Autonomous Mind

Inconvenient information is ‘not available centrally’

Published 14/01/2010 Parliament , Politicians 1 Comment

If an MP writes to a government minister with an awkward question that could generate an embarrassing or inconvenient response, like as not the minister will take refuge behind a catch all written response claiming the information is not collected or available ‘centrally‘.

Often this brush off is accompanied by a rider suggesting the collection of such information would be detrimental to the taxpyer because the information ‘could be provided only at disproportionate cost’. That’s consideration for you. How novel that this government actually thinks about the likely cost before doing something (this sentence may contain traces of sarcasm).

There are instances of this cropping up in Parliament every day and it is clear that the government, by using this excuse, is treating Parliament and voters with contempt. Here is a random sample of such excuses used just this week taken from Hansard:

Mr. Baron:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many overseas training courses were attended by her Department’s civil servants in the latest period for which figures are available; how many civil servants attended each course; and what the total cost to the public purse was of each course.

Angela Eagle:
The Department does not hold records on the information requested centrally; individual business units retain records locally and as such this information could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

How about…

Norman Baker:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much his Department and its predecessor have paid in vehicle clamping charges incurred on (a) privately-owned and (b) publicly-owned land in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

Dan Norris:
This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The Department would expect clamping charges and any other motoring fines to be paid by the individual(s) who incurred them.

And there’s this…

Mr. Drew:
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how many hotel room nights were booked by officials in (a) his Department and (b) its agencies in each year since its inception; and how much (i) his Department and (ii) its agencies spent on the fees of third party agents in booking hotel accommodation in each of those years.

Joan Ruddock:
Since its inception on 3 October 2008 and from information held centrally, the number of hotel room nights booked by officials in my Department by November 2009 totalled 1,006. Additionally some officials booked accommodation using their Government procurement cards (GPCs) and to provide details of each transaction would entail disproportionate cost.

Hotel accommodation is provided through a cross-Government hotel booking agent contract awarded by Buying Solutions. Records of fees paid are not centrally recorded and to provide this information would entail disproportionate cost.

Also worth a mention is…

Tim Loughton:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young people in each youth offending team area were (a) assaulted with a knife and (b) killed in a knife attack in each year since 1997.

Mr. Alan Campbell:
The requested information is not collected centrally.

And this…

Chris Huhne:
To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many employees of his Department and its agencies have been convicted of a criminal offence of each type in each year since 1997.

Paul Goggins:
While details of criminal convictions would be on the personnel files of employees they are not held centrally.

You get the picture. The pattern that emerges is that if the information is likely to show evidence of waste, incompetence, policy failure or in some way incriminate the government, the topic is one that is not collected centrally, or would cost too much to investigate. How convenient. It is hardly going to make the public more trusting of politicians or pique their interest in reconnecting with the political process. This is just another example of how democracy is undermined and how poorly served we are by this shambolic and deceitful government.

Trade Unions soak up international aid money

Published 13/01/2010 DFID , Fraud , Labour , Trade Unions 3 Comments

It is embarrassing that this story almost went past Autonomous Mind Towers without being noticed. Yet again we have another example of public funds being misused for self serving political ends by the Labour government. Once again it is the Department for International Development (DFID) which is being free and easy with our hard earned cash (hat tip: ConservativeHome).

Earlier this week it was confirmed in Parliament that a DFID civil servant has been seconded to Tony Blair for his work as Quartet Representative in the Middle East. But at the same time the International Policy Network (IPN) was explaining that:

Following on from our previous investigation [Sept 2009] of how “foreign aid” is being used for advocacy work by NGOs inside the UK, IPN has discovered that trades unions are benefiting from millions of money aimed at “international development”.

From 2003 to 2006, the Trades Union Congress [TUC] has rececived £3.6 million from the UK Department for International Development (DfID). But much of this money has been spent on projects benefiting the domestic UK labour movement. We’re just not sure how this benefits the poorest people around the world.

Download the IPN report ‘A Closer Union’

Perhaps this is another generous ‘thank you’ from Labour to the trade unions who are keeping the party alive financially. After all, during the period in question, 2003-06, trade unions donated £39,086,216.09 (yes, £39m) in cash to Labour both directly and through constituency Labour party groups.

In return, Labour has channelled around £10m of our money back to the trade unions for the ‘trade union mondernisation fund‘. This meant the unions did not have to use their own money for training and development, enabling them to maintain huge political donations to Labour. And now we see a further £3.6m of our money being given to the trade unions to help train people how to be better advocates of the trade union movement and the Labour party. Labour is only one short step away from actually paying the subs for union members!

Strangely enough, the DFID web page ‘Where the money goes‘ makes no mention at all of these Partnership Programme Arrangement (PPA) payments to the TUC for use in the UK. PPAs are made through a mechanism that is supposed to channel money to dedicated aid charities operating in poorer countries, such as Oxfam.

Clearly the payments to the TUC are neither international aid nor benefiting people in desperate need. They are a corrupt abuse of public funds for political gain by a corrupt and morally bankrupt government. This is just another example of ‘public spending’ that can be cut without affecting front line services.

Labour’s selective use of civil servants

Published 12/01/2010 Data Protection , Hypocrisy , Labour 2 Comments

Just after New Year the Times reported that the Treasury had published detailed official analysis of 22 Conservative tax and spending proposals yesterday in response to a Freedom of Information request. This provoked a storm of opposition protest at Labour’s use of civil servants to draft information for party political campaigning use. Compare and contrast the amount of effort that was devoted to collating and number crunching those 22 tax and spending proposals with the following story.

A Ministerial written answer was published in the House of Commons yesterday in response to a question from Dr John Pugh (Lib Dem, Southport) who mindful of data protection concerns had decided:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many members of NHS staff have been disciplined for inappropriate use of information on (a) an NHS database and (b) medical records in each of the last 10 years.

As the answer clearly wasn’t going to provide any party political ammunition for Labour in the forthcoming General Election, Minister Mike O’Brien’s response was no less than could have been expected from a government that is determined to hand many more public servants access to our personal data without proper controls or safeguards. This is a defining issue for Autonomous Mind because it has far reaching implications for us all. No doubt acutely aware of the implications for data protection, he wrote:

The information requested is not held centrally. Legal responsibility for the secure handling and management of patient information rests with individual national health service organisations. It is therefore a matter for NHS organisations to take the appropriate action where patient information has been inappropriately accessed by their staff.

In other words, the details would be too inconvenient and embarrassing to publicise and would Dr Pugh please stop asking awkward questions. It seems that civil servants can be tasked with building policy strawmen for the government to use to attack the opposition. But they cannot be tasked with collating important information, from health authorities and care trusts who could have it, about the misuse of our personal data by NHS employees.

Why is it left to Autonomous Mind to highlight this issue? The press should be all over this deliberate attempt to conceal important information about data protection breaches from the public. If we have nothing to hide we have nothing to fear, right? Think again.

What is Tony Blair doing in the Middle East?

Published 12/01/2010 DFID , Middle East , Our Tax £s 1 Comment

Within hours of stepping down as Prime Minister in 2007 and as part of his (failed) strategy to become President of the European Council, Tony Blair assumed an international statesman’s role in the Middle East as ‘Quartet Representative‘ on behalf of the United Nations, US, Russian Federation and European Union.

Setting aside the irony of Blair working for peace given his eagerness to send British troops into action throughout his premiership, his job working with the Palestinians as an envoy was to:

mobilise international assistance to the Palestinians, working closely with donors and existing coordination bodies
help to identify, and secure appropriate international support in addressing the institutional governance needs of the Palestinian state, focusing as a matter of urgency on the rule of law
develop plans to promote Palestinian economic development, including private sector partnerships, building on previously agreed frameworks, especially concerning access and movement
and liaise with other countries as appropriate in support of the agreed Quartet objectives

Given Tony Blair’s job description and given that the UK is a substantial donor of international aid to the Palestinian authority, it might be a surprise to learn that in those two and a half years as Quartet Representative, Blair has not held a single meeting with any of his former government colleagues working at the Department for International Development (DFID). This is despite the department having seconded one of our civil servants, paid for by the British taxpayer, to Blair’s ‘Office of the Quartet Representative’ in Jerusalem.

So what is Blair actually doing in the Middle East? The answer seems to be, not very much. While Blair seems to be demonstrating masterful inaction when it comes to the Palestinians, he does however seem rather more active in matters of personal comfort. It’s so nice to know that having torn apart the social fabric of this country and helped run up the largest debt we have seen since the second world war, we taxpayers are still picking up the tab to satisfy his planet sized ego while getting nothing of value in return.

Stop and search powers ruled illegal

Published 12/01/2010 Law and Order , Liberty , Rights 2 Comments

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that sweeping powers allowing police to stop and search people without having grounds of suspecting their involvement in terrorism are illegal, reports The Times. The paper goes on to explain that Judges at the court in Strasbourg made their unanimous decision in a case involving two people stopped near an arms fair in east London in 2003.

While this is a small victory for individual freedom from the state, this case should never have needed to go before a foreign court. This country should have its own written constitution and convention of rights. The domestic justice system in the UK should be sovereign and it should be sufficiently robust to strike down legislation such as Section 44 of the Terrorism 2000 Act, elements of which infringe our civil rights and do not provide adequate safeguards from abuse.

The Labour government, in its hyperactive determination to create laws so as to appear to be ‘doing something’ about terrorist threats and criminality, has been guilty of drafting appalling legislation. Many of the Bills it has enacted are unnecessarily intrusive and have conferred excessive powers on the police and civil servants that are open to a wide range of interpretations. So it is no surprise that some officials take advantage of this and wield their power in an inappropriate manner.

In matters of law and order, people should be free to do anything that is not illegal. But this government is trying to reverse that state of affairs by steadily making illegal actions for which people have not been granted express permission. It is unacceptable and people need to oppose such draconian and repressive measures.

Another nail in the coffin of liberty and justice

Published 12/01/2010 Big Government , Justice , Liberty 2 Comments

Today marks an historic moment in our history. Today we will witness the first criminal trial without a jury to take place in England and Wales for more than 400 years. Lawyer ‘Tom Paine’ of The Last Ditch, reminds us of the importance of jury trials when he writes:

“The right to trial by jury has protected Englishmen from an over-mighty state since long before democracy was born. Combined with the Great Writ of habeas corpus, it meant you could not be detained without trial and that your trial must be by 12 independent jurors. For most of the last 400 years, those jurors were required to decide unanimously that you were guilty. If they couldn’t, you were acquitted.”

Slowly but surely and with relentless determination, the state is eroding protections and freedoms that were designed to shield citizens from abuses by the state. These are not entitlements that are being stripped from us, they are rights. The people taking them away from us are supposed to be our public servants. But as we have enjoyed the freedom to focus our attention on other matters, our servants have positioned themselves as our masters.

It may be that the defendants who go on trial today did commit the failed armed robbery of which they are stand accused. It may be they deserve guilty verdicts and severe punishment. But it is for a jury of their peers to listen to the evidence and decide if they are guilty. It is a protection that was put in place to ensure the state could not arbitrarily and unfairly deprive citizens of their liberty.

What we have now is a self contained and disconnected political class that has granted itself the power to control our lives. Because successive governments have appeared benign and of no threat to us, the public has shown little interest in their activities. Emboldened by this, the state has taken ever greater control over us telling us it is for our own good, for our security and well being.

Now the consequences are becoming clear and we are standing by powerless as our self appointed masters set about reversing freedoms that have been hard won over the centuries, and for which millions of people have given their lives to defend. It is only when people realise the distractions employed to divert our attention from what they are doing to assert control over us that it becomes clear how premeditated and carefully thought out this has been. It is not an exaggeration to say that we are becoming enslaved by the state and that the state is removing the mechanisms we could rely on to counter it.

The question is, what will it take for people to focus on this problem and put an end to it? Or have the organs of the state now passed the point where we as free individuals can take control back from them?

It’s so cold…

Published 11/01/2010 Labour , MPs 3 Comments

This was too good not to shamelessly plagiarise and adapt for Autonomous Mind from Tony Hake at CC Examiner.

Met Office v Joe Bastardi

Published 11/01/2010 Climate Change , Joe Bastardi , Met Office 2 Comments

What Paul Hudson, weather presenter and climate correspondent for BBC Look North, writes on his blog is so distinct from the rest of the BBC’s weather and climate output it makes me suspicious of why it gets published. You wouldn’t see Richard Black, Roger Harrabin or David Shukman writing pieces that, say, explore the influence of the sun on climate, because their friends in the global warming consensus have dismissed such ideas.

I keep waiting for Hudson to suddenly pop up and say ‘Ha ha! Fooled you!’ which, when you think about it, is a terrible indictment of the BBC. Hudson’s latest offering, “A frozen Britain turns the heat up on the Met Office” questions whether there is a ‘warm’ bias in the forecasting model of the Hadley supercomputer. Well it is very possible. Models are created with human determined parameters and if you put junk in you get junk out, and let’s face it, Hadley is infested with people who are slavishly devoted to the global warming creed so the likelihood of bias is high. But I digress.

Hudson refers in his blog to an expert senior meterologist at Accuweather.com called Joe Bastardi. While the UK Met Office was trotting out its repeated claims that we were going to experience a mild winter with less than a 20% chance of really cold weather, Bastardi was warning us that this extreme cold was on its way. He took a lot of flak for it, but stuck to his guns and events have shown him to be extremely accurate.

One commenter on Hudson’s blog claimed Bastardi “always forecasts a cold winter so eventually will get it right one day”. But is that fair or just an ad hominem attack on a man who put the Met Office’s collective nose out of joint? Over a period of time, just how accurate is Joe Bastardi compared to our lavishly funded Met Office?

Of the last eleven winters, the Met Office forecast milder conditions than actually occurred for nine of them. The last time Bastardi predicted a colder winter was last year for eastern Europe. He was right (again). Prior to that, the last cold winter he predicted was for 2002-3. Hardly evidence of him always forecasting cold winters.

How come the Met Office gets seasonal forecasting wrong so often, but Joe Bastardi has a greater degree of accuracy? Perhaps it’s because the Met Office approaches its forecasts from a default position of mankind warming the globe, while Bastardi has no bias and relies on proper scientific method and observation. Bastardi’s accuracy clearly speaks for itself. Despite the recession the number of companies relying on accurate forecasting who are buying Bastardi’s forecasts has actually increased.

Tories to continue state meddling in our lives

Published 11/01/2010 Big Government , Conservatives Leave a Comment

It’s been bad enough having to put up with 12 years of Labour government interference and intrusion. As far as the socialists are concerned, the state should govern how we live, work and think. But if anyone is hoping a Conservative government will put an end to such Marxist activity David Cameron articulated a message today that signals the state will continue to meddle in our lives:

This is relatively new territory for the Conservative Party. In the past we’ve been guilty of giving the impression that to build a responsible society, all we needed was freedom for the individual plus a strong rule of law from the state. We didn’t talk enough about what happened in between. And we were unwilling to intervene more directly in issues of behaviour and character for fear of being intrusive – for twitching the curtains, as it were.

But if the modern Conservative Party’s mission is to build the strong society – which it is, if we believe that a strong society is the sum of the goodness and character of millions of individuals – which we do and if we accept that goodness and character are formed through nurture and not just fixed by nature – which the evidence shows to be the case, then it is not just right but essential that we take a view on how responsible character is formed, and what government can do to help build it.

All that has ever been needed for a responsible society is freedom for the individual and the strong and just application of the rule of law. The state is to blame for the mess we’re in. As the state has assumed ever more control, society has become progressively weaker. By exerting control over our lives, the state has eroded the need for personal responsibility in individuals.

Under Labour the nonsensical promotion of a ‘human rights’ culture has blurred the distinction between rights and entitlements, allowing the feckless to behave in a way that offends society and claiming they are merely exercising their rights. When this has been combined with judicial activism by liberal judges, those who have offended society do not receive punishment, but are instead excused for their wrongdoing, told it is not their fault and treated with kid gloves. The signal this sends is that people will not suffer consequences for their actions.

The solution is obvious, ensure the rule of law is applied firmly to those whose behaviour and character leads them to offend against society. That is all government needs to do. But instead, David Cameron is needlessly hitching himself to the ‘the state can fix all problems’ bandwagon. This is all about power. Cameron cannot resist the temptation to wield it because he is a control freak convinced in his own ability to know what is best for us.

As Gerald Ford told Congress in 1974 when he occupied the Oval Office:

If the government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have.

The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases. With these plans Cameron, despite claiming he wants small government, is actively planning to increase it. The casualty yet again will be our individual freedom.

Peter Robinson steps down

Published 11/01/2010 Northern Ireland Leave a Comment

Three days ago this blog said Peter Robinson’s political career was finished because the press had enough dirt to pull the rug from under him. In the post was cited just one example of this concerning allegations that he has previously hit his wife.

But it seems there must be more dirt concerning financial irregularities and misconduct that the press has uncovered, because just minutes ago Robinson stepped down as First Minister of Northern Ireland. It is unlikely to be a coincidence that this move has happened just hours before BBC Panorama airs a special programme on the Robinsons.

The resignation is is supposed to be a temporary measure for up to six weeks and Robinson has placed Arlene Foster in the position of interim First Minister. Autonomous Mind is wagering that despite the DUP offering Robinson their full support, behind the scenes the jockeying for position is already underway as supporters of Foster, deputy leader Nigel Dodds and Jeffrey Donaldon ready their leadership bids. The likelihood of Robinson returning will reduce with each passing day.

The similarities between swine flu and global warming

Published 11/01/2010 Climate Change , Fraud Leave a Comment

The Daily Mail is reporting a major story concerning swine flu and the outrageous behaviour of pharmaceutical companies in the response to the spread of the disease:

“The swine flu outbreak was a ‘false pandemic’ driven by drug companies that stood to make billions of pounds from a worldwide scare, a leading health expert has claimed.

“Wolfgang Wodarg, head of health at the Council of Europe, accused the makers of flu drugs and vaccines of influencing the World Health Organisation’s decision to declare a pandemic.

“This led to the pharmaceutical firms ensuring ‘enormous gains’, while countries, including the UK, ’squandered’ their meagre health budgets, with millions being vaccinated against a relatively mild disease.”

How is this is any different to climate change/global warming alarmism? Instead of swine flu we have climate change; instead of drug companies we have the myriad of corporations peddling supposed solutions to global warming; instead of the World Health Organisation we have the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

But there is no difference between swine flu and global warming when talk turns to firms pushing an agenda in order to make ‘enormous gains’ as countries including the UK ’squander’ their money, on a fight against a grossly exaggerated problem. In both cases millions of people experience unnecessary discomfort, in the case of global warming alarmism seeing their bills rise to fund measures to combat something theoretical for which the causes and effects remain unproven.

When people read the story I wonder how many of them will make the connection between the obvious common denominator in both cases, big business chasing lucrative revenues. Corporations and their political friends are hyping a theory out of all proportion and in so doing are deceiving the public in order to enrich themselves. If you want to understand what’s really going on, follow the money.

Conservatives? No, it’s the Cameron Party

Published 10/01/2010 Conservatives , Spin Leave a Comment

All credit to David Cameron for his performance on the Andrew Marr show this morning. After all, it’s extremely difficult to keep a straight face when telling a huge whopper on national television. Marr brought up the subject of the new Conservative billboard poster campaign and suggested that the campaign was all about Cameron rather than the Conservative party. Of course Cameron denied this and spoke about the Conservative team, singling out William Hague and Kenneth Clarke for special mention.

Well, thanks to ConservativeHome, you can decide for yourself if the poster is really about the Conservative party, or if it’s all about Cameron. Do you see a team on there? I can only see a heavily airbrushed image of Cameron. Laughingly, he told the press earlier this week he hoped his image had not been airbrushed. Does he honestly think we believe he did not see the final version and approved it without noticing his image had a certain Max Headroom type quality to it? When he looks in the mirror, is that the skin and tone he sees?

Notice the pledge. It doesn’t say the party will cut the deficit instead of the NHS, it says Cameron will. The name Conservatives only appears as part of a web address. The Conservative party tree logo is completely missing. This is a poster for the self proclaimed heir to Blair, the Cameron Party. Maybe such an observation is unfair. Perhaps this was Cameron’s PR team going a little bit OTT to make the boss look good. Surely, the man is not bigger than the party and his team, is he?

Oh hang on. Let’s think back to July 2007 and the Ealing Southall by-election. Who was it candidate Tony Lit was standing for? Hmmm. Fair enough, I concede that was a while ago. Perhaps Cameron has become more collegiate since then. If so he has hidden it well. Consider this comment Cameron made in an interview for the Guardian. The subject of climate change came up and addressing the possibility of a mini-revolt from climate change sceptics within the Conservative party, Cameron said:

“A very small number of people take a different view on the science, but the policy is driven by me, and that is the way it is going to be.”

It doesn’t seem there is much scope for Cameron’s ‘team’ to have a say in matters now, does it? The only logical conclusion is that the Conservative election campaign will be all about him. Autocracy and hubris is writ large across Cameron Party HQ.

Met Office boss lie exposed by official

Published 09/01/2010 Climate Change , Met Office 2 Comments

The Chief Executive of the UK Met Office, John Hirst, appeared on the Daily Politics show earlier this week. Hirst was grilled in a very un-BBC manner by Andrew Neill about the department’s poor forecasting performance and Hirst’s extraordinary 25% pay increase. The hike in performance related pay saw Hirst receive between £195,000 and £200,000 in pay and performance bonuses in 2008/9. You can watch the full interview in the clip below.

During the interview, Hirst claims that the Met Office forecast the extremely cold winter weather for the UK, despite there being no warning of a severe freeze until after it had already begun. It was not until 30th December (days after US weather services had issued warnings) that the seasonal forecast was adjusted to increase the probability of a colder than average winter (only a 45% chance though). This update was only made after the snow had fallen and temperatures had already started to plummet.

But John Hirst’s claims have been shown to be lies, by none other than one of his own senior Met Office officials who, when asked on Newsnight (see clip below): ‘Why didn’t you see this coming?’, Keith Groves replied:

‘I’m disappointed that our seasonal forecasts didn’t give a prediction or stronger probability of a colder winter.’

He tried to tone down his comments immediately after, but the damage was already done. Groves’ comment has cut the legs from under John Hirst. Groves clearly concedes that the seasonal forecast didn’t give a prediction of a colder winter.

Also seeing themselves slipping over thanks to the chill admission from Groves is BBC Science Editor, Susan Watts. As you can see in the clip below, in an attempt to maintain the global warming narrative despite evident colder winters, she broadcast a report on Newsnight on 7th January that included the comment:

In fact that seasonal forecast predicting a mild winter wasn’t actually wrong, but it left people with the wrong impression.

The BBC is engaging in propaganda. You doubt me? OK, read this post on the excellent Biased BBC by ‘DB’, then ask yourself why James Cove says one thing on BBC channels but contradicts his comments on his ‘PlanetSki’ blog. It doesn’t add up.

Nevertheless, the message from the Met Office and the BBC is clear. The public is not intelligent enough to understand the complexities of weather forecasting or climate. Forget the poorer summers and colder winters, they are saying, global warming is taking place. This despite the fall in global temperatures in 2007 completely wiping out all of the global increase in temperatures of the 20th century. Who are the real deniers here?

After Iris, Peter Robinson is finished

Published 08/01/2010 Northern Ireland Leave a Comment

The downfall of Northern Ireland’s mini political dynasty looks to be upon us. Iris Robinson, wife of First Minister Peter Robinson, stands accused of failing to declare her financial interest in a business venture, for which she arranged the financing, while sitting on the local council that in turn then awarded a contract to her teenage lover, Kirk McCambley, in 2008.

The real-life Mrs Robinson, having been caught in her attempt to make money on the side from the deal she helped broker for her young love interest and failing to declare her substantial interest in the matter, dived for cover behind the excuse of suffering from “mental illness” through depression when it became clear the story was going to break.

With Mrs Robinson’s career almost certainly set to be destroyed by the allegations, commentators are now speculating whether Peter Robinson will be forced to resign too. It is alleged that when he learned about his wife’s affair and financial dealings with Benjamin Braddock Kirk McCambley, Mr Robinson ordered the money to be repaid, but crucially failed to report it to the authorities. If proven to be true, that would make his position untenable and throw the Democratic Unionist Party into disarray.

For now Mr Robinson is trying to tough it out and says he’s staying put. But how long will he continue to dig his heels in if the media decides it wants to take his scalp? For many years residents living near the Robinsons in the close knit community of East Belfast have gossiped allegations that he has on occasions assaulted his wife during their marriage. There is no doubt the press know about the rumours but in discreet French fashion they have refused to report about them.

The question now is will the press change its mind in order to bring about Mr Robinson’s political demise?

Why bother, BBC Trust?

Published 07/01/2010 BBC , Climate Change Leave a Comment

Welcome, reader, to Autonomous Mind. Hopefully you will return regularly and share your thoughts in the comments sections. You can read about the blog and the author’s views on the tabs above. Without further ado, let’s crack on.

On Wednesday, the BBC Trust issued a press release explaining that it was going to carry out a review to assess the accuracy and impartiality of the BBC’s coverage of science.

It went on to explain that it is a key priority for the Trust that the BBC covers potentially controversial subjects with due impartiality, as required by the Royal Charter and Agreement.

Richard Tait, BBC Trustee and Chair of the Trust’s Editorial Standards Committee (ESC) explained:

“Science is an area of great importance to licence fee payers, which provokes strong reaction and covers some of the most sensitive editorial issues the BBC faces.

“Heated debate in recent years around topics like climate change, GM crops and the MMR vaccine reflects this, and BBC reporting has to steer a course through these controversial issues while remaining impartial.

“The BBC has a well-earned reputation for the quality of its science reporting, but it is also important that we look at it afresh to ensure that it is adhering to the very high standards that licence fee payers expect.”

I can’t believe Tait kept a straight face when he wrote that. When it comes to climate change the BBC is not impartial. It admitted so itself in a BBC Trust report called “From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel: Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century” when it included this:

The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus.

It went on to claim that “dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard” but the output on television and radio has clearly shown that such occasions are very few and far between. Even when they do make it to the airwaves, those people from outside the cosy, man made global warming (MMGW) consensus who are invited to speak are always opposed by another guest. Guests from the MMGW consensus are almost always able to speak without someone being allowed to offer a counter view.

So just what does the BBC Trust think there is to assess? We can expect one of two things; either a report that is hushed up in the same way the Balen Report was, or a self congratulatory publication declaring a clean bill of health and stating that the BBC is a bastion of impartiality. The institutional bias of the corporation and its activist editors will remain untouched, funded by and to the detriment of the licence fee payers.

	Wikicrapedia! … on Inconvenient information is …
	twawki on Trade Unions soak up internati…
	twawki on Trade Unions soak up internati…
	Where is the Justice… on Another nail in the coffin of …
	Paul Henri Cadier on Another nail in the coffin of …