BBC Blog Network

User Profile

SilencedMajority

Listed below are comments made by SilencedMajority between Tuesday, 24th June 2008 and Wednesday, 26th November 2008.

«Newer
Older»

The BBC licence free? 00:09am on 26 Nov 2008 My licence expires in a few weeks time and the 'only' £139.50 that renewing it would cost will have to go towards paying the vastly increased gas and electricity bills I'm faced with this winter.

It's no real loss, most days I don't even turn it on, plus my now 28 year old TV is showing its age and I can't afford a new one. So I will go without TV altogether. It's an expensive luxury and the most I'd be prepared to pay for it is nothing.
Open Industry Standards For Audio & Video On The Web 10:34am on 13 Aug 2008 I have to agree wholeheartedly with AlanAudio. The BBC was a strong advocate and driver of open industry standards. The Corporation developed many of the technologies and methods used in TV and radio broadcasting and narrowcasting today, allowing them to be used and incorporated worldwide.

However, that proud history was throw in the bin when iPlayer was announced and it was only pressure from outside the Corporation that eventually changed that situation to allow iPlayer on anything other than a Windows PC.

The BBC also used to a be a trustworthy source of unbiased truth, but that is another proud history that has gone in the bin in recent years.
Map of the week: Rainfall 11:02am on 21 Jul 2008 "...compared with the average of the years 1961 to 1990..."

Shouldn't there be a 'mere' or at least an 'only' in that?

I was born at the beginning of the 1950's and well remember summer after summer of rain and more rain and that's not just childhood selective memory.

It's ridiculous to compare this year with the average of a mere 29 years. Like they say, with statistics you can 'prove' anything.
Wednesday, 25 June, 2008 11:32am on 26 Jun 2008 JadedJean,

Yes and how ironic it is that the nuclear power industry, vilified by green organisations for so long as a long-term polluter and possible destroyer of life on Earth, an industry that ought to be shut down completely, now is being presented as 'green' and stands to make countless billions from the Global Warming gravy-train.
Wednesday, 25 June, 2008 09:53am on 26 Jun 2008 Earth-Reply,

"Any average intelligent person..."

Why is it that Global Warming believers resort to insults so readily. Insulting someone doesn't make them agree with you. The consensus of scientific data point to no warming of the Earth. CO2 as a greenhouse gas is still a hypothesis. Using the words 'facts' and 'prove' just shows a lack of understanding of how science functions.

The data published by two independent organisations contradicts the data controlled by someone who is in the thrall of a person who has already benefited greatly and is set to benefit still further from his ownership of a carbon trading company and green investment funds. Indeed data published by his own organisation that he is not in control of contradicts him. However, the IPCC chooses to believe the data that suits their purpose and dismisses out-of-hand any that doesn't. Not scientific, but then the IPCC is political, the clue is in the name. The majority of the media then follow their own agendas, choosing to accept what is put out by the IPCC, calling it a consensus when it is not.

"Its quite likely that those who stand to loose out to global warming (we all know who those companies are), have posted comments such as those dominating this story."

Why is it you try to dismiss what you admit are the majority of comments as planted by the oil companies? We already see that the so-called Green Industry is making plenty of money from 'Global Warming'. Domestic wind turbines have already been shown not to produce enough electricity to counter the CO2 produced in their manufacture, but if legislation was introduced forcing people to install them, the manufacturers, suppliers and installers are on the gravy-train. If mandatory carbon trading is introduced, then not only will the carbon trading companies make millions, so will computer hardware and software companies. As do manufacturers of insulation, energy-efficient light bulbs, et al. And let us not forget that governments, and even local councils, have already collectively pulled in many billions in taxes they wouldn't have raised without the great green scare.

So why resort to being insulting and dismissive if you have a sound argument that can be backed up with real scientific evidence and not assumptions?
Wednesday, 25 June, 2008 11:30pm on 25 Jun 2008 So now we have the intelligence agencies stating that Global Warming will lead to Armageddon. These are the very same intelligence agencies that stated that they had irrefutable proof that Saddam had substantial quantities of WMD in Iraq and that costly, in all respects, military action was the only option. Have we forgotten this or is it just convenient doublethink?

We heard the real reason why they are making these claims, that of increased spending. Up it to the levels of the war on terror or better still, the Apollo program, and with the same underlying bogeyman, that of risking loosing status as a superpower. Plenty of highly profitable business for companies, scientists, et al and of course plenty of taxes to pay for it all.

The problem is, just as with WMD and Iraq, when the smoke clears and the mirrors tarnish and crack, as they will do as people see with their own eyes that the planet isn't heating up and sea levels aren't rising, the backlash will be immense. Politicians, governments, environmental organisations, science in general, all will be discredited as at best fools, at worst liars.

By replacing nuclear Cold War Armageddon with Global Warming 'hot war' Armageddon, these people are playing with fire and we all risk getting badly burnt.
Tuesday, 24 June, 2008 11:47pm on 24 Jun 2008 In my experience, waiting list targets are a cruel sham.

I was referred to a consultant and yes, I was seen within 18 weeks. Seen meant just 5 minutes, a few notes quickly taken and given forms for blood tests. Come back in 6 months for the results. I then saw a junior doctor who just gave me more blood tests and said come back in 6 months. At the third appointment I given a form for a scan as well. At my fourth appointment, 21 months after originally being referred, I saw the consultant for a second time and we discussed my condition, the scan results and, finally, treatment. The blood tests had showed that my illness had steadily become worse and was approaching critical. I suspect this was the only reason why I'd been given the scan and was seen by the consultant the second time. Of course this meant that the treatment had to be more severe and the outcome was less certain.

So although the the waiting list target was satisfied from a bureaucratic viewpoint, the consultant had too little time to properly examine and follow up all these patients. Yes, I was 'seen' in less than 18 weeks, but this didn't help me at all. I would have been much better served if I'd have had to wait longer, say 36 weeks, but have been examined properly by a consultant who hadn't had to waste his time satisfying counter–productive bureaucratic targets just to make the government look good.

«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

SilencedMajority