Undecided and Uninvited - Biased BBC

Undecided and Uninvited: "I may have been a bit slow to realise this, but as soon as one becomes associated with a particular cause, one alienates people.

It is a mistake to assume that reasoned argument will win anyone over. People make their minds up for all sorts of reasons - then say “that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.”

The more rational you are, the more people use distancing strategies to avoid being seduced by your reasonableness. They marginalise you, label you, and grossly exaggerate your position to avoid accidentally considering any of your points.
This principle works both ways. I confess I’ve caught myself doing it, remonstrated with myself, and carried on regardless.

Questioning the wisdom of pandering to Muslims puts one into the dreaded position of Islamophobe.

On the Sunday programme R4 (31:06) I had to listen to Ed Stourton asking a group of Muslims about their voting habits. One was from the Muslim Council of Britain, an organisation I thought had been deemed unrepresentative of the ‘Muslim voice,’ but no matter. The MCB fella said their aim was fighting Islamophobia and mobilising the Muslim vote, though he was also anxious to point out that there is no such thing as a Muslim vote, apart from successfully ousting Oona King that time.

The conversation turned to ‘cavassing’ Muslims and encouraging them to get out and vote. There is a tickbox system to aid selection of your candidate. A helpful suggestion came from Ed Stourton.. ‘What,’ Muslims must ask, ‘are your views on foreign policy, and do you support Israel?’
‘Posh Ed’ presided benignly over a mutually assured consensus that no Muslim should entertain the idea of squandering their vote on anyone who supports the Zionist entity.

Fighting Islamophobia evidently entails embracing a little antisemitism. This reminds me of another incident that erupted on the internet that also revealed Muslim cognitive dissonance.

It involved the last minute withdrawal of an invitation to Douglas Murray to speak on a panel at the NUS conference at Gateshead.
Douglas Murray is an outspoken opponent of radical Islam, and an advocate of Jewish issues. Therefore, he has alienated quite a few.

The Federation of Islamic Student Societies (FOSIS) refused to participate in the conference unless Douglas Murray was disinvited.

Although Douglas Murray’s friendship is invaluable to supporters of Israel, especially when such eloquent champions are few and far between, the Union of Jewish Students (UJS) felt, on balance, that the chance to expose the hypocrisy of FOSIS before an NUS audience was worth the regrettable loss of his participation.
So they withdrew the invitation, whereupon he publicly criticised the UJS for being cowed by the Islamic Students’ demands.

According to the UJS, in the event, the FOSIS rep was well and truly defeated and exposed as a fool and a hypocrite; not a terribly difficult a task given that they host extremist Islamist speakers such as Anwar al-Awlaki at universities, and justify it on the grounds of ‘free speech,’ an argument that self destructs as soon as FOSIS is seen refusing to appear near Douglas Murray.

The argument is about whether it was worth jeopardising the ongoing backing of Douglas Murray, and sacrificing the opportunity to have him speak at the conference, for the sole benefit of exposing FOSIS to a comparatively limited audience. Past performance indicates that FOSIS itself is unlikely to change, and the ephemeral UJS triumph at the NUS conference seems to have evaporated.

It’s unlikely that Douglas Murray would retaliate by withdrawing his backing, but those who appreciate Douglas Murray’s friendship and support, and see its value in the context of the bigger picture, are concerned that the UJS were rude, misguided and unappreciative.

Antisemitic radical Islam infiltrating Britain’s academia is of no interest to the BBC it seems. There was a programme on R4 about rehabilitating radicals, but they are invariably regarded as the exception, not representative of the real Islam, and as misfits and outsiders.
Events suggest otherwise. That they’re not an exception, that they are representative, and they're gaining ground.
So if you haven’t already made up your mind, ask your prospective candidates whether they support Israel, and if not, don’t give them your vote.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

LET'S KICK UKIP... - Biased BBC

LET'S KICK UKIP...: "For an example of BBC bias at its sneery, snidey best, have a listen to The World This Weekend here - the relevant item is at about 35 minutes into the programme and is by a reporter called John Manel. His target was alleged flaws in UKIP's immigration policy. He claims basically that the party is so stupid that it doesn't know what it is doing. In order to set up his premise, he talks to a chap called Will Sommerville, who he describes as follows:

Will Sommerville has worked as a civil servant in the Cabinet Office on immigration, for the left-leaning think tank the Institute for Public Policy Research, and for the Commission for Racial Equality. He is now a senior policy analyst at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute, based in Washington DC.

Who better to give and independent view of UKIP policy? Mr Manel's next tack is to sneerily talk to party figures and he edits the whole sequence into something which - hey presto! - Mr Somerville then says won't work. And in a final twist of the tale of bias, Mr Manel frames his reporting to suggest that this particular UKIP member is so venal and naive that he won't apply the policy to his own family; in other words, that old chestnut - if all else fails throw in ad hominem attack, especially if it is on someone who the BBC perceives to be right-wing.

This was a particularly biased report aimed at showing that UKIP are stupid, nasty, xenophobic racists. That's the BBC's default approach to the party. In coverage of UKIP so far, the leopard hadn't shown his spots; but it was only a matter of time before reports like this surfaced.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

FACTS FOR THE MEMORY.... - Biased BBC

FACTS FOR THE MEMORY....: "

Here is an interesting exchange you should read....

On 7th April on the TODAY programme, champing
at the bit to link David Cameron to Richard Nixon for his use of the phrase
‘the great ignored’, M/s Berg falsely claimed that Richard Nixon coined the
phrase “The silent majority”.

The phrase 'the silent majority' was
actually coined by De Gaulle's Prime Minister Pompidou after De Gaulle called
parliamentary elections in 1968 and saw his party achieve the first absolute
majority in the history of the French Republic (clearly not something the BBC would wish to link David Cameron with).
The compiler of our B-BBC digest
Graeme sent a complaint to the BBC
8th April and copied it to the Conservative Party. He received a reply
15th April from BBC Complaints
Correspondent Liam Boyle which compounded falsehood upon falsehood.

See
Graeme's response below:

Dear Mr Boyle,

Thank you for your email.

Firstly, I note that when I submitted
my complaint via your website no reference number was generated or automated
email acknowledgement sent. This is very bad practice for dealing with
complaints and is an indication of the bad faith in which an endemically biased
BBC acts.

What, in my view, starkly
characterises the bad faith of today's BBC
and its contempt for democratic values is your following direct
falsehood:

Sanchia Berg's report
for the 'Today' programme on April 7th did not claim

that President Nixon coined the phrase the 'silent majority'

Sanchia Berg's exact words
once more: "Over 40 years ago Richard Nixon
coined a new phrase 'the silent majority' ... "

I transcribed these
words carefully from the recording you carried on your website. Of
course, you only carry these recordings for 7 days. I wonder if it is a
coincidence that you only respond to my complaint with this direct falsehood
after this recording has been removed?

Fortunately, the recording still comes
up under a search (see below) and I was able to confirm the 100% accuracy of my
transcription. As someone who adheres to the democratic standards the
Gramscian BBC has such contempt
for, I do not use the word "lie" to describe your direct falsehood as
I do not have the incontrovertible proof necessary that it
was intentional. However, on the basis of the systematic bias of the
BBC over the years I have every
reason to believe it was.

http://www.google.es/#hl=es&source=hp&q=sanchia+berg+%22the+silent+majority%22&meta=&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=eb46abfb6321b77e

Mr Boyle, you're dealing with someone
who as a Tribunite member of the Labour Party in 1979 thought the only real
bias at the BBC was towards the
left and was against it as it was bad for democracy. I am absolutely
certain that Mr Cameron does not have the moral bottom to deal with the threat
the Gramscian BBC poses. I'm
sure you can continue to pursue your subversive ends with such patent
falsehoods with impunity till the Gramscian left has finally brought down
British democracy, which I'm sure it will. What you will
never escape though is that there will always be people like
me willing to remind you what your moral choice in life says about
you as a human being.

God bless,

Graeme...

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

FISHY.... - Biased BBC

FISHY....: "Here we have the BBC's Richard Black in the oleagenous, snake-oil-salesman mode he adopts whenever he seeks to tell us that he's listening to sceptics. He tries to convey that the Oxburgh report into Climategate had an important core message; that it's vital that climate scientists ensure that their work is accompanied by suitable warnings about its limitations. Yet he omits to tell us the most crucial fact in this particular equation - that in reaching their conclusions, Oxburgh and his fanatic cronies chose just 11 papers as a 'representative sample' to verify whether porkies were being told. And when asked, the Royal Society (the body which was behind the enquiry) come up with completely fishy explanations like this about how these papers were chosen. As Bishop Hill points out, it's a bit odd - to put it mildly - that the 11 were exactly the same as those also chosen by the House of Commons for its recent Climategate report. These people obviously think we are total, utter imbeciles.

Such contradictions are clearly far too complicated and too inconvenient for Mr Black to even consider.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

£1.6m for 18 new BBC bosses as it 'cuts costs' - Daily Mail

£1.6m for 18 new BBC bosses as it 'cuts costs': "
One of the executives is being paid between £310,000 and £340,000 a year, and two between £190,000 and £220,000."

Yes, you heard right: BBC sends thousands of staff on course to teach them how to LISTEN - Daily Mail

Yes, you heard right: BBC sends thousands of staff on course to teach them how to LISTEN: "
The BBC has been criticised for using licence fee payers’ money to send staff on a course to teach them how to listen."

Unreliable Sources by John Simpson | Book review - Guardian

Unreliable Sources by John Simpson | Book review: "

Peter Beaumont finds partial truths in a BBC veteran's tale of his trade

Anyone who has been a journalist knows that whatever admiration one's efforts attract tends to be balanced by hatred and condemnation from another interested group. Ours is a Manichaean universe. This has always been the case, but what does seem to have changed recently is how visible those discontented with what is sneeringly known as the mainstream media (or 'MSM') have become.

For those on the further edges of both left and right, the MSM is usually defined as the problem. For tea partiers, we are too liberal and in hock to government, while for those who subscribe to Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman's Manufacturing Consent, we are too right wing and equally subservient to power.

So when Nick Davies's attack on the state of British journalism, Flat Earth News, was published two years ago, it plugged into a widespread sense of discontent with the MSM, which had been exacerbated by the misreporting of the run-up to the war in Iraq. While I didn't agree with everything he wrote, Davies did diagnose many of the modern media's failings and his coining of the neologism 'churnalism' seemed especially accurate.

He argued that there had once been a better era for reporting, before hacks became chained to the wheel of 24-hour news. This is an idea that John Simpson, the BBC's veteran world affairs editor, examines in Unreliable Sources. His survey of 20th-century reporting seems to confirm most of what critics of the MSM claim. From the Boer war onwards, he depicts egotistical and often unscrupulous hacks, many of them servile before power or even secretly working for it, such as the Times colonial editor, Flora Shaw, who was a go-between in the planning of the Jameson Raid of 1895-96.

When he offers 'extraordinary' exceptions, two are American – Ed Murrow and Martha Gellhorn – although he seems to forget that the latter, a friend of his, was capable of a famous fabrication, falsely placing herself at the scene of a lynching.

There are a couple of problems with this weighty volume. The first isn't confined to Simpson's book but to the broader issue of media criticism from Chomsky onwards, which has argued that journalists tend to self-regulate what they report to please authority, an assertion that has only ever been at best partially true. For what it fails to distinguish between is the degree to which journalism sets out to influence the society it operates within and the degree to which it is an inherent reflection of cultural norms and values.

Simpson, for instance, describes the media representations of the sieges of Mafeking, Ladysmith and Kimberley in the Boer war. But his assertion that 'Mafeking ensured that the mass of newspaper readers regarded the war as part of the nation's imperial adventure, rather than something questionable and potentially disastrous', while reflecting how we might see it today, ignores how contemporary readers would have felt about empire. It is a mistake he makes more than once, compounding the book's peculiarly ahistorical feel. In his conclusion, he says the media at the beginning of the 21st century are recognisably the same as those which existed at the beginning of the 20th. Is this really the case?

The second problem is related. The scale of his book, which tries to span two world wars, the end of empire, Northern Ireland, the Falklands and Kosovo, means it is difficult to marshal a cogent argument save that a lot of rum things go on in the media. Hardly a startling revelation. The drawbacks of this approach are particularly noticeable in later sections, where he is selective in presenting his material. His depiction of the Blair government's attempts to control the media over the Kosovo war, for example, is crudely stripped of explanatory context and the war is turned into a simplistic tale of gung-ho misreporting and government misdeeds.

Isn't he guilty of what he lambasts others for – misrepresentation? For if his subtext is that honest, passionate reporters have to struggle against vested interest to tell what they see, he has written out of his history an awful lot of them. In the case of Kosovo, this means the likes of Tim Judah, Anthony Loyd, the late Kurt Schork and photographers Ron Haviv and Andrew Testa. All have been edited out of history to make a better story. But that's journalists for you.

• History
• War reporting
• BBC

Peter Beaumont

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

"

Jeremy Hunt: Tories would scrap BBC Trust - Guardian

Jeremy Hunt: Tories would scrap BBC Trust: "

Shadow culture secretary reinforces Tory pledge to get rid of BBC Trust if his party wins the general election

The shadow culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, has today reinforced the Tory pledge to look immediately at scrapping the BBC Trust if his party wins the general election.

Hunt, in an interview on The Media Show on BBC Radio 4, also gave a clear indication that under a Tory government the BBC should expect a freeze on its £3.4bn licence fee for the next period from April 2013.

In its election manifesto yesterday, the party promised to give the National Audit Office 'full access' to the BBC's accounts in order to make the corporation more accountable for the way it spends the licence fee.

Last year Hunt said that the BBC Trust, which replaced the corporation's board of governors in 2007, had to change and that the Tories were considering 'ripping up the charter' ahead of its expiration in 2016 to achieve its plan.

'We looked at that [ripping up the charter] and decided to stick with the current charter,' he said. '[However] we want to make a start on reforms that can be made now... like the name.'

He added that the BBC would benefit from a new system whereby director general Mark Thompson would have some form of non-executive chairman, or similar figure, to support his decision-making.

'I don't think the structure works at the moment,' he said, arguing that the BBC Trust is conflicted as cheerleader and champion of the corporation. 'What the viewers want, the people that pay the licence fee, is a body wholly independent they can complain to if they are not happy with something [the corporation] has done.'

When asked about freezing the licence fee Hunt gave a clear indication that the BBC could almost certainly rule out a rise from the Tories in the next settlement.

'We are not ruling out any options at all,' said Hunt. '[However] it is unlikely that the BBC would be able to argue for a rise in the current climate.'

Hunt also said that the Tories' long-overdue creative industries review, headed by former BBC director general Greg Dyke, was unlikely to emerge before the 6 May election. However, he added that some of the ideas that had 'arisen' from the review have, and would, emerge during the Conservative election campaign.

• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000.

• If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly 'for publication'.

• BBC
• BBC Trust
• BBC licence fee
• Conservatives
• Television industry

Mark Sweney

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

"

MOVE ALONG THERE, NOTHING TO SEE.... - Biased BBC

MOVE ALONG THERE, NOTHING TO SEE....: "The BBC is very keen to tell us in detail why Lord Oxburgh and his panel of cronies have exonerated in a rushed report the University of East Anglia climate change fabricators. Their reasons for the whitewash - which can be paraphrased as the need to perpetuate the lies - are trumpeted loudly, while the sceptic community gets, as usual, only a nodding mention, 74 words out of 760. Here, for the record and for starters, are some of the concerns of 'sceptics' that the BBC has chosen not to tell us. They are from Steve McIntyre, of Climate Audit, the man who for almost a decade has been painstakingly revealing the tricks and lies of those who have been so rapidly absolved:

The Oxburgh report ” is a flimsy and embarrassing 5-pages.

They did not interview me (nor, to my knowledge, any other CRU critics or targets). The committee was announced on March 22 and their “report” is dated April 12 – three weeks end to end – less time than even the Parliamentary Committee. They took no evidence. Their list of references is 11 CRU papers, five on tree rings, six on CRUTEM. Notably missing from the “sample” are their 1000-year reconstructions: Jones et al 1998, Mann and Jones 2003, Jones and Mann 2004, etc.)

They did not discuss specifically discuss or report on any of the incidents of arbitrary adjustment (“bodging”), cherry picking and deletion of adverse data, mentioned in my submissions to the Science and Technology Committee and the Muir Russell Committee.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

Letters: Spoiling the joke about Down's syndrome - Guardian

Letters: Spoiling the joke about Down's syndrome: "

Comedian Frankie Boyle's favourite catchphrase appears to be 'Ah, but it's all true, isn't it?' He reportedly said as much to a woman in the audience at his Glasgow show who objected to his routine about Down's syndrome (Report, 9 April). Sharon Smith, the mother of a Down's syndrome daughter, had become upset that he thought it hilarious that Down's syndrome people die 'early'. (Still, it's all true, isn't it?)

It depends how you define 'dying early'. When I was growing up, I was told my sister, who has Down's syndrome, would not live much beyond 20. She's now approaching 50. Since the early 80s, the life expectancy of people with Down's syndrome has more than doubled and is now put by some estimates as high as 60. That's because they now receive decent medical and social care. Still, I don't want to spoil the joke. That would just be me being politically correct and we all know where that leads.

Colin Richardson

London

• The experience of Sharon Smith reminded me of a similar occasion some time ago when Julian Clary used people with learning disabilities as a target. When compering Have I got News for You, he referred to '… the village idiot who collects the trolleys at your local Tesco'. I wrote to the BBC to complain and said I had known a number of people who, having survived hospitalisation and other forms of exclusion, were holding down permanent jobs very successfully. The BBC replied that comedy was subjective and the question of which groups should be immune was a matter for personal judgment. I sympathise with Mrs Smith's view that Frankie Boyle's style was 'childish playground stuff'. But it is also a form of denigration which thinly disguises a hatred of difference. Compared with the controversial and irreverent humour of, say, Richard Pryor, it is – to use Elvis Presley's phrase – 'about as funny as a turd in a punch-bowl'.

Dr Alan Phipps

Manchester

• Down's syndrome
• Frankie Boyle
• Learning disability
• BBC
• Elvis Presley

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

"

Radio 5 Live criticised over Rage Against The Machine swearing - Independent

Radio 5 Live criticised over Rage Against The Machine swearing: "

BBC station Radio 5 Live has been criticised by the broadcasting watchdog for letting the US band Rage Against The Machine swear four times on the breakfast show before they were faded out by a producer.

"

MORE BBC BIAS... - Biased BBC

MORE BBC BIAS...: "I notice that in pursuance of its dream of a 'hung Parliament' the BBC's Today reporter Kevin Connolly claims that such an event could represent a 'huge opportunity' for the DUP. Gosh, how exciting and what a good reason to vote for them, right? Well, it could do if they were ever there but as Mr Connolly should be aware, the DUP's attendance record at Westminster is appalling. Worse, DUP leader Peter Robinson has stated that should he be returned (I am running against him) then he will continue to double job, instantly ruling himself out of two-thirds of votes. I will be contacting the BBC about Mr Connolly's biased coverage (again) this morning, but as of yet they do not respond. It's a disgrace the way in which the BBC is interfering in the NI aspect of the General Election and spinning for the establishment.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

ANY COLOUR YOU WANT... - Biased BBC

ANY COLOUR YOU WANT...: "...so long as it is black. Yes, Henry Ford's maxim still directs much of what the BBC passes off as 'debate'.



Last night, here in Northern Ireland, Irish republican terrorists detonated a car bomb outside MI5 headquarters at Holywood just outside Belfast. Plus ca change? Irish republican terrorists have been doing this for decades. But through the pervasive prism of the 'peace process' - to which the BBC is ideologically committed - there are now 'good' and 'bad' terrorists. Hence IRA commander 'Butcher Boy' Martin McGuinness is a good guy, and those behind last night's bombing are the bad guys. Today sees Policing and Justice powers devolved here, a key IRA demand, but the orthodoxy perpetuated by the BBC is that this is a good thing. So, just before 8am, the BBC Today invited two Police Officers on to discuss this. Both were 100% supportive of the idea that Police and Courts now answer to IRA commander McGuinness. I could have given the BBC names of dozens of Police Officers revolted at this idea but curiously, they could ONLY find those who agree with the rancid deal. Where is the debate, where is the varied opinions, where is the representation of the outrage that many people in my community feel about this?



As you may know, I am standing for election in this General Election and so I have been canvassing opinion on the ground. Many people are nauseated by the idea that an IRA terrorist in the shape of McGuinness gets to appoint the Attorney General and gets to select the person who will appoint future judges. But were one to listen to the BBC as an alleged impartial reporter of facts, none of this would be obvious. That deception, of course, is part of the toxic BBC remit. Pravda but in HD.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

SO COMPLEX.... - Biased BBC

SO COMPLEX....: "I caught an interview on Today this morning at 7.34am with Jo Webber, deputy director of the NHS Confederation. The issue for the BBC was why the % increase of pay awards for NHS bosses was so much higher than for nurses. Ms Webber kept repeating how 'complex' a job it is to run an NHS Trust, she must have used the word at least a dozen times! At no point did the BBC interviewer ask her should we not therefore simplify this complexity so reducing costs. The impression left was that only the most highly skilled management can run an NHS trust (Equivalent to a FTSE 250 company and less well paid, she claimed)) and that they do so from a vocational yearning!!Just so much nonsense and, as ever, the BBC shies away from challenging NHS orthodoxy.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

Stephen Glover: Press battle lines are reset – but who gets the BBC's vote? - The Independent

Stephen Glover: Press battle lines are reset – but who gets the BBC's vote?: "

From the moment he was elected Tory leader in December 2005, David Cameron developed a new media strategy.

"

Carbon credit documentary should not have been shown, BBC admits - Guardian

Carbon credit documentary should not have been shown, BBC admits: "

Corporation acts on Observer investigation into secretive trust  linked to socialite Robin Birley that funded film on his carbon credits firm, Envirotrade

A BBC documentary about socialite Robin Birley and his carbon credits business venture in Africa should never have been broadcast, an internal inquiry by the corporation has found. Millions of viewers were misled because the sympathetic documentary shown on BBC World News failed to declare that it was financed by a secretive trust that was linked to Birley.

The BBC acted in response to an Observer investigation into Birley's 'philanthropy capitalism' venture in Mozambique. Taxpayers' money was used to subsidise poor farmers there to protect forests and plant trees that absorb carbon dioxide. Envirotrade, Birley's company, then sells 'carbon credits' to celebrities and businesses wanting to offset their emissions. Customers who used Birley's venture to offset emissions included the agency that handles Brad Pitt and George Clooney.

Rockhopper TV, the production company that made the documentary, knew but did not disclose to BBC executives, of links between Envirotrade and the Africa Carbon Livelihood Trust, which funded the making of the documentary. Had it done so, Taking The Credit, the documentary, would never have been shown, the BBC ruled, although it also claimed the programme was balanced.

Birley set up and funded the Mauritius-based trust but would not say who its other donors are or how much Rockhopper was paid to make the programme. Envirotrade saw it as a 'marketing' opportunity.

A BBC statement said: 'As a consequence of this case, [we] will work closely with Rockhopper to ensure that robust compliance measures are implemented … Until the BBC is fully satisfied that these measures have been put in place, no Rockhopper programmes will be acquired or commissioned.'

Rockhopper, which is run by Richard Wilson, a former BBC environment correspondent, and ex-Sky News presenter Anya Sitaram, told the Observer that every indication suggested that the trust was independent.

However, the inquiry found there was a 'conflict of interest [that] risked bringing the BBC's editorial reputation into disrepute' because the trust's managing director, Charles Hall, is also chief executive of Envirotrade.

The BBC's own compliance failures have not been made known because the corporation refuses to release its report into the Rockhopper affair, adding to concern that a wider problem exists over commercial sponsorship arrangements on its international channel.

Birley founded Envirotrade in 2002 with a South African, Philip Powell. A year later, the European Commission awarded a €1.5m (£1.3m) grant to Envirotrade and Edinburgh University to pilot a forest project at N'hambita, Mozambique. However, in October 2007, the EC suspended its last €450,000 payment for the project and concluded the following year that unsubstantiated claims were being made about its environmental impact. The suspension was still in force when Rockhopper filmed with Birley in Mozambique last August. By then, a second team of experts working for the EC had just returned from the project. Their report was more positive than the first, but continued to find 'major drawbacks' with the implementation of an aspect key to N'hambita's survival – the sale of carbon credits. Viewers of the documentary, which was shown last October, were not told about these criticisms.

Envirotrade says it has sold £1m of carbon credits. However, the EC's criticisms could mean at least £150,000 are unverified and may have to be paid back. Charles Hall, Envirotrade's chief executive, told the Observer: 'The business model for Envirotrade frankly remains to be proven. The fact that this can be made into a sustainable business on the basis of selling carbon offsets remains to be seen.'

It has also emerged that Envirotrade's London arm is insolvent and owes £800,000 to its parent company in Mauritius.

Hall revealed that the N'hambita project needs an immediate £1m injection from Birley. However, Birley, who says he has already put in more than £1.5m, has given no legal undertaking to provide these extra funds.

Sitaram, executive producer of the documentary, said that had Rockhopper known about the EC's criticisms it would not have touched the project. However, six weeks before broadcast, Fern, a climate campaign group, outlined these criticisms in an email exchange with the programme's researcher.

• BBC
• BBC Worldwide
• Carbon offsetting
• Mozambique

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

"

Hilarious, Jonathan Ross? It wasn¿t for me and my wife, says Andrew Sachs - Daily Mail

Hilarious, Jonathan Ross? It wasn¿t for me and my wife, says Andrew Sachs: "
In an interview, Ross said the notorious incident - in which he and Russell Brand left obscene messages about Mr Sachs’s granddaughter on his answerphone - was ‘fun’."

GREEN INSANITY - Biased BBC

GREEN INSANITY: "The election continues, with all three main parties steadfastly refusing to discuss properly their insane, bigoted advocacy of massive new taxes on energy. Meanwhile, the BBC continues to report the agenda of greenies with relentless bias. Take this story about greenie fanatics stopping the import to Kenya of GM maize on the ground that it might contiminate the soil. Such supersititious rot would put Matthew Hopkins (the Witchfinder-General) to shame, but the reporter doesn't waste an ounce of effort looking for alternative views. Tens of thousands are at risk of starvation in Kenya because of cyclical drought, but the BBC has green issues to pursue and that is all that matters.

Anyone who has visited Africa knows that one of the main problems of the continent is inadequate power supplies. As well as endless power cuts, tens of thousands of Africans die every year through house fires that are caused because they don't have access to electricity and use crude torches instead. So when the World Bank decides to help (and act sensibly for once) with the building of a major new power plant, it should be unqualified good news. Not for the BBC; its main concern in its reporting of the topic is what 'environmentalists' think.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"

Jonathan Ross: 'Sachsgate was hilarious and I can't wait to leave BBC' - Telegraph

Jonathan Ross: 'Sachsgate was hilarious and I can't wait to leave BBC': "Jonathan Ross has described the 'Sachsgate' affair as 'hilarious'
fun and claimed that the BBC bosses who failed to stand by him were
pandering to politicians."