about nuclear power, which, since it is the ultimate low carbon energy would have to be supported by anybody who believes CO2 is causing catastrophe. It is obvious that the overwhelming majority of climate alarmists are also opposed to nuclear. This is a touchstone of whether they actually believe their own scare story or are simply Luddites flying a false flag. A touchstone proving the overwhelming majority do not believe their own scare.
However I do agree with him that there are several geo-engineering solutions which would produce cooling at a small fraction of what the current "war against fire" is costing & which could be deployed relatively quickly. In particular stratospheric crystals, increase Earth's albedo would cost tens of millions rather than the current trillions. I would not suggest deploying any of them until damaging warming is proven because of the risk of cooling. That would be a genuine catastrophe.
Every one of our MSPs know there is a virtually 1:1 correlation between growth in energy use and gdp. And every one of them is committed to making energy ever scarcer and more expensive, deliberately putting 1 million Scots households into fuel poverty.
Energy prices could be reduced by at least 90% if the Luddites in charge were to permit it, which would get us out of recession - spectacularly. But only my party wishes to allow it. Something which, for unexplained reasons, our state broadcaster does not permit debate.
(another 28 gate mention censored)
-------------------------------------------------------
Glasgow Herald
If the Herald is actually interested in serious debate about the referendum you might consider actually publishing the letters from Scottish UKIP members since we are the only supporters of the union not also committed to the EU. Many of the most obvious arguments against separation relate to how the SNP would bring us into that "ever closer union" on any terms offered which would mean us losing the rebate; losing the immigration opt out from the Shengen agreement (& thus inevitably having border posts at Carlisle); losing the working opt outs which would cost us about 140,000 jobs; and having to promise to join the euro, but these go largely undiscussed because the debate is limited to those who believe that 75% of Scotland's laws should continue to be made in Brussels.
--------------------------------------------------
I note Fergus Ewing has been writing to you to say what a wonderful asset it is to Scotland to have all this windmill power, intermittent though it is agreed to be, some of which we can sell abroad.
Would it be impertinent of me, not being of Mr Ewing's party, to ask why, if windmill power is so competitive, it is necessary to pour so many £10s of billions of taxpayer subsidy into it; why the Germans or anybody else will buy our power when there are far cheaper alternatives; whether the risk of it being cut off at any moment because the wind slackens is not going to be a problem for Germany?
Also whether he accepts that the correlation between energy and gdp is as close and well proven as anything in economics; and whether he accepts that the traditional parties, having deliberately raised electricity prices to at least 10 times what they should be, are wholly and solely responsible for the current recession which we could get out of very quickly if there were a technologically progressive party committed to reducing fuel poverty in government? Like....
-------------------------------------------
Caroline Carrick's letter today denouncing the government for not subsidising electric cars by quite as much as she wants makes its argument entirely on the congestion of the world's roads caused by cars. In what way do electric cars fail to take up road space? Can she come up with no argument for such enormous subsidy that actually involves an advantage that electric cars might have over the normal version? It seems not.
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
If we are really putting CO2 into the atmosphere far faster than it can be absorbed (letter Saturday) we must have been doing so for millions of years, which seems unlikely. The government has publicly acknowledged that the human contribution to CO2 is only 3% of the total. There is an increase in CO2 but it is far more likely to be a natural process.
In any case CO2 is a fertiliser and 20% of the increase in world food supplies can be put down to the increase the scaremongers are so worried about. The rest is down to human invention - something which the pseudo-environmentalists clearly hate more than they love the environment.
If they did not hate human progress it would be impossible to explain how virtually every "Green" charity, 90% of which are funded by government, claim both to believe that CO2 is causing "catastrophic" warming, not visible to the rest of us, and to be against an expansion of nuclear power. this is the only practical system that can prevent blackouts, which the regulator says are fast approaching, with less CO2. I regard any "environmentalist's" views on nuclear as a touchstone of whether they actually believe in catastrophic warming or are using a false scare story to promote their real agenda - the end of human progress and endless recession. Something they are understandably unwilling to promote on its own merits, or otherwise. May I thank David Jardine (letter Monday) for his novel method of criticising my previous letter (Saturday). All he does is repeat what I said without making any attempt to provide counter evidence.
He does not dispute that Britain has 1300 trillion cubic feet of shale gas, holding far more energy than much more expensive North Sea gas.
He does not dispute that windmills, being entirely dependent on subsidy are hardly going to be a profit centre.
He does not deny that had the British government in the 1970s been of the ideological stripe of the current SNP, North Sea oil and gas would still be awaiting development and we would be hearing scare stories about how it produces earth tremors and can contaminate sea water (which it has to a larger extent than shale gas is expected to but not to an extent that is noticed without the most delicate measuring equipment). Indeed since a car driving by creates an "earthquake" of similar strength one assumes that had the SNP been around in the days of Victoria they would have been for banning anything more lively than the horse and cart.
There is no serious doubt that, if free market freedom were allowed in the energy market the technology exists for electricity prices to ultimately fall by as much as 90%. A million Scots households in fuel poverty, purely because of government policy is an obscenity. The correlation between increases in energy use and GNP is one of the clearest in all of economics, this means we could be out of recession any time our ruling parties (the SNP are not alone in their Luddism) wanted it.
If Mr Jardine or anybody else feels I am wrong in this they should actually say why. Scottish politics (& indeed the Scottish economy) is by far the poorer because in the cosy cartel of the established parties, no serious debate of such issues is allowed.
------------------------------------------
To app 35 papers across the country:
Labour's .Jack McConnell has just been given a plum job by SSE managing a new multimillion-pound fund for communities living near wind farms which campaigners claim could threaten the integrity of the planning process.
This seems a strange, indeed counterproductive, choice for a post of political influence when it is now the SNP who are in power.
It is almost as if the entire democratic process in Holyrood is simply pantomime for the voters and behind the scenes they are united. United on it being nobody's fault that their Parliament building cost £430 million instead of £40 m; united on spending £2,300 million on the new Forth Bridge when the inflation adjusted cost of the old one was £320 m; united on having the world's most destructive "climate change" regulation and some of the most expensive electricity; united that the recession is all the fault of the bankers; and fuel poverty all the fault of the power companies.
No it can't be that. It must be that SSE were so impressed with Lord McConnell's previous career as a schoolteacher in Alloa. Good news for teachers facing retirement everywhere then.
--------------------------------------------------
Fewer than half of us think BBC news coverage is reliable. The amazing thing is that close to half don't.
The BBC make no attempt to live up to their legal duty, legally enshrined in their Charter, of "balance", knowing that the state is hardly inclined to enforce the law.
On issue after issue coverage is obviously slanted and dissenting views simply censored. When did we last see serious airtime given to those who oppose unlimited immigration; gay "marriage"; bombing small countries or support proportional elections; the death penalty or cutting the size of the state?
The "catastrophic global warming" scare is an obvious but by no means extreme example of any sort of dissent being simply censored. BBC representatives claimed, for years on end, even under oath in court, that they had the support of a symposium of 28 of the world's leading scientists for uppressing any body who expressed doubt of catastrophic global warming. When the list came out , reported extensively online under the title 28 gate, it was proven that this was actually 28 government funded activists with only 2 who could be called scientists. For obvious reasons they continue to censor any mention of this.
On party politics the BBC is similarly reminiscent of Orwell's Ministry of Truth - Orwell having worked there .before writing 1984. The BBC give 10 times as much coverage to the Greens (under 1% in polls) as they do to UKIP (22%). This would be unarguable proof of 99.54% censorship if, when they were reported UKIP and the Greens were treated equally but anybody watching each will have seen supportively the Greens are always treated. And how UKIP aren't.
The BBC have repeatedly described Russia as not being a real democracy because their broadcasters are partly state owned and biased despite their being strict laws (which unlike the BBC charter, are enforced) requiring 21 hours of coverage at elections for even small parties. By their own words the BBC thereby condemn themselves as the enemy of democracy and freedom in Britain.
(another 28 gate censorship)
----------------------------------------------------------
Recently the prime minister, after some months of swithering but under the pressure of seeing UKIP coming close to matching his party's support (23% UKIP, 25% Tory at the recent council elections) appeared to make the "concession" that he would allow the British people a referendum on EU membership - in the next parliament in the unlikely position of him being in power with a majority.
Slightly amazingly “cast-iron” has managed to sink even lower.
Recently the prime minister, after some months of swithering but under the pressure of seeing UKIP coming close to matching his party's support (23% UKIP, 25% Tory at the recent council elections) appeared to make the "concession" that he would allow the British people a referendum on EU membership - in the next parliament in the unlikely position of him being in power with a majority.
Even this, Cameron's second promise of a referendum has already been proven false. The Previous one being what he called a "cast iron" promise of a referendum over the Lisbon Treaty.
He has no intention of honouring an out vote in the unlikely event one occurs. In an interview with the Spanish El Pais he said “The best solution for the UK is to stay in a reformed EU”
He was asked the following (via Google translate):
In case of a Yes victory in the referendum that you will organize on leaving the EU, would you be willing to withdraw from the Union?
In case of a Yes victory in the referendum that you will organize on leaving the EU, would you be willing to withdraw from the Union?
And Cameron’s response:
"I would not." (No me gustaría)
That Cameron makes such an admission – of wilfully ignoring a referendum vote – in a foreign newspaper is revealing. Truly he’s the child of Europe, his hero evidently instead is Barroso (EU Commission President) who said of the Irish
“They must go on voting until they get it right.”
“They must go on voting until they get it right.”
Slightly amazingly “cast-iron” has managed to sink even lower.
--------------------------------------------------------
Labels: eco-fascism, UKIP, Unpublished letters
