Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Information Tribunal oversteps the mark | Main | Booker on the Beeb »

Mail on Sunday on the Beeb

David Rose at the Mail on Sunday has a long article about the Cambridge Media and Environment Programme, the seminars set up by Roger Harrabin and Joe Smith to inform BBC editorial policy. I get a mention

[Joe Smith's] opinion, which he sets out on his website, is that ‘everyday human activity – moving, eating, keeping warm or cool – is gently stoking a slow-boil apocalypse’. He calls climate change ‘one of the challenges of the age’ and urges the world to take radical action. A Freedom of Information Act disclosure obtained by Andrew Montford, who writes the climate-change blog Bishop Hill, reveals that the  Tyndall Centre provided £5,000 a year for three years from 2002.

The BBC has given Rose a response to the article as follows:

‘The BBC is aware of the funding arrangements for the Real World seminars. They have been considered against our editorial guidelines and raised no issues about impartiality for the BBC or its output.

When you think about it, this is pretty amazing.

BBC editorial policy can be decided by a bunch of environmentalists sitting round a table with senior BBC decision-makers and this raises no issues about impartiality?

UEA can fund the private activity of a BBC journalist and this raises no issues about impartiality either?



PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (68)

It's only extra-ordinary if you start from the premise that these people (BBC, UEA, the environment NGOs) care what others think about them.

They don't. And thus they can't even be bothered to make up plausible excuses.

Nov 20, 2011 at 8:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterRick Bradford

The BBC has shown over many years now that it doesn't care about issues of impartiality because it can decide what is impartial and controls what we know about its impartiality. It is impossible to complain about the BBC's impatiality, even if one goes through ones MP. The BBC Trust does nothing and appears to be the BBC's poodle. The BBC is too powerful.

Nov 20, 2011 at 8:14 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Check out the activities of Joe Smith at
We pay for this garbage. It is frightening how, in these economically constrained times, money is just poured down the drain.

Nov 20, 2011 at 8:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

It should be extraordinary, but it is par for the course.

This is what happens when a publicly funded organisation, that is supposed to uphold impartiality and balance, is shielded from accountability and fights transparency while hiding behind wholly unjustified FOI exemptions.

The politicians have allowed the BBC to grow so large and powerful they are too scared to take it on, lest the BBC turns its resources to undermining them. As always, cowardice is at the heart of the failure and refusal to take action. And we pay for it.

Nov 20, 2011 at 8:28 AM | Unregistered CommenterAutonomous Mnd

8:21 AM Phillip Bratby

Reading that makes you sick - what a self-serving little nobody*.

* It's Sunday, and the Bishop might take offence if I said what I really thought.

Nov 20, 2011 at 8:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterHuhneMustGo

@Philip Bratby

This part of Joe Smith's CV is particularly interesting:

Media, environment and development (1996 - ongoing)

For over a decade (1996 - present) I have designed and facilitated strategic level seminars aimed at improving coverage of complex environment and development issues, working with the BBC and other partners. This work has been shaped by insights from contemporary social science, and is integral to a programme of action research resulting in academic and policy publications.In the tradition of action research my findings are feeding directly back into decision-making within media and related organisations. The seminars have been publicly credited with catalysing fresh thinking in BBC outputs across platforms and with leading directly to specific and major innovations in programming, including Africa Lives on the BBC 2005 and the Climate Chaos season 2006, as well as other environment and development related seasons and projects.

Nov 20, 2011 at 8:50 AM | Unregistered CommenterMessenger

Love the moniker - he is the most dangerous man in the UK.
I agree, I had to restrain my language and keep my BP under control.

Nov 20, 2011 at 8:50 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

@Philip... thanks for that

Joe Smith sums himself up... "Hence I draw on the term 'action research' "

but at the taxpayers expense?

Behind the cloak of his academic position and the letters after his name, he is a political activist with an undemocratic leverage on the system he exploits. Woodworm...

Nov 20, 2011 at 8:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterJiminy Cricket

I used to believe the BBC was worth reforming but sadly I no longer feel it can be saved the change in the public's attitude is getting very noticeable and they are no longer seen as a jewel just a tax burden !. Maybe if they were cut back to just it's core ideals of factual and news with a new staff qualified in their jobs not through nepotism and which political party/ideology they support [ note only one allowed] then they may have a use !

Nov 20, 2011 at 9:17 AM | Unregistered Commentermat

Thanks Phillip Bratby for the link to Joe’s Open University page. Do listen to his “letter to a climate sceptic”. Don’t stop when the moody baritone clarinet comes in - there’s more. Go right on to the end “ me on this. Joe”.

Nov 20, 2011 at 9:34 AM | Unregistered Commentergeoffchambers

Agree with autonomous mnd, his/her summary points are spot on.
In the exuberance of my younger days, we used a significant word, "professionalism". It was always ill-defined, but fairly easy to see in operation. I've just helped explain it to some younger people on a blog unrelated to climate, at their request.
Whereas we used to tut-tut at occasional personal breaches of professionalism, we find today that large groups are forming cliques whose regard for, or knowledge of, professionalism seems non-existent. The hockeystick makers are an example.
They can gain no respect, because it remains unchanged that respect is earned by example.

Nov 20, 2011 at 9:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterGeoff Sherrington

The BBC (aided by the BBC Trust) does not care what anybody thinks about its stance on CAGW. Even though the viewers have paid up to £3,3 billion in a year, environmental activists are free to tout their views as fact while those who point out the flaws are ignored. The arrogance of the BBC beggars belief.

Nov 20, 2011 at 9:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterCinbadtheSailor

A BBC Trust consultation in progress till 21 December.

Do you think that anybody will be listening?

Nov 20, 2011 at 10:03 AM | Unregistered CommenterMessenger

Who funds the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which the BBC described as 'influential' the moment it was formed ?

Nov 20, 2011 at 10:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterHengist McStone

The bottom line is that, whatever Harrabin reported about climate gate, he reported about them after getting money from them AND it seems the BBC knew about it and decided not to tell the viewers and to let him report climate gate.

This is a resigning matter.

Nov 20, 2011 at 10:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterLew

Rose quotes Harrabin as saying:
“I was praised by the world’s leading climate sceptics for my reporting. Those seminars – for which I received no personal gain – included contributions from sceptics.”

Anyone know more about that? Who were the sceptics who contributed to the seminars? Have they too been sworn to secrecy?

Nov 20, 2011 at 10:48 AM | Unregistered Commentergeoffchambers

Re: Hengist

Not the public purse.

Nov 20, 2011 at 11:01 AM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

What we call propaganda, Joe Smith calls "action research":

(from the his Open University page, link above) :

"In the tradition of action research my findings are feeding directly back into decision-making within media and related organisations. The seminars have been publicly credited with catalysing fresh thinking in BBC outputs across platforms and with leading directly to specific and major innovations in programming, including Africa Lives on the BBC 2005 and the Climate Chaos season 2006, as well as other environment and development related seasons and projects."

Translation: My propaganda is working

Nov 20, 2011 at 11:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterAndrew

Why don't you go their web site and find out for yourself? Since they are a registered charity their accounts are open to public scrutiny.
And as TerryS says, they are not funded by the public purse so your question is, as usual, of no relevance to this thread at all.
The problem with the BBC is not whether they are right or wrong about global warming (or about who should be doing what in the Middle East, which is another of their hobby horses) but that they are a national broadcaster, paid for by an impost on the taxpayer, and it is their function to entertain, educate and inform, not to take sides in the Middle East debate, the global warming debate or any other debate.
I want to hear both sides of an argument and I am not getting that from the BBC from where I ought to be getting it and from where I have the right to demand it. I don't demand impartiality from the national press nor the GWPF nor any other organisation which is not funded from the public purse.

Nov 20, 2011 at 11:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

The BBC has now become an acknowledged global leader in bringing complex environmental news and debates to a world audience so the remit of the seminars has broadened over the last five years with the addition of another partner, the International Broadcasting Trust. The current remit of the seminars is to illuminate the challenges and opportunities facing an increasingly inter-connected world.


IBT lobbies Government, broadcasters and regulators to promote high quality broadcast and online coverage of the developing world, its people and the issues which affect them.

Our lobbying work has produced significant results. Both the BBC and Channel 4 now have remits which place internationalism at the heart of their output.

When the Digital Economy Bill, which included a new remit for Channel 4, was introduced in the House of Lords in 2009, there was no mention of internationalism. As a result of lobbying by IBT the Bill was amended and Channel 4 now has statutory duty to broadcast ‘news and views from around the world.’

When the new BBC Charter was first published in 2006 in draft form, there was also no mention of internationalism. As a result of lobbying by IBT the Charter was amended and one of the BBC’s key purposes now is ´to bring the world to the UK.´

We regularly submit evidence to the BBC Trust, Ofcom, the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, the House of Lords Communications Select Committee and any other inquiries which are relevant to our work. See the submissions page for copies of our submissions.

As a result of recent submissions to the BBC Trust, the BBC has amended the licences for CBBC and BBC3 to place a greater emphasis on internationalism. The licence for BBC2 has also been amended to underline the importance of current affairs in peak time.

For more information about our lobbying activities, please contact our Head of Campaigns Sophie Chalk


IBT’s current membership includes the following organisations:
ActionAid, Age UK, Amnesty, British Red Cross, CAFOD, Christian Aid, Comic Relief, Concern, DEC, HelpAge International, IDS, International Service, Islamic Relief, Malaria Consortium, Merlin, MSF, ONE, Oxfam, PANOS, Plan, Progressio, RedR, Save the Children, Tearfund, Think Global, Traidcraft Exchange, TVE, UNICEF, VSO , WaterAid, World Vision and WWF.

IBT members

IBT is involved in a number of international media initiatives. The Africa Commission recognised that the media can play a significant role as a tool for development. With our experience of lobbying for public service broadcasting and our work with mainstream development agencies, we have been able to
make an important contribution to this process.

The conference (see report pdf ) also contributed to two other African initiatives, the African Media Development Initiative (AMDI) and Strengthening Africa´s Media (STREAM). Both AMDI and STREAM received funding from the Department for International Development and have now reported, recommending a stronger international commitment to funding and developing the media in Africa.

Key submissions

To Ofcom consultation on the future of ITV November 2011
To DCMS consultation on a new Communications Bill June 2011
To House of Lords Communications Committee inquiry into BBC governance and regulation April 2011
IBT report on UK broadcasters and their compliance and editorial policies, also submitted to the Lords Communications Committee February 2011
To BBC Trust on its Science Impartiality Review August 2010
To BBC Trust on the BBC Strategy Review May 2010
To BBC Trust on its Review of BBC 1, 2 and 4 December 2009
To DCMS on regional news and top slicing the licence fee September 2009
To Ofcom in response to the Broadcasting Code Review September 2009.
To the House of Lords Communications Committee re the British Film and Television Industries March 2009
To the Government: we submitted evidence to the Digital Britain Review March 2009.
To the BBC Trust on its Review of Programmes for Young People December 2008
To Ofcom on Phase 2 of their Public Service Review December 2008

Submission by the International Broadcasting Trust to the BBC Trust’s Science Impartiality review
Programme makers should be more self-critical about their tendency to seek to ‘ventriloquize’ public feeling, including feelings of scepticism, and to work harder to represent the best available knowledge rather than ill informed opinion.

Nov 20, 2011 at 11:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterLord Beaverbrook

re one of his main collaborators, Stephen Peake

Stephen Peake
Dr Stephen Peake is a Senior Lecturer in Environmental Technologies at the Open University...
Recent projects include:
•Investment banking (advice on managing risks around climate change and sustainable development)
•Academic consultant for the 2006 OU-BBC climate change season...
He has given evidence to various national governments and international organisations including: the Fuel Economy Panel of the American Automobile Manufacturers Association in Detroit, USA...
Previous appointments
Originally trained as a physicist, Stephen gained a PhD in Engineering and Management from the University of Cambridge, where he also worked as Research Associate in corporate environmental management and auditing. From 1993-1995 he was Research Fellow in the Energy and Environmental Programme at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House, London, during which time he was seconded for several months to group planning at Shell International Petroleum Company in London.
From 1995-2000, Stephen served as international civil servant at the International Energy Agency at the OECD in Paris and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), based in Bonn, Germany...

Nov 20, 2011 at 11:42 AM | Unregistered Commenterpat

Who funds the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which the BBC described as 'influential' the moment it was formed ?

Hengist could you help me out here?

a) What has the GWPF's funding have to do with the proposition that the public funded BBC is being swayed by lobby's biased towards alarmism?

b) If the BBC is being swayed by lobby's biased towards alarmism, why should we accept their assessment of non-alarmist organisations at face value?

Circular no?

Nov 20, 2011 at 11:50 AM | Unregistered CommenterThe Leopard In The Basement

Can somebody draw one of those maps showing the incestuous links between all of these parasite organisations?

Or maybe I'll get a clearer picture if I just buy a can of worms and stare at it for awhile. Publicly funded and completely non-productive worms, of course.

Nov 20, 2011 at 11:55 AM | Unregistered CommenterRick Bradford

Yes I would like to see Harribos list of impressed sceptics!.
Hengst the BBC have no right to decide what I should hear or see , we pay for them and we have the right to question them the GWPF finances bother me not why should it they don't want to control my world !

Nov 20, 2011 at 12:04 PM | Unregistered Commentermat

A little doggerel for a Sunday morning:

Ode to CO2 Alarmists

Oh what a tangled web they've weaved
From their 'good intentions'
Of breath they leave us quite bereaved
At all their machinations

The loss they bring
The harm they cause
Are not by them intended
They seek to save us from ourselves
And so they are contented

But when a little light is shone
Their tricks are not so dandy
Their closed-world views
Their 'settled debates'
Their grimly told imperatives
Are all so weak they dare not seek
To see there are alternatives

Nov 20, 2011 at 12:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Shade

3rd November 2011

Welcome to IBT’s November newsletter with an update on our work and relevant news from the media industry.

BBC cuts
Last month the BBC Executive published its Delivering Quality First (DQF) plan, with across the board cuts. There will now be a public consultation by the BBC Trust. The plan envisages ‘a smaller and radically reshaped BBC’. Some of the key cuts in content will involve: reduced budgets for entertainment on BBC1 and 2, for sport and for, BBC4 playing more of a complementary role to BBC2, and BBC3 having a similar relationship with BBC1. In terms of international content the main impact will be in news where some foreign correspondent posts will be cut and there will be a bigger role for World Service journalists to file stories for BBC News. It’s likely that there will also be a cut in current affairs coverage on BBC2. One of the most interesting policies announced as part of DQF is ‘a BBC ready to partner with others to build a shared digital public space.’ Since the BBC is notoriously bad at partnerships it will interesting to see how this policy is fleshed out. IBT will be publishing research next year which looks at how we can all play a bigger role in creating a more effective public space where our issues can be debated.

BBC Online briefing
Last month saw the latest of our briefings by commissioners. Steve Herrmann, editor of BBC News Online, gave a fascinating account of how the BBC’s online news operation works and named key commissioners who could be contacted directly with story ideas. Please let me know if you’d like a copy of the briefing notes. These notes are only available to IBT members.

Nov 20, 2011 at 1:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterLord Beaverbrook

John Shade's doggerel "Ode to CO2 Alarmists"-

Thank you! Brilliant work.

Nov 20, 2011 at 1:12 PM | Unregistered Commenterchris y

Where and when did Harrabin inform the license fee payers of his additional income? How many BBC journalists take money from outside sources to work on the topics they report on?

I feel like pitching a tent at White City

PS Roger has been MIA for weeks. Gardening?

Nov 20, 2011 at 2:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterMaurizio Morabito

"They have been considered against our editorial guidelines and raised no issues about impartiality for the BBC or its output."

This can be true only if BBC is allready activists spot...
So they don't lie there.
Thanks BBC for honesty!

Nov 20, 2011 at 2:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrog


This was posted on another thread.

The BBC says Harrabin didn't benefit financially from the Cambridge Media Group.

But lookout these links - gravy train - impartiality!!!!

And look how much he charges....

[BH adds: I think this comes from being a BBC journalist rather than being anything to do with CMEP]

Nov 20, 2011 at 2:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterDDSC
Nov 20, 2011 at 2:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterElsabio

Joe Smith isn't even a Geographer, his first degree was a, BA in Social And Political Sciences (Cambridge). His list of scribblings, reads like a list of titles from a library science fiction section, this bloke isn't a Geographer, he's just one of Black's climate activist agitators.

How many more are there like him [taught by him?] but beavering away in Government departments and central government.

I didn't quite realise how much the OU is riddled with warmists and propagandists, this is scandal.

Taking the government shilling corrupts whole institutions but wasn't that the idea in the first place, it is after all a post normal EU universe that we now inhabit.

James gets it:

Nov 20, 2011 at 3:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterAthelstan.


Indeed - you could start at the top - the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Beddington himself - is actually an economist trained at the LSE.

Economics is not a science by any measure.

Nov 20, 2011 at 3:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterSayNoToFearmongers

@Mike Jackson, you wont find the answer on the GWPF website. Nor will you find it in their accounts. They keep their donor's identities secret.
@Leopard I don't see evidence that they are being swayed by lobbies biased towards alarmism. As Ive already pointed out the BBC considers the GWPF 'influential' .

Nov 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterHengist McStone

Basically the BBC make no attempt at impartiality whatsoever. This applies whether they are dealing wiyh catastrophic warming; in party politics ensuring the Greens get 40 times the voverage per vote (all of it friendly) that UKIP do (none of it supportive)(I just saw a Beeboid on Politics Show telling Farage he was "racist" for not wanting to be in a German dominsted EU - Farage pointed out his wide was German proving the BBC both dishonest and not doi8ng their rerseach properly); or using censorship to promote racial murder/genocide, child sexual enslavement and the dissection of living human beings (all certainly done under British government authority in Kosovo and censored).

Impartiality and honesty never being a BBC objective is the only possible way obvious lying and censoring can have "raised no issues about impartiality for the BBC or its output." Simples.

Nov 20, 2011 at 3:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterNeil Craig

As Ive already pointed out the BBC considers the GWPF 'influential' .
Nov 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM Hengist McStone

Why do you think anyone here would be impressed by what "the BBC considers"?

Presumably it only "considers" it in order to start a witch hunt - which you are obligingly joining.

Nov 20, 2011 at 3:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterFoxgoose

I agree that the BBC should be more accountable to the public because of it's public funding. That's why I asked Andrew Montford how much of that public money he got for his appearance on Newsnight. Sadly Andrew Montford didn't feel that the BBC should be quite that open. Now after reading his latest posts I say pot meet kettle.

Nov 20, 2011 at 3:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterHengist McStone

I repeat: All of our scientific and political institutions, and the mainstream media, have been suborned by the incompetent climate consensus. It is fact to them, to be taken for granted. It follows that those who deny the consensus are, to them, unaccountably barbarians, uncivilized idiots. Scientific defenders of the consensus in the blogosphere are insane, in that they literally cannot, will not, see the facts that disprove that consensus. I have proved this as no one else has. No part of our societies can solve this essentially revolutionary crisis by "business as usual", but that is what everyone is trying to do, even me (I am trying to communicate revolutionary new knowledge to the world--to non-scientists and scientists alike--essentially along recognized paths, even if my efforts to bridge the dogmatic chasms that divide us are not taken seriously by those inside of science, and by those who "defend science", who most need to hear and heed the evidence I could give them). The insanity among those in power and authority now seems to rise to new heights with each passing day. Of course, this means the fundamental problem is not science, nor politics. It is psychology, to wit the psychology of dogma versus fact, of belief versus reason. Our civilization is insane over what is touted as "climate science", but is not.

Nov 20, 2011 at 3:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Dale Huffman


@Leopard I don't see evidence that they are being swayed by lobbies biased towards alarmism. As Ive already pointed out the BBC considers the GWPF 'influential' .

Yah, er um Ok. Oh boy. Here's the thing - this is all I see you saying,

"I don't agree that an influential public funded body has issues with external alarmist influence. Oh! And another thing, I demand you take as implicitly true when this very same influential public funded body decrees that these other guys, who are anti-alarmist, are also very influential!"

Forget circularity, this is just unarguable ;)

Nov 20, 2011 at 4:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterThe Leopard In The Basement

On Climate Change BBC management is conflicted, BBC environmental reporters compromised.

At a time when the public are becoming sceptical about Climate Change the BBC have banned dissent.

That is a disconnect that will harm the standing of the corporation.

Nov 20, 2011 at 4:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterMac


GWPF received a grand total of £503,302 in donations, from private individuals, in 2009/2010.
To put this in perspective the gas and electricity bill for the same year for the BBC's White City HQ was £955,646.
At the same time Greenpeace international received 61 million euros. This does not include the money their national associations in Argentina, Australia Pacific, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China Mainland, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, DR Congo, East Asia, European Unit, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Indonesia, International, Israel, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Malta, Mediterranean, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pacific, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Senegal, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, UK and USA received. Like the GWPF, none of the Greenpeace organisations publicised who their private donors were.

Nov 20, 2011 at 4:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

BeebGate ????

Nov 20, 2011 at 4:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterMac

Best comment from the MoS, " If you took the money out of Global Warming there would be no Global Warming"

Nov 20, 2011 at 4:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterMac

I completely endorse Phil Bratby's comments on BBC impatiality. For over 3 years I tried to get answers direct from Mark Thompson and, even after engaging the help of my MP Nick Harvey, failed to elicit anything other than the Party Line from various assorted lackies.

The sooner the BBC is broken up and required to make its own way in the world without the aid of the Licence Tax, the better it will be for independent and informed opinion to shine through the murk.

Nov 20, 2011 at 4:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterYertizz

Stop Press:

Jeremy Clarkson in running to be BBC science editor. In a statement the no-holds-barred motormouth said:

"Since the BBC has stipulated that its new science editor need not have any scientific qualifications I have allowed myself to be put forward for the post. On Top Gear, and in my many other programs, I have shown myself to be an outstanding storyteller and journalist. My views about climate change are well known. I grilled Alistair Campbell about them. When was the last time you saw a journalist working for BBC News do that, to anyone.

I see myself as the flip side to Roger Harrabin, and in the interests of impartiality I insist the BBC hires me to restore the "balance" it so often preaches about.

I won't need a company car.

I will submit a portfolio of stories that BBC should be doing in the Science/Environment front, along with my application. As the Science editor role is also an advisory one I recommend;

No more Mike Hume, Myles Allen or Bob Ward.
No more Shukman on an ice sheet - it's so British Leyland.
Richard Black to take a course on statistics at Stow on the Wold Junior school (where my kids will teach him a thing or two."
Briwan Cox to be plunged into a black hole.
David Attenborough out to pasture.

There...I bet none of the other candidates have got anything as detailed and as impressive as that.

If they don't interview me for the job I will be claiming my £15,000 from the University of East Anglia. Thinking about it I will want £15,000 from all environmentally interested parties. This is essential because, in Harrabin's own words, it will ensure that when I come to report on them I am even more impartial than I would have been.

Another thing I will promise if I get the job. Al Gore will be my star "in a reasonably priced car."

I will also chain myself to a windmill.

I will of course contribute and offer my expertise to other areas of BBC News' output. For example I have a lot to say about the suggestion to ban smoking in cars.

Given my qualifications (especially my lack of science qualifications) I firmly expect to be granted an interview, if not fast-tracked into the post, without the need for an interview.

I am also a better broadcaster than Robert Pesto because people can (long pause) understand what I'm saying.

I am the one to put BBC news's environment and science coverage back on track. This will also save the corporation.

How hard can it be?

Nov 20, 2011 at 5:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterJeremy's Press Spokesman

I second Jeremy for the post of BBC Science Editor ;-)

Nov 20, 2011 at 5:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

In conclusion Jeremy Clarkson said;

What other candidate for the role of BBC Science Editor has driven a car (and a Toyota at that) to the North Geomagnetic pole, or travelled at twice the speed of sound in mig fighter. I have personally contributed more CO2 into the atmosphere than the rest of the BBC Science and Environmental team put together driving around in their Prius's (which incidentally is my favourite car!)

What's more I bring a youthful, zesty, sexy image to BBC environmental reporting. I don't wear a wig like Shukman, am 5 years younger than Harrabin, and unlike Richard Black know that 1 + 1 = 2.

I also don't read the Guardian.

I would also, in the interests of impartiality, dump the Science Media Centre, (when Fiona Fox calls me I am never sure if she's pretending to be someone else for a disgraced, fat, Scottish MP) and replace them with the GWPF.

I would also recommend setting up a BBC Outside Broadcast on the Maldives, and a free copy of the Time Atlas of the World for all BBC Staff.

The BBC has been rabidly pro this Global warming nonsense for a decade now, therefore, in the interests of impartiality and balance I am the ideal candidate.

My referees will be;

Lord Sugar,
HRH Prince Phillip,
Lord Lawson.
Kristen Scott Thomas.

Nov 20, 2011 at 5:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterJeremy's Press Spokesman

Jeremy's Press Spokesman

Would we be correct in thinking that we know you on this blog as your own spokesman??

Nov 20, 2011 at 6:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos


Greenpeace does not accept money from companies, governments or political parties.

Nov 20, 2011 at 6:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterHengist McStone


The GWPF is funded entirely by voluntary donations from a number of private individuals and charitable trusts. In order to make clear its complete independence, it does not accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company.
From its website. Explain which bit you don't understand. As far as naming individual donors, why is that any of your business? If you think it is then become a member and go and pester them at next year's AGM.

Nov 20, 2011 at 6:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>