Under Fire BBC Boss Boaden Faces Court
Beeb Refusing to Respond to Climate Change FOI
It hasn’t been an easy few weeks for BBC News director Helen Boaden. First she was accused of blocking the Newsnight Jimmy Savile exposé, and now she has had to take to the witness stand to defend the Beeb over another alleged cover up. Twice looks like carelessness.
This time round Boaden was facing questions over why the BBC are refusing to answer a freedom of information request asking which scientists attended an infamous 2006 climate change seminar. The BBC Trust have admitted that the seminar led to an unprecedented editorial decision to no longer give equal airtime to opponents of the climate change lobby. Boaden and co’s refusal to disclose who spoke during this all-important discussion is suspicious to say the least. Why would they not want us to know who these “scientific experts” that dictated their editorial policy are? The legal costs billed to the license fee payer are rumoured to have hit six figures…
UPDATE: Tory MP Peter Lilley and former Chancellor Nigel Lawson have today written to the BBC complaining about bias in their coverage of climate change stories. Lord Patten has a lot on his plate…
STFU or you will be disappeared
Lord Patten HAD a lot on his plate but he sure looks like he ate it all!
Patten is just an establishment lackey. Someone should remind the pompous tw*t that his remit is to look after the public interest and that of the licencepayers not acts as a shield for incompetent, corrupt and dishonest BBC senior executives
Hear hear.
Could not have said it better myself.
Patten – you mean PETAIN.
The people of Bath rejected him some years ago – quite rightly.
yet he was promoted to become an EC Commissioner – unelected.
Patten – you mean PETOMANE.
The BBC are so far their own arseholes and they think we think their shit smells of roses. Time this parasitical institution is ripped a new one.
+100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
if lord pat.ten wants a pat.on.his.bak
then he needs to be open.
we all know that he wants loads a pats (ten?)
that is a so so old world wish.
in the real world, he will be lucky
to have a job. the public will finish him. no more great in Great Britain I am afraid. Not really Good either are the ones who claim be the Great and Good. It turns out everyone with status is really ordinary, considering everything.
They hold power to account.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/posts/helen-boaden-director-of-bbc-news-at-the-lse
Apparently.
BBC Never gave climate realists an equal footing with the thermogeddonists.
High time we had some climate change at the BBC, I would prefer it if this anachronistic and now rotten institution was done away with altogether, but if not, surely they cannot be allowed to carry on camping as usual?.
We have tried unsuccessfully to date to engage the denialist extremist viewpoint.
It is with deep regret that we can no longer broadcast their side of the debate as it leads to lots of tedious questions that frankly, we can’t answer.
It is the BBC’s position also, that it would be unwise to question the roles played by climate heroes such as Al Gore or Madonna, as any such questions are beneath their dignity and standing.
I FOI’ed them on this matter. They stuck up two fingers.
What’s interesting is this.
FOI the the BBC trust – not the same as the BBC. They reply they do not undertake journalism
Now it was the Trust who organised these meetings.
FOI them on who attended.
Suddenly the BBC trust denies the FOI request on grounds of Journalism.
Can’t have it both ways.
What did the Information Commissioner have to say about that?
Why should right wing extremists be given the same airtime as progressive people? The BBC is right to discriminate.
No dissent allowed eh Jimmy?
The facade of respect you have for a spectrum of political opinions existing in peaceful discourse is slipping away fast.
How long before you are burning books and demanding re-edukation camps?
Jimmy is as big a ‘democratic’ fraud as his fellow travellers.
For the Jimmy’s of this world, democratic debate or legitimate discussion, are only reasonable if you debate within the strict guidelines set out by the comrades themselves.
Alternative views are at best unhelpful to the cause and at worst, a danger to the marxist interpretation of, the ‘greater good’.
Of course the BBC has no room for left wing extremists has it?
Twat.
Right wing rationalists would be better than progressive extremists, I would agree.
Right-wing rationalists…tut! tut!…a contradiction in terms surely shirley?
Al, you don’t even know what right wing is. Give it a rest.
The only rationalists are right wing, Jimmy!
I am such an admirer of David Hume that I even own an Induction stove.
Progressive people, what on earth does that mean?.
Dole scrounging socialists.
An Italian chap called Benito started the progressive movement in the 1920′s.
He called it the ‘third way’ and was a firm believer in public, private, partnerships and corporatist protectionism. He is also the inspiration behind bank and corporate bailouts.
Benito’s mantra then was, private profits, socialised losses, in other words the corporates get to keep all their profits as long as they tow the government agenda and if they incur any losses towing the agenda, the taxpayers can cough up for the loss.
Good eh? Jimmy is a big fan.
But didn’t he also get the trains to run on time and almost destroy the mafia so that it had to be resurrected by the Americans?
Ended up upside down on a lamp post which is also a feat.
And a Wykhamist, Fabian, Minister in the first Labour Government, Oswald Mosley tried do the same – only he invented “New Labour” half a century too early.
“No platform for those we leach off!” The standard leftwing thought pattern.
That’s probably the end of your ‘blog’ career.
A very fascist line of thought Jim lad; well done;not.
I remember reading somewhere that the BBC has invested licence fee payers money in environmental investments of some sort which explains the bias.
More accurately. They have invested their pension funds in Green industry – harvesting tax payer’s money.
Conflict of interest?
You bet.
You mean like well known green companies BP and Shell? http://www.bbc.co.uk/mypension/sites/helpadvice/pages/top-100-investments.shtml
Sine the level of denier debate is pretty much at this level it’s not a total surprise the BBC doesn’t take it seriously. More interestingly I wonder what other modern scientific theories the readers here disagree with? Smoking causes cancer, mobile phones are safe, electron correlation theory?
BP and Shell are onboard with the whole carbon trading scam as they will make billions NOT drilling or recovering deposits of oil. They are both actively attempting to derail shale gas fracking as well, because it hurts their position and possible margins. Grow up you dolt.
So don’t drill and make billions, yet drill on top of that and make even more billions. Total shit nonsensical argument.
BP announced $5.5B profit for the Q3 this morning. That’s a 5% improvement on last years Q3 profit, but then they did kill BP Solar last December. Smart move. The BBC can obviously see the light even if they do keep the people who fund them in the dark.
BTW, google Peter Dunscombe and dig. Though i’d start at your arse first so you can find your head.
The crazy, cherry-picked, flawed and fraudulent pseudo-science which underpins the “man-made global warming” scam has been so overwhelmingly debunked over and over and over again that the arguments are not worth repeating.
The motives for the BBC to continue to peddle their “global warming” propaganda are worth investigating, including their conflict of interest regarding how they invest their pension funds.
Were you actually aware that the oil companies you list pump 1000 times more money into the “alarmist pro cAGW propaganda” side of the debate than the so-called “denialist” side? and yet they are still losing the debate, because the earth’s climate has not warmed like the alarmists predicted. the climate has not changed as predicted.
Not that I know anyone who actually denies climate change. I do know of lots of very credible, properly peer-reviewed, real science, (not the pal review or bully review of the alarmist church of cAGW), which presents lots of evidence that the earth’s climate has continually changed for millions of years, at a rate and extent in excess of that which it is doing currently. They present lots of real scientific evidence backing up why the earth has NOT warmed for the last 16 years, in spite of CO2 increasing, something that the climate models failed to predict and that the alarmist pseudo scientists CANNOT explain with their debunked failed theories.
OK. You tell me the following.
Theory – GW is man made.
How do you test that?
Statistically, you compare it against previous temperatures, when the CO2 levels weren’t being increased
What you don’t do is just look at the current period.
What do they do?
Yep, just look at the last 15 years. Oh er, not 15 as we said, because the temperature hasn’t increase significantly, we’ll now ask for 30.
Repeat ad nauseum.
The BBC couldn’t give a wombat’s shit what they invest in as long as it makes loot. The fact they criticise smoking and yet invest heavily in tobacco companies is proof of that you mong. Profits from lung cancer aren’t going to go down, but investment in rent seeking technologies is dead in the water without a stream of advertising.
Those parasites at the BBC are a fucking disgrace. I am sick of them!
On a more basic level, have you ever heard any sense from BBC top brass on the “Feedback” prog on radio 4 ?
Fuck “em all. Are you quoting Savile when he last visited the Brownies?
Time the experts were named…so we can laugh at their deceit.
On both sides!
How’s the Current TV sale going?
Remind us again where the BBC pension funds have been invested…………giving airtime to opinions & commentators who have a different scientific perspective that could affect the BBC’s massive green investments could be problematic for the returns on the fund.
Follow the money…….
The BBC has done even more damage to this country than Labour.
Close call…
When it came to a cross examination by Newbery, David Marks QC, the presiding tribunal judge, threw a thick protective cloak around the BBC’s star witness, refusing to allow the blogger to pose many of his questions to Boaden directly. As a result, most remained answered.
Should have been: “threw a thick protective rope around the BBC’s star. . .”
Boaden has to go.
Patten has to go.
Entwhistle has to go.
Just like that twat Mitchell, these elites will cling on & on & on against all decency.
I must have missed something. What has driving an MP out of his job over a silly row,got to do with the management of the BBC ?
The point is those elites at the top of the public sector gravy train have no morals, no standards & when they fail spectacularly, their venal vicious incompetence on show for all to see, they seldom resign their cushy positions without dragging the name of public service through the sewer.
Happy to explain Sarah’s point to you.
My guess at one of the experts is Trevor Jones of UEA infamy.The guy who told others to shred their paper trail and and be as unhelpful as possible to anyone not batting for the climate change scam who was subsequently found guilty at the court of public opinion but exonerated by his mates on the one sided inquiry.
FOI requests are for News International, not UEA and the BBC.
Boaden must resign or be sacked.
Delingpole for Director of BBC news.
Surely under the terms of the Charter the BBC has a duty to answer the FOI request?
‘Surely under the terms of the Charter the BBC has a duty to answer the FOI request?
–
Well, there is a weaselly exemption that involves* ‘purposes of journalism’.
Which really should exempt the BBC on most measures by now.
* And pots more money.
Brill +1
How did one unelected woman gain total control of of State broadcaster propaganda?
The Labour Fallacy (a variant of circular reasoning):
She gets paid a lot of money so she must be worth it.
Because she is worth it she is paid a lot of money.
You look a lot younger in my rose tinted specs Helen
14 was too old for Gordon Brown…. Allegedly.
…but just right for Handy…. Allegedly.
i create a false image.
so the public gets deluded.
that’s what ppl in polite society do.
polite society= false image = delusion.
what qualities does max have which make him an appropriate judge of what is fair for the public. Does Max like to live his life…to the max.
It is “licence”, Guido, and not as spelt here.
We don’t need a state broadcaster spewing out political correctness and ”right on” socialist propaganda all day long paid for by taxpayers under threat of imprisonment.
Like the NHS, it is not a much loved British institution neither is it the envy of the world. As Fat Pang Patton himself has said, it is a cesspit.
The solution is simple, make the licence fee voluntary. I am sure that if the BBC is as good as its supporters claim it is then the money will keep rolling in.
“The BBC is so good, we have to force people to pay for it”
Oh, that makes no sense…
Im afraid something will have to be done.
You don’t have to buy a tv license , the license enables you to watch live TV signals off air or internet. As things stand at the moment, you do not need a license to watch BBC’s Iplayer or other internet catch up services ,but this may change as the BBC are merging live feeds into Iplayer. The BBC is lobbying to make the TV license apply to anyone with an internet connection. If you are prepared to forgo watching live TV then no license is required. You do not need a tv license to own a tv only if the tv is connected to an aerial and tuned in and set up to receive live signals. You can keep your tv to watch DVDs, computer games, you old VHS tapes, without a license as long as the receiving part of your tv is detuned and it is disconected from the aerial (on on modern tv this means do an automatic station search without the arial connect, it will find no signals and clear all pre-sets and to make sure use the “re-set to factory settings“ option) . Lets face, it Most BBC tv and radio output has the lefty message woven into it so you ain’t missing much. Radio does not require any license. So , consider not buying a TV license, you do have a choice!
That picture makes her look like a peedo apologise. Savile looks a right creep in those specs.
Why were so many people taken in by him ? Was it the high profile afforded by the charity work.
Don’t fool for all the ‘we were taken in’ malarky.
People knew, but looked the other way because they were either
i) Fellow nonces/sympathisers/bent as he was
ii) Putting their grubby careers first (ie the filthy money)
iii) Were shit scared of him and his cronies in high places
Peter Lilley actually knows what he is talking about on energy. In his youth he was a highly-rated oil analyst, able to criticise oil companies’ mistakes because cutting him out would have injured their credibility more than his.
They are hiding behind Chatham House Rule. So a rule made up to protect the proceedings of ‘an independent think tank’ trumps FOIA.
I don’t want to play any more.
The Chatham House rules are there to protect people from “X said Y”, it isn’t there to protect the anonymity of those present.
There is something seriously wrong if the Beeb are refusing to disclose the attendee’s at this meeting.
This refusal should give rise to very grave concerns, as it questions impartiality and their ethical stance.
FFS I thought that they are public servants delivering to their licence fee payers??
What impartiality? We are talking about the BBC.
Were there any scientists or was it really just a bunch of BBC senior management having a few days at a spa?
No harm in asking again, I suppose : Is there another civilized country in the world where (a) the citizen is compelled to seek permission from the state in order to watch any TV channel through any medium and (b) if the citizen refuses to pay the large sum required he or she goes to prison? Is it possible to find out how many citizens have been sent to prison, say over the past 12 months, for refusing to pay the TV licence?
To the best of my knowledge, the BBC receives over 3 billion a year. Human nature being what it is how can they fail to be corrupt?
The last, lost outpost of Stalinism.
Awe! Look at the silly cow. Best mates with Savile. lol. I need a good laugh.
Please Mr Guido have some consideration for bloated Fang Pang with all of his
other pies he has his large fingers in , Fang Pang just does not have the time
to rig FOI questions as well. Then there is the hiccup over Sa*vile that will take
hundreds of thousands of gallons of White Wash to ensure the real truth
is never allowed into the Public Arena….
What else do you expect Fang Pang to do……..??
BTW The SUN’s Trevor Kavangh speaks very highly of Fang Pang in his latest
report & I suppose The Sun is trying to be very helpful !!!
They make a lovely couple.
Psssst Just heard on the quiet that a large crane has been ordered for end
of this week or week after, to be used to prize the soon to be ex-Trust Chairman
out of his very comfortable large leather executive chair……….
Wonder who that could be & more interestingly WHY ….??????
At last a BBC balls up and nothing to do with Jim So vile.
One of the organisers of this seminar was the impressive sounding The International Broadcasting Trust. The IBT is in fact one man – Mark Galloway- and perhaps one assistant. It is a lobbying organisation and is, of course, a charity, listing a host of NGOs as members. Their stated mission is
lobbying Government, regulators and broadcasters
dialogue with the main public service broadcasters
research on broadcast and online coverage of the developing world
So who funds it? Well, it is almost entirely funded by grants
but where these grants come from is unclear, except in specific cases. Up until 2010 , it received taxpayers’ cash from the Department for International Development for a number of specific projects.
DFID Researching Development in the Media – 150,279
DFID Researching Development in the Media -102,346
DFID Real World Broadcasting Project – 49,820
DFID The World in Focus – 30,000
DFID The World Online – 45,235
Should government be handing out money to an individual whose aim is to lobby government? Should government be handing out money to an individual whose aim is to lobby the BBC? Here’s hoping Dave put an end to this nonsense.
Ha ha ha …….sorry to laugh….but for CMDDD to put an end to anything like this
is beyond his remit..as it will be seen as anti EUSSR..& anti the Kiddie Fiddlers
organisation aka B * B * C *
Please rest assured he will have to consult The Master (St.Toxic Bliar) for
instructions on how to kill helpful suggestions like this from one of the Plebs…….
In other words nothing will happen…..
We need to reduce the amount of energy that people use by making it so expensive that they no longer use such items as dishwashers, washing machines, fridges, tv sets…. no wait a mo’ – that means that we would get the chop.
If we are to pay more for energy, we need to scrap the BBC immediately.
£145.50 of electric/gas/petrol is a lot more use about the house than £145.50 of TV licence.
BBC employees should also bear in mind that Ms Boaden has pissed the entire BBC pension fund away on so-called “Green investments”.
When the eco-bubble bursts, your pension will be worth 4/5 of 5/8 of fuck all.
The answer is simple – They are cleaver, we are stupid, so we need to be told what to think.
I actually heard this expressed on the Andrew Marr Radio 4 program by one “Man Made Climate” changer when about someone who did not support their position. On that bases there is no room for debate, only instruction.
I would like to take a cleaver to the BBC.
perhaps jimmy savile was involved in the debate
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.
Lawyers were called “scribes” in those days.
“Pharisee” in its Hebrew form means separatist, as in belonging to an inner circle.
Basically the career politicians, and the Helen Boadens, and the media luvvies, corporate bosses and greasy pole climbers are essentially banal reincarnations of the assholes that shaped the past.
The BBC is also biased against flat earthers. When was the last time a proponent of flat earthism was given equal time? And as for anti-gravity.
‘Step aside’, is that BBC speak for P45 time?. Can we expect, ‘Fatty Pang’, a.k.a. Patten, to ‘step aside’ soon? If only for the outragious payment of £400K to Entwistle. I’ll do the job for a couple of months’ then ‘step aside’ for £200K, how about that then boys and girls?. I did find myself in the astonishing position, this morning, of agreeing with a lot that David Dimbleby said on Radio4 about the structure and management of the BBC, my conclusions on how to deal with it were, somewhat different. A good deal of the problem is, of course, a legacy from the days of that great manager, J. Birt esq. One of whose legacies was, ‘Birtspeak’, bullshit to the likes of you and me, hence, terms like ‘step aside’ creep into the ‘management’ venacular.
So…
a private organisation, funded by UK taxpayers, holds a secret conclave of ‘best scientific experts’ (including non-scientists) to legitimise its long-standing partiality in respect of AGW, refuses to disclose the names of the said experts and has this refusal backed by a tribunal of three, at least one of whom is an environmental campaigner.
I’s be pleased to have had the imagination to concoct that story.
More than 1,000 scientists now challenge the man made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and former Vice President Al Gore.
Despite Cancun being the second Climate Change Conference in a row in which no new binding Treaty Obligations were agreed, Chris Huhne, the Energy Secretary, signalled that he would raise Britain’s emissions reductions target.
What this effectively means for those on low or modest incomes is a drastic reduction in living standards due to environmental taxes designed to drive fuel consumption downwards. In December 2010 when Britain headed for its coldest winter in 300 years, UK residents realized that Chris Huhne’s words in Cancun were as meaningless as his pre-election pledge not to raise tuition fees.
It is difficult not to believe that Chris Huhne’s actions have been shaped more by Common Purpose than by common sense.
Modded.
Again.
Oh, for fuck sake!