Some direct questions for the BBC that it’ll never answer.

A web of lies, deceit and betrayal.

The revelations of the last couple of weeks, have shone a bright light into some dark corners of the BBC and what’s been exposed, while very disturbing and quite frankly seamy, comes as no surprise to those of us who’ve long entertained doubts on its supposed impartiality, integrity and even its basic journalistic competence. There’s for too long been an air of smug complacency about the whole organisation, buttressed by their idea that everyone just naturally couldn’t help but love it to bits.

This has led to the corrupting mindset that anyone critical of the organisation, was somehow just a reactionary and therefore their criticisms could at best be humoured or at worst, totally discounted. Any person or any organisation, who thinks they’re above criticism, are on that arrogant slippery slope into decadence. They stopped listening to any viewpoint which wasn’t comfortably approving years ago.

The Newsnight team, who put together the exposé of the serial paedophile Jimmy Savile, had multiple sources, and lots of hard evidence. The person who initially authorised it to be broadcast, did a complete change of mind in the space of 24 hours, telling them to spike it. He looks to be gone now but quite frankly, the realistic question has to be, who told him to kill the story and why?

Superficially, their decision could be ascribed to not wanting to damage the reputation of the BBC, for having employed a paedophile as a high-profile star of their light entertainment schedule for decades. I’m sorry but as fuller details of the scandal have came out and more people arrested, the pertinent question has to be; is there a long-standing and institutional acceptance of a sub-culture of paedophilia at the BBC?

A well-researched article by Andrew O’Hagan (H/T Jack Wilder), a link to which is below, paints a shocking picture of predatory sexual deviants, allowed to satisfy their appetites with impunity within the BBC, since nearly the start of television broadcasting by the organisation. What’s more, and contrary to popular assumptions, such individuals tend to aggregate into loose groups, the purpose of which is to swap their victims with other people in the group.

Judging by the number of BBC stars being arrested and charged on suspicion of having sex with underage minors, Savile was far from some solitary aberration. A group like that can only exist in any organisation if the organisation either turns a blind eye to its activities or individuals within the organisation are active participants in the abuse. So was it just a few of the stars like Savile or were members of staff, senior enough to protect the group, involved?

Which one is it BBC?

If it’s the former and the management ignored it, then those people bear the direct responsibility for giving access to, and allowing a serial paedophile to continue blighting the childhoods of young people for decades. If it’s the latter, they should be identified and suffer the full rigour of a criminal trial. Personally, I think there’s a case to answer in law, either way. It all comes down to a cynical betrayal of our society’s most innocent members; the children.

The next scandal was Newsnight actually running a programme, accusing but not actually naming, a right-wing peer as a paedophile. They did so without even bothering to contact him, never mind offering any right of reply. As it turned out, he was wrongly identified by showing a victim of the abuse a photograph of someone else. When the story broke and Lord McAlpine’s picture appeared in the newspapers, the victim, in my view showing admirable courage and integrity, immediately came forward to clear McAlpine’s name. No second sources, no double checking, no verification, not even any semblance of journalistic good practise.

How did McAlpine’s name actually become public? They’d hinted during the programme that the name of the person they were accusing was freely available on social media and, lo and behold, as if by magic, there it was. That was very convenient, wasn’t it?

The question I have is, who originally put it up on the web? Was it a staff member of the BBC or the investigative organisation it used to research the programme?

Lord McAlpine has retained a specialist computer firm, which has captured all electronic instances of his name being connected to the scandal, and I do hope the person who seeded the rumour, is tracked down. That’s actually very doable, despite the common misapprehension that everything is anonymous on the web. While the tracking down might be expensive, any costs incurred would come out of the costs and damages the BBC will shortly be paying McAlpine. There’s a certain justice in shining the light of exposure right back on the cowardly individual, who undertook to trash another individual’s good name anonymously.

But there’s a broader question here. How could they have possibly got it so badly wrong? The answer is they so desperately wanted it to be true, they abandoned any pretense of journalistic professionalism to nail him. McAlpine was awarded a life peerage for services to the construction industry and also for rendering services to the right-wing conservative party. He was a noted confidant of Margaret Thatcher throughout her administrations.

Rich, a tory, a life peer, a Thatcherite; that combination was irresistible, because not only would disgracing him satisfy everyone’s overwhelmingly left-wing sentiments but would also divert the heat away from the growing Savile scandal. Even their sock puppet, the Guardian newspaper, joined in on the trial by twitter and unsubstantiated innuendo. The lynch mob was stoked up by the righteous indignation of journalists like George Manbiot, showing an appalling lack of any sort of journalistic professionalism or even a basic sense of fairness. Whether the BBC will admit it or not, its spin on everything is systemically left of centre, which is why Newsnight went after McAlpine with such reckless abandon.

If McAlpine had been a left-wing peer, would the same flagrant disregard of common decency and his human rights been forthcoming? While that’s a rhetorical question, it cuts straight to the heart of the undoubted political bias of the BBC. And what’s more, it’s being posed by someone whose politics are more left of centre than right.

This week’s scandal, rather unimaginatively christened 28gate, refers to the BBC’s attempts to keep secret the names of 28 attendees at a meeting in 2006, in which it was decided to only present the alarmist side of any debate over global warming. Climate skeptics were from then on to be denied any platform at the BBC. They stonewalled legitimate freedom of information requests by a notably determined blogger, while at the same time assuring people that the decision was made for purely scientific reasons and on the best advice of the highest scientific expertise. They even went to court, spending what by common estimates is well into hundreds of thousand pounds of license payer’s money, and secured a favourable decision from a panel of so-called independent judges, one of whom seems to think that habitually referring to climate realists as deniers, didn’t somehow disqualify them from acting impartially.

In response to that, another blogger, using the Wayback Machine and some classic Italian flair, discovered an orphaned page on the internet, listing all the participants. It turned out that only three of the twenty-eight attendees were actually climate scientists, every one of whom was of the alarmist variety, and the majority were representatives of climate activist organisations like Greenpeace. As I said in a previous article, investigative journalism is alive and well; it’s just moved house to the blogosphere.

Putting it bluntly, we were intentionally misled by BBC spokesmen about the composition of the meeting.

Will the BBC be instituting disciplinary measures against staff who deliberately and blatantly lied to the public? Will any acknowledgement that it ever happened be broadcast?

What has been their response to these unfolding scandals? As usual, a few people in middle management are being thrown to the dogs, and are busy lawyering up. They’ll either get their go quietly money in court or the BBC will cave, and pay them directly. The Director General has resigned, and in grateful recognition of his 55 days in the job, will receive a £1.3 million package.

Enquiries, both internal and external, have kicked off and will of course thoroughly investigate everything. It’s perhaps cynical of me, but after watching the numerous climategate investigations do whitewash after whitewash, I can see the same methods at work. Start several enquiries to make it look like a thorough job. Carefully craft the terms of reference for each one to be sufficiently vague, parachute in a few trusted cronies to not ask the awkward questions and make sure they report far enough down the line, to take the pressure off for the moment. Add into the mix the fact that BBC stars and employees, past and present, are currently being interviewed by police, and could possibly face criminal charges in the future, and the sub judice card has now been shuffled into the coverup game.

Will any of these enquiries acknowledge the deeper problems and recommend measures to effect real cultural change within the BBC? In my opinion, no. A few recommendations will be made and gratefully accepted by a suitably penitent management and things will settle back to normal.

Will any of these hard questions I’ve posed even be addressed, never mind answered? I think not.

Longer term, I cannot see the BBC surviving in its present form for several reasons. Like most other big organisations, which are a part of the mainstream media, it’s losing audiences to the internet. The big driver behind this change from the news angle, is the very real perception that it actively pushes only a left-wing politically correct viewpoint on any major subject. It’s seen as the crusty establishment. People, especially the younger audience and the more enquiring minds, want to hear those dissenting views. They’re only finding them on the internet.

The entertainment offering tends to be outsourced clones of formats developed in other countries, especially America, where the quality of programmes produced by the likes of HBO, guarantee the sort of viewing numbers the BBC used to attract with its own in-house programmes in its long-gone heyday.

The mechanism by which it’s funded, a television tax per household called the TV license, looks to be untenable in the face of the explosion in the number of gadgets which are now capable of displaying a TV programme; smart phones, tablets, laptops and desktop computers. As internet speeds inevitably increase by orders of magnitude, the viewer will not only have free access to literally thousands of internet TV channels, but those channels will offer the freedom of choice and plurality of viewpoint, which is the real driver behind the internet’s exponential growth.

Nobody, not the consumer, the device manufacturer, the service provider, the content provider or anyone else will tolerate the imposition of a levy, though the BBC in its arrogance, apparently seems to think they have the legal right to do so.

If the BBC really wants to test that blithe proposition that everyone is happy to pay a television tax to them, because they somehow revere the venerable institution, then make it a voluntary rather than a compulsory contribution, and see what happens.

They’d be gone within a year and forgotten within another.

©Pointman

References:

Andrew O’Hagan writes about child abuse.

The BBC seems to think they can charge a television tax on any device capable of showing one of their programmes, even a mobile phone …

Tony Newbury, the blogger whose FOI requests the BBC stonewalled.

Maurizio Morabito or Omnologos, who unearthed the 28 names on the internet.

Related articles by Pointman:

The BBC : Aunty Beeb or Mummy knows best?

The death of journalism and the irresistible rise of the blogosphere.

Internet Security 3: The Worst Sort Of Predator.

Click for a list of other articles.

Comments
37 Responses to “Some direct questions for the BBC that it’ll never answer.”
  1. Peter Hannan says:

    Pointman, I’ve only seen your blog for the last two – three months, but I like your take on things. In this post you imply (?) that your own position is leftish, and so is mine, critical supporter of the Labour Party, but living in Mexico so a bit out of it. Here in Mexico, I try to explain the past importance of the BBC, and how the TV licence payment makes it independent of state and commerce. However, I recently had to go the the UK for a family problem, I was there for three weeks in October, and I was frankly disgusted by what I saw on main BBC channels and the independent (commercial) ones, On main BBC news, you could be forgiven for thinking that nothing was happening in the rest of the world, because it was completely parochial (OK, the Savile scandal exploded a few days before I arrived), nothing for days about Syria, the US elections, any other part of the world. One night (and now I can’t be sure if it was BBC News or Channel 4, but the same applies: they announced a story about Iran, and I thought, ‘Ah, OK, nuclear programme, conflicts, Israel, US, Middle East in general, something real about some other part of the world.’ No! An interview with Ben Affleck about his views, based on his participation as an actor in a new film about the ’70s Iran hostage crisis, on the Middle East. This is news? This is good reporting? As I say, disgusted, and very saddened. I can’t any longer with integrity defend the BBC and British media against comments by my Mexican friends. I’m leftish and environmentalist, but I don’t want the BBC to be dominated by (frankly) ignorant leftists and pseudo-environmentalists; whatever political views we might espouse, certain principles like objectivity, balance, free expression of dissenting views, real investigation, are fundamental for understanding and progress. I almost feel nostalgia for the ’50s – ’60s BBC: still at that time elitist and aimed at a sub-section of the population, but at least thoughtful. I still have hope for the BBC, because of its tradition and importance – during the Second World War; its World Service as a source of reliable information for people in the USSR and other oppressed places; its extremely high quality programmes and series (really, you have to live in Mexico to see really, seriously, crap productions and programming!).

  2. Peter Hannan says:

    Sorry, not thinking completely coherently: I should add, the idea, the project, of having a media institution which is independent of state and commerce, with established principles of objectivity and so on, is immensely important (or, do we want something like Fox, directed by a reprobate, or CNN, guided in the last 15 years at least by purely US interests?). The question is, how to protect such an institution against political takeover, by whatever faction, and the consequent closing of real discussion? OK, knock the BBC, that’s nothing new; but is the ideal institution which the BBC aims, and often fails, to be, something valuable? I think so. In the modern context, how to achieve that?

    • David, UK says:

      “[I]s the ideal institution which the BBC aims, and often fails, to be, something valuable?”
      Oh, turn it in, Peter Hannan. It’s unthinking drones like you, who see the BBC as some kind of Hallowed being, who are responsible for the BBC we have today and have had for lord knows how many decades now. Have you even noticed what the BBC “aims” to be, or is it the old “boiling frog” syndrome that’s got you? This is the company that spends its bottomless pit of money on soaps, game shows, talent shows and, until relatively recently, high profile sporting events bid for in direct competition with the private sector. You think this is an “ideal” aim?

      Further more, you think you live in a free society, and yet your Government does not allow any of its citizens to install a television set in their homes without buying a permit. That is sick in itself. It is absolutely no different to denying a person the right to read books without a permit. But I’m guessing that to you – like most BBC sympathisers – the ends justify the means, eh?

      The BBC, like the television permit, is outdated and outmoded. It may have been relevant in the 1930s, when it was literally the only channel. But not now. The one comforting fact for me is that the Government has never had a single penny out of me in return for their blessed permission to watch TV, and they never will because my TV works perfectly well without a f*****g permit.

    • Pointman says:

      Hello Peter. The BBC, as designed, should work, but it’s a failing organisation. It’s failing for the same reason as any one does; incompetant and bad leadership, nothing more. It’s essentially become state TV for Medialand. Tinkering with putting in some real leadership is probably too late now, since I feel it’s become a too deeply embedded cultural problem. Because it doesn’t have to compete at all to survive, it’s become decadent, like one of those old state industries.

      I mentioned HBO in the article and think it might represent a way forward for the BBC, but in a different form. Two decades ago, the standard of American drama on television was pretty dire. People wanted better, and it was that simple need that HBO addressed. People are prepared to voluntarily pay to watch a channel, if it produces high-quality content. It has to reflect what its paying audience wants, rather than what HBO thinks they should have.

      Pointman

  3. Rick Bradford says:

    Monbiot’s response is the typical Leftist self-exculpatory whine — these people have such a sense of entitlement and moral rectitude that the best they can manage is a tract on how it is their sense of outrage at ‘injustice’ (a necessary part of being a ‘good person’) that caused them to make an unprecedented error in an otherwise noble cause.

    Remember Peter Gleick and the Heartland Institute? An almost identical ‘apology’, pointing out how noble he was, fighting to ‘expose’ this organisation in the name of justice for all, but that lying to get what he wanted was a ‘serious lapse in judgment and ethics’ — Monbiot goes no further than saying that he acted ‘without any of the care I usually take’.

    They never learn, these people, because the lesson here is about humility, which the Green/Left simply doesn’t do.

  4. Graeme No.3 says:

    Excellent article, Pointman, but you answered yourself. Will the right questions be asked? No.

    Reminds me of Sir Humphrey in Yes, Minister – “but Minister, we can’t announce an enquiry yet, we haven’t decided what the answer will be”.

    The case of them spending hundred of thousands to avoid releasing informant that they’d already made public previously will be buried under the pedophile scandal. (It is interesting that what was released in 2006 as “what good boys are we” should by 2012 be undesirable for the public to see. How the public view of global warming has changed.)

  5. Petrossa says:

    I concur. Good article, but with a selfcontained answer. Something similar happened in the netherlands, although without the scandal, where the public channels were accused of being left biased in their reporting.
    A ‘careful’ study was done by the public channels. And no, the public channels were completely balanced said the public channels.

  6. Rob Moore says:

    G’day Pointman,
    Have you considered pitching your cv to the major papers as your articles leave all the so called “big names”in opininion pieces in the shade. You write in a very entertaining AND educational way. “Hillibilly” and several others on here have painted the bleak perspective of what is going on here in Australia- ruled by a bunch of cheap crooks who have risen to the very highest offices. Their days are numbered though.
    I see Nigel Farage mentioned and he is my kind of politician. What standing and influence does the UKIP have over there? I know that Christopher Monckton is involved and their is another fine Scotsman.I met him and had a couple of hours with him @ the Hilton in Brisbane along with Michael Smith. We were there for a radio interview (30 mins)- but we all got on so well that they taped a 52 minute interview. He is the real deal- totally genuine imo.
    On a later trip out here Lord Monckton got ridiculed that badly by a ABC grub that he almost walked out and got disgraceful press from the socialist media here. The “thought police” have lost the battle for the hearts and minds of the population- they don’t control the MSM any longer because of US in the blogosphere doing THIS. Our mate Michael could well bring our current Prime Minister to answer charges from 17 years ago! Now that is power and a REAL result.
    So maybe a story on the UKIP……………………….
    .

    • Jack Wilder says:

      “Have you considered pitching your cv to the major papers as your articles leave all the so called “big names”in opininion pieces in the shade. ”

      If you read carefully, you’ll notice every couple of articles that there is a misplaced comma or two. Personally, I still feel there’s room for improvement😉

    • Pointman says:

      G’Day Rob, to paraphrase Groucho Marx, I wouldn’t join any club that would have the likes of me as a member! Seriously though, the level of independence I enjoy here in this sleepy little backwater, couldn’t be matched anywhere in the MSM unfortunately.

      Pointman

  7. Blackswan says:

    Pointman,

    Is it pessimistic to be realistic about the hedonistic?

    Institutionalized corruption, whether it be political, scientific or deviant, develops its own protective mechanisms that will cast a few dispensable bit-players to the baying hounds, but will inevitably protect the truly rotten core at the centre.

    Like you, we all assumed the release of the Climategate emails (1 & 2) would expose the underbelly of scientific corruption, but the System kicked into gear and, for the record, all were cleared.

    Here in Australia, we are really good at it. For instance, some years ago we had the situation of children in State Care being sexually abused but were the guilty punished? Not a bit of it. We had the Chief of Staff of the State Premier and his Cabinet involved in the systematic shredding of all evidentiary material required for the court case so no perpetrators were ever held accountable. Were any of the shredders prosecuted? Nah – one bloke ended up being Prime Minister.

    He was succeeded (ousted) by someone against whom a prima facie case for criminal conduct has been established. Documentary evidence exists, witnesses ready to testify, but no ….. no prosecution is likely any time soon. Too many sitting Members of Parliament are involved, too many corrupt Unionists holding sway over millions of dollars which seems to render them all to be teflon-coated. Good grief!! We’d have to come up with a whole new Electoral System and a new Constitution to ensure that such criminal elements never again had the opportunity to corrupt and distort our democracy.

    As for the ABC (BBC-lite), the entire Left/Green edifice would have to be dismantled and a whole new National broadcaster would have to rise from the ashes. Like every other institution that needs a fire-hose through it, it’s all too expensive, too problematic, too many “distingished” entities would be embroiled in the fall-out, too many fat comfy pensions and ‘entitlements’ would be put at risk.

    I’d love to be proven wrong and to see those smug smirks wiped off a few much-televised faces but, alas!, I fear not in my lifetime.

    • Rob Moore says:

      Blackswan- don’t say that!
      Smithy is my last ray of hope.. Looks like I might have to move to Brazil to breed cattle after all!

    • Brian H says:

      That’s an extreme example of what’s called “dynamic conservatism” by Schon; change agents are encysted and ostracized, and superficial alterations are substituted for any and all real alterations of position or power.

  8. Jim says:

    Just on the point of the TV licence (thank you for the link to Andrew O’Hagan’s article, it was excellent) even the BBC admit that a licence is not required for using electronic devices (PCs, laptops, mobile devices etc) to watch on demand services. Link here:

    http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ103/

    This is what will kill the TV licence. As more and more TV viewing becomes on demand, rather than at a fixed point of broadcast, people will slowly stop buying licences. Its only an inertia thing now – people buy them because they always have, even if they actually don’t really need them. And there will be no political will to extend the TV licence to all electronic viewing – it would be electoral suicide. Technological change will kill the BBC licence fee. I give it a decade, 2 tops.

  9. Graeme No.3 says:

    The appropriate response by honest and sensible politicians in the UK would be to start dropping the license fee by 10% p.a.
    Oops! I think I see a problem getting that off the ground.

    • David, UK says:

      Dropping the license fee by 10%? That would satisfy you, would it? To follow on from my last comment (above) I see you’re yet another drone who accepts that your Government has the right to demand money in return for its permission for you to watch TV. I say again: sick.

      The appropriate response by citizens who respect and value freedom, is to refuse to buy a permit.

      • Graeme No.3 says:

        David, 10% per annum, i.e. the license fee disappears in 10 years.

        The loss of income penalises the BBC for their past and current excesses. The gradual drop keeps reminding them that they caused it, while preventing them from claiming that the BBC will collapse. Well, they’ll claim that anyway but as the first annual loss is about 5% of their income, no-one is going to believe them.

        In any case the license fee will be obsolete in 10 years for reasons described above.

        Living in Australia, I don’t pay any license fee. On the other hand I have free access to the ABC, which I would watch for less than an hour a week. (The best programs on the ABC i.e. those getting the better ratings, mostly come from the BBC). It seems that about 2/3 of australians never watch the ABC at all.

        I have no objection to you refusing to buy a license, just as I have no objection to you collecting a pile of BBC programs and setting fire to them on November the 5TH, with or without some of your politicians on the pile.

  10. Radonel says:

    It appears the BBC may have made the right decision in not broadcasting the original Newsnight Savile revelation story, but for the wrong reasons. There is evidence which suggests their star witness is not totally credible, allegedly having left Duncroft, the approved school for girls, before Savile ever visited the establishment, to cite just one example.

    As shown by Anna Raccoon on her blog, there is much more to this story than meets the eye.

    • Pointman says:

      Hello and welcome Radonel. The problem with Savile is they don’t have a single star witness but an army of them.

      Pointman

      • Radonel says:

        My comment addresses the standards of BBC journalism, NOT the guilt of Savile! The original Newsnight programme was produced in the same careless manner as their subsequent McAlpine story – ie, failure to check facts and sources.

        The records for Duncroft showing who was there and when, are now held by Barnardos, who took over the establishment from the Home Office. Did the Newsnight team check them? The headmistress at the time, Margaret Jones, is still alive. Have they spoken to her?

        The editor of the cancelled Newsnight programme was Meirion Jones, Margaret Jones’ nephew, a fact not mentioned in Panorama’s report on the original programme. He has had no contact with his aunt for ten years, although when he was a boy he stayed with her at Duncroft on at least one occasion. Why did he and the BBC consider it necessary to be ‘economical with the truth’ concerning his prior and personal knowledge of Duncroft?

        Contrary to your assertion of an army of star witnesses, the original Newsnight programme, which is what my previous post was specifically addressing, relied principally on the word of one woman, a woman who can be shown to have left Duncroft before Savile ever visited, and who is, coincidentally, publishing a book on the subject, her third – another inconvenient detail not mentioned by Panorama.

        Savile was undoubtedly a monster and people at the BBC and elsewhere knew it, but in the case of the both Newsnight programmes, they were running the story when they should have been telling the truth.

      • Jack Wilder says:

        Hiya Radonel, thanks a lot for that interesting insight!

        I was wondering what your viewpoints are on the issues and points raised in the Andrew O’Hagan article?

  11. Radonel says:

    Hello Jack Wilder,

    I did not know of Andrew O’Hagan’s article, but, at your prompting, have now read it – thanks – and found it all to plausible. Although I started work as a journalist in 1956 and remember the immediate postwar era well, I have never worked for the BBC and have no firsthand or inside knowledge to add to O’Hagan’s findings, but I found little to disagree with.

    As I said in my earlier posts, my concern is not so much with Savile, but with the failings of the BBC’s journalism.

    Please have a look at Anna Raccoon’s blog and come to your own conclusions. Part 7 of her series on Duncroft is still posted there, and the previous six may still be available. I have no connexion with the writer or the blog other than as an occasional reader.

    To end on a flipant note I was amused to see O’Hagan mention both Duncroft School, Staines, and Christine Keeler in the same article. Staines was, of course, Miss Keeler’s home town.

  12. Petrossa says:

    Couldn’t happen to a better person. 1 down, many to go.

  13. Adrian O says:

    AT ARM’S LENGTH or
    THE CONSENSUS ON THE CONSENSUS

    Not on topic but rather suggesting you a topic.
    I am a mathematical physicist (with a UK degree – Warwick U)
    Last night I found this amazing interview in an obscure Doha newspaper.
    Apparently the IPCC has become persona non grata at the UN climate change conference.

    Climate Change panel chief says ‘not invited to COP18’

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will not be attending the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP18/CMP8) in Doha, chairman Dr Rajendra K Pachauri has said.

    “For the first time in the 18 years of COP, the IPCC will not be attending, because we have not been invited,” he told Gulf Times in Doha.

    COP18 is to be held from November 26 to December 7.

    http://tinyurl.com/bryqa9p

    Apparently the UN concluded that, as they are funded by public money, association with the mob and/or the IPCC is unadvisable.

    All the best,
    great posts!

    Adrian O

  14. manicbeancounter says:

    Thank you for a well-written article that pulls together the various strands of the current implosion at the BBC. One thing that you bring out is the contrast between the strong evidence from multiple sources for Jimmy Savile’s paedophilia and the uncorroborated story of one person for the false and libellous accusations made against Lord McAlpine. For George Monbiot tweeting McAlpine’s name I would suggest there was another element to his being a leading Tory Peer during the Thatcher era. McAlpine was a very successful Treasury and leading Tory party donor. For anyone familiar with Monbiot’s writings on the funding of “climate denial”, sex crimes are hardly much worse.

    http://manicbeancounter.com/2012/11/13/monbiot-and-bbc-accusing-an-innocent-man-due-to-a-common-prejudice/

  15. Blackswan says:

    Pointman,

    The ABC in Oz models itself on the Beeb, and in so many ways.

    Today we have revelations that their past Chairman lodged a complaint over a presenter on the Science Show likening Climate Sceptics with paedophiles ….

    “A COMPLAINT by former ABC chairman Maurice Newman over a radio program that linked scepticism about human-induced climate change to advocacy of pedophilia has been dismissed by the national broadcaster.”

    http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2012/12/the-abc-often-is-a-law-unto-itself-thanks-to-the-australian-for-the-article-not-the-fact-that.html

    “An ABC spokeswoman said the complaint was dismissed because the editorial context of the segment was reasonable, meaning “harm and offence” was justified.”

    Considering that our Attorney General has just presented a draft of new legislation making it a criminal offence “to offend” anybody, I’d say the ABC are on really thin ice in declaring such offence to be “justified”. And, may I ask, what sort of mandate does the ABC have to “justifiably” cause “harm and offense” to any citizen of this country?

    The idiot presenter said that sceptics who dispute ManMade Climate Change were just like people saying paedophilia “was good for children” or that “asbestos was a good inhalant for asthmatics” and that “smoking crack was a normal healthy part of a teenager’s life”.

    The arrogance of these clowns is unsurpassed – they are demonstrably accountable to nobody – they know it, they take full advantage of it, and we (the long-suffering public who pay their salaries via our taxes) can get stuffed … along with their own past Chairman.

    There will be no repercussions from our government, not so long as the ABC remains a bastion of propaganda for the Socialist/Marxist/Fabian Labor Party. Will a new conservative government in 2013 put a new broom through the ABC? They’ll need an industrial strength vacuum cleaner and a fire hose methinks.

    These ABC parasitic prats are like encrusted barnacles fouling the hull of our ship-of-state and impeding its smooth forward progress. I think ‘she’ needs to be in dry dock for a while, to scrape her clean, make a few necessary repairs and with a new Captain at the helm, we might finally make our way in the world without listing dangerously to the Left (or should that be to port?)

    • Pointman says:

      Hi Swanny. Is the draft legislation the result of the Finkelstein proposal? If so, I’ll have to exclude any Aussies from the Climate Prat of the Year competition. They’d be sorely missed …

      Pointman

  16. Graeme No.3 says:

    The Finkelstein proposal itself was a result of the deep seated view on the Left that what they need is control of the press/media/internet to stop people criticising them.
    The legislation has been put forward by one of the lesser performing lights in the Cabinet and, roughly, says Thou Shalt Not give offence to anyone, especially the left wingers.

    The ‘interview’ was between Prof. Lewandowsky and Robin Williams, the Science Editor of the ABC. I gave up listening to Williams in the early 1980’s when the drip, drip of left wing ideology became a flood. Similar comments have been appearing in Australia. It is hard to find anybody who actually heard the program, as the ABC has a small share of the listening public. Years ago it was common to find the radio in car repair/maintenance shops tuned to parliamentary question time. The background noise would have prevented much being heard, but it indicated a strong interest in parliament. These days they are tuned to what the left likes to call “shock jocks”.

    Personally I am offended by the claims, as are a lot of others, but the standard ABC response is to ignore or reject any criticism. It has reached a state that I doubt it is possible to ‘reform’ the ABC. Any attempt will bring out the “Friends of the ABC” who probably constitute 5% of the voting population, but that is enough to cause our current politicians to go to water. Practically all that 5% would vote for the Greens, but since our (mainstream) politicians don’t believe in anything, and don’t know where their votes come from, they are easily stopped by “an outcry”.

    Perhaps the bet thing would be for the legislation to be passed, and that seems likely as our Opposition hasn’t been at all vocal against it. After the election and a change in the Commissars we could have Williams, Lewandowsky and a few others hauled before the Tribunal. The shock of finding that the legislation can be used AGAINST THEM will cause the Left to reverse their support for suppressing free speech, at least until they are in power again.

Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying...


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: