BBC Blog Network

User Profile

neilninepercent

Listed below are comments made by neilninepercent between Tuesday, 29th September 2009 and Saturday, 24th October 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Wednesday 21 October 2009 4:33pm on 24 Oct 2009 It seems that what happened is that Labour, deliberately, decided to im port millions of immigrants, on the assumption that they would own their votes more thoroughly than the working class they were betraying.

Since this has now been made public it is difficult to imagine any working class person with any self respect voting for Labour's totalitarian traitors ever again.
Alan Bown and Michael Brown - spot the difference(s) 5:57pm on 20 Oct 2009 Hopefully this time my post will not break the rules. Any organisation which has pages & pages of detailed rules in small print can find something to make anybody guilty. Is there one of us who could not be arrested/fined for not having filled in some form in accordance with all the rules or possible interpretations? This is one way in which our freedom under the rule of law is being degraded. Nonetheless the state normally does not try to enforce the silliest of the rules.

It is clear & has been demonstrated legally that the UKIP infringement was very technical inadvertent & did not affect the oficial purpose of that rule to prevent foreign donations. The Lib Dem infringement was also technical, probably not that deliberate & very seriously breached the intent - not to allow parties to get stolen money. I am sure that if the Electoral Commission had wished to find tiny breaches in Labour or Conservative rukles they could have found them.

I regret the BBC deleted my previous post either because it drew the obvious conclusion about the impartiality of the body running elections or because I expressed praise mingled with surprise for allowing Mr Crick to publish this post & expressed the wish it was not a one off.

Democracy depends both on the state media reporting the facts impartially & the state election counting body performing their job impartially. If the former censor full & proper reporting of any partiality of the latter we have a problem.
Biases, U-turns, and the BBC's climate coverage 2:34pm on 16 Oct 2009 So when Newsnight's editor spoke favourably of the BBC not reporting warming alarmism with "due scepticism & balance" & Peter Sissons, on his retirement, spoke unfavourably of the BBC pushing the warming scare dishonestly both of them were lying. Presumably this is what the BBC menas by saying that when everybody accuses you of bias you must be unbiased.

I would be interested to know how many of the BBC investigators quoted as having expressed views are among the 31,000 scientists who signed the Oregon Petition saying warming alarmism was false (this is the largest single expression of scientific opinion). Being cynical my guess would be none. Indeed how many of them have even mentioned the existence of that petition while claiming that warming is a "consensus" - do I hear "none"? On the alternate question of how many of them, when reporting on warming, have put the alarmists side - being cynical my guess would be all.

It will be possible to say the BBC are unbiased, at least on this subject, when they have devoted a full day's programming to promoting the undeniable fact that the globe is cooling not warming, as they spent an entire day promoting Al Gore's concert to stop warming. Not before.
Thursday 15 October 2009 10:55am on 16 Oct 2009 There is an interesting post on John Redwood on how Newsnight phoned him yesterday saying they had achieved a major scoop by getting a hardline paper from the Post Office management & asking him to defend it. He apparently smelt a rat & declined to support the line the BBC were trying to force on him. The BBC then decided not to invite him on the programme.

I must admit I did not see Newsnight last night & it is possible that much of the programme was handed over to discussion of this, presumably very important, scoop. Indeed if the BBC were not engaged in a blatant piece of party politics attempting to entrap a Tory politician on behalf of Labour they must have done so.

http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/10/16/another-s
Is the Royal Mail worth saving? 12:00pm on 12 Oct 2009 Graham earlier this year during a phone in you said that I was wrong to say global warming wasn't happening & that since 1998 the climate had been cooling. You made no attempt to provide evidence for your claim, or indeed to let me provide evidence for mine. When I said that the BBC was biased on the subject citing the fact that they have produced literaly thousands of hours of warming alarmist propaganda with allowing sceptics to speak you said that I was being allowed to speak, which I must admit I did not think quite equated, & then switched me off.

I now appears that the BBC party line has switched, with much the same suddenness as that rather similar organisation, the Kremlin's used to.

"For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8299079.stm

Since the BBC have made this belated recognition of something which has been obvious to all impartial observers for some time may I ask you to acknowledge, on air, that I was right & you were wrong. May I also ask that the BBC in future make a greater atte,pt to report the facts in their news reports even when, as they so often do, they conflict with the official views presented by government & government funded fakecharities & the other, of ten "environmental" astroturf organisations you are so fond of interviewing?
From Jeremy Paxman 6:48pm on 07 Oct 2009 Jean #39 I am pleased that, on this occasion I wasn't censored & indeed tha you censor rather les than most BBC sites. I am not grateful for that however because free speech is not something we should have to be grateful for & my post #34 was polite & factual giving no justification for censorship.

I don't really understand your point that because the BBC is under pressure to compete it has to lie to promote the global warming scare story. All polls show that despite years of trying to stir up hysteria the public continually put the War on Fire, last on any list of issues.

The only people to whom pushing this lie is popular are the politicians & civil servants using it to increase their power. If the BBC put competing with independent media ahead of pushing their master's agenda, as, for example US talk radio notoriously/freely does it would be reporting the ways in which the alarmist case has, repeatedly, been proven not only wrong but fraudulent.
From Jeremy Paxman 1:26pm on 07 Oct 2009 “I have neither the learning nor the experience to know whether the doomsayers are right about the human causes of climate change. But I am willing to acknowledge that people who know a lot more than I do may be right when they claim that it is the consequence of our own behaviour. I assume that this is why the BBC's coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago.” Jeremy Paxman

The recent proof by Stephen McIntyre that the entire evidence for fast rising warming has been proven to be based on 12 tree rings, chosen fraudulently from many others that didn't show it, has been censored on the BBC. Bearing in mind that it is nonetheless prove I would like to ask Mr Paxman if he still believes there is a possibility that the line the BBC have "given up the pretence of impartiality" to push "may" be true.
Monday 5 October 2009 5:53pm on 06 Oct 2009 Jeremy has made it clear that he asks only supportive questions of global warming alarmists & never speaks to sceptics because the BBC heirarchy tell him to rather than because he believes it. So the open convention may be that he asks the questions but the real convention is that all these questions are politically controlled. Thus Boris is quite right to question the questioner.
Friday 2 October 2009 5:15pm on 02 Oct 2009 May I ask why, the BBC having done literally thousands of reports on "scientists say global warming is more serious than previously thought...", you don't consider the news, sweeping the blogsphere, that Stephen McIntyre has, by checking the tree ring data on which the whole Global warming thesis is based, proven statistically that it was not merely wrong but fraudulent.

See http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/

Since this proves the entire warming scare, at best, wholly untrue & partly fraudulent, surely this is a matter of greater importance than most reports on the subject.
Overprotecting our kids? 5:28pm on 29 Sep 2009 The point with these 2 was that it was not "overprotecting" anybody. It was simply government bureaucracy getting in the way just because it could. The fact is that child care costs 4 times what it should simply because of useless government regulation. This causes immense harm to young families, prevents mothers getting jobs, even prevents children being born because the prospective parents know they can't afford them.

Yet another example of how parasitic almost all of government is. Of course the BBC, being government employees, aren't going to say that.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

neilninepercent