CBI Losing Government Funded Members Is a Good Thing

   This us a letter I have sent today to over 30 papers. I do not expect it to be something the British will feel able to publish but will let you know if it is. Which says an awful lot about the corruption of our political system:

Sir,

      If coverage of the browbeating of the CBI into hiding their opinion of separation is correct I must be unique in seeing this as a rather good thing.

 

      One of the undiscussed problems with British politics is the extent to which what appear to be and should be independent organisations promoting changes in government policy are actually government funded (& virtually always now promoting more government spending.

 

     Thus the EU directly funds all but one of the main "environmental" organisations by 70% (they original suggested 50% but the complaint was that, even with national government largesse, they would never raise enough from the public). The, global warming alarmist Royal Society gets nearly £50 million. ASH gets 98% of its funding from government and other "charities" devoted to "raising awareness" of medical scares get similar. Scottish Renewables, officially the lobby organisation of the subsidy dependent windmill industry is also heavily state funded. In international affairs the US have admitted that "Non"-Governmental Organisations, funded by western governments, spent $5 billion on promoting the overthrow of the elected government.

 

      Indeed it is rare that any organisation whose opinions are reported by the (state owned) BBC News turns out not to be a government funded sock puppet.

 

      [There is also the unmentioned fact that newspaper advertising is the main income source of most papers and that a large amount, wildly varying according to paper as any reader can see, comes from government and its puppets.] 

 

      Thus for a number of state qangos to resign from the CBI (nominally an organisation representing not government but big business) does help to return the organisation to something closer to what it appeared to be. That is a good thing for democracy and freedom.

 

Neil Craig

 

I have left the 2nd last para in brackets. I thought it worth saying but would sympathise if your paper thought this to close to yourselves to support.

Why Does BBC Scotland Need A Head Of Censorship?

This was on Andrew Montford's blog Bishop Hill some time ago (a Scottish blogger who is one of the world's leading sites on the "catastrophic global warming" fraud):

 -----------------------
In his Mail on Sunday article today (keep scrolling) David Rose reveals that the BBC - at least in Scotland - has a new policy of protecting climatologists from challenge on air.

A BBC executive in charge of editorial standards has ordered programme editors not to broadcast debates between climate scientists and global warming sceptics. 

Alasdair MacLeod claimed that such discussions amount to ‘false balance’ and breach an undertaking to the Corporation’s watchdog, the BBC Trust. 

Mr MacLeod, head of editorial standards and compliance for BBC Scotland, sent an email on  February 27 to 18 senior producers and editors, which has been obtained by The Mail on Sunday. 

It reads: ‘When covering climate change stories, we should not run debates / discussions directly between scientists and sceptics.

If dissenters from the climate consensus are not to be allowed to put their case directly, there is presumably little point in having those arguments put by BBC interviewers. So from now on the pronouncements of climatologists will be treated as holy writ and the most alarmist scientists can be allowed to scaremonger without fear of contradiction.
----------------------------------------------------------

      "Head of Editorial Standards and Compliance" can barely even be described as a euphemism for "Head of the Censorship Department".

      The BBC Charter does specifically make it a legal requirement that they report impartially and with "balance". The very existence of a Censorship Department proves that they are engaged in extensive and illegal censorship, and have no worries about being brought to account for their illegalities.

      The existence of a department large enough to require a Head, let alone a regional Head, simply to provide instructions on what must be censored means the amount of across the board censorship at the BBC must be massive.
-------------------------------------------------
     
      Another example, from the same site some days later would be the extensive BBC coverage of the possible poisoning of 6 birds (I have also heard the same news being gone over again yesterday) while the fact that windfarms in Scotland kill in the high thousands of birds a year, goes entirely censored.

     Since this is roughly 1,000 times more it would clearly be impossible for the BBC to give equal coverage to both news items unless it were no more than 1/1000th honest (ie 99.9% corrupt).

    By not reporting the windmill news at all they have clearly proven they do not aspire to even that level of integrity. Because the 28 Gate fraud became public we know that across all departments, the BBC have been aware, for a proven 7 years, that the warming story is, at least in large measure, fraudulent. There can therefore be no possible suggestion that any of these 99.9%+ corrupt totalitarian liars have any excuse or that any other state owned broadcaster anywhere in the world is as dishonest as our the BBC. 

Lib Democrats Refuse To Debate on EU - Willie Rennie Knows His Lie About The EU Helping The Economy Simply Cannot Be Defended

  OK my apologies for being offline for the last few weeks.

  I can confirm that I have received no response, not only from Willie Rennie, the Scottish Lib Dem leader, but from ANY representative of the party to defend his claim, at the "Glasgow Skeptics" censored "debate" on separatism, that EU membership is economically beneficial.

  This empty chair seems appropriate.

 

   However, when an opponent runs from the field one may reasonably claim victory.

 

  I had originally planned to run this debate over a full week but because I was offline taking it up again seems inappropriate. I have sent this

 

Dear Mr Rennie and Lib Dem Party,

                                                           I note you & your party's refusal to debate, openly online or elsewhere, your claim that EU membership is beneficial to our economy.

 

     I trust you will not object to the obvious conclusion that you know this claim cannot successfully be sustained in open debate (as Mr Clegg has also shown).

 

     However I do not think it can either be disputed that open debate of issues is a necessary requirement of democracy or indeed liberalism and I put it to you that your refusal to debate is thus also proof that you and your party are neither liberal nor democratic. Let me know if you dispute either assumption or conclusion.

 

      In that light I would be willing to debate, in the same form, with you, or any approved "LD" spokesman on ANY subject where the UKIP position differs from yours.

 

      I assume that if you can find even 1 policy promoted by your party which is better than that of UKIP you will be more than happy to debate it.

 

     I look forward to finding if there is any such.

 

    Sincerely

    Neil Craig